Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Water marble nail (talk | contribs) at 21:35, 9 June 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Find this page confusing? Just use this link to ask for help on your talk page; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:Y26Z3 reported by User:goodsdrew (Result: Both 48 hours)

    Page: Hispanic and Latino Americans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Y26Z3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. [4]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AY26Z3&action=historysubmit&diff=495845946&oldid=495844056

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHispanic_and_Latino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=495727281&oldid=494991560

    Comments:
    I've added text with copious citations to back up my edits. User:Y26Z3 continues to revert my edits, refusing to accept my citations, instead making vague excuses, trying to come up with something new every time I back up my edits. This editor has appeared to have similar complaints about vandalising other articles.

    Goodsdrew (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment As a third-party editor doing recent changes checking, I am on the side of Goodsdrew that user Y26Z3 has broken the three-revert rule by repeatedly reverting Goodsdrew's removal of poorly-sourced information in another article, Lusitanic. Y26Z3 has already labeled me and Goodsdrew as vandals [5], [6]. Goodsdrew has been removing content in the article, which states that the word 'Lusitanic' is not a recognized word in any known language. Sources that made reference to this statement were searches on online dictionary websites which yields no positive results (see [7] for an example of content and sources), and Y26Z3 has been attempting to explain the validity of the sources and thus the content, through the relevant edit descriptions and through posting a section on the article talkpage [8]. User SudoGhost has also left a comment in the talkpage section detailing the reasons why the lack of dictionary entry is not a concrete proof on the validity that the word in question, 'Lusitanic' is not a recognized word. I believe that Goodsdrew is faultless for his engagement in the revert war, as exemptions are made under the three-revert rule that the removal of poorly sourced material is not counted as a violation of the rule. Optakeover(Talk) 01:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I am absolutely not going enter into an edit war. I am allowed to add the following to Lusitanic now that I am unblocked though correct?

    “Lusitanic” is not a word in the Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, American Heritage, or Macmillan dictionaries.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7] It also does not have an entry in the Britannica, Columbia, or Oxford World encyclopedias.[8][9] In regard to its etymology, “lusitanic” has no entry in Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language" or "Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology". Furthermore, in regard to its use in American slang, it is not in Chapman's "Dictionary of American Slang". [10] Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

    • I'll be nice and assume good faith, since this time he worded it without saying that the word is not recognised, so this time the sources cannot be shot down under WP:SYNTH. Still however, that other than the fact that this edit has gone against consensus, doesn't contribute to the quality of the article (there isn't a need to know that the word isn't in a dictionary), the user has gone ahead and re-included the same material over which he entered an edit war with another user. Optakeover(Talk) 16:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Optakeover has said here that the sources cannot be shot down under WP:SYNTH, yet has undone the edits, saying that the reason they were undone is because they fail WP:SYNTH, you can find that here, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lusitanic&action=history. There is actually a consensus that it should be there. (Y26Z3 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
    The lack of consensus is evident on the talk page and article history. The page has been protected, so now would be the time to establish that consensus. - SudoGhost 14:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, lusitanic fails WP:UNDUE as explained in the talk page. (Y26Z3 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]


    In regard to my most recent edits to the page Hispanic and Latino Americans (by the way, I say most recent because there were numerous other issues that Goodsdrew continually reverted, but eventually stopped),

    First, I changed U.S. Government to U.S. Office of Management and Budget because that is correct. Goodsdrew still maintains that it is the U.S. Government?
    Second, I deleted a redundant, superfluous part of the article; this is addressed in the talk page.
    Third, Goodsdrew cited the Journal of Rehabilitation, a graduate student writing about a different topic at Auburn University, and an article in The Guardian, claiming these sources dominated American Heritage Dictionary, which specifically addresses the issue. This is also in the talk page. The sentence should probably simply just not be there, but in any case American Heritage Dictionary is in opposition with Goodsdrew.

    This is brief, but I hope not too brief. There is much more elaboration and discussion on the talk page.

    Thank you, (Y26Z3 (talk) 22:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]

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

    Page: Sun Myung Moon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Borovv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [9]


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

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

    Comments:This is not a report of a violation of 3RR but an edit-warring report. This editor has a history of disruptive editing of the Moon article, including copyright violation, and a repeat copyright violation where he changed the source to try to get it through - he eventually put the verbatim sentence in quotes. Also, some of the diffs above show that he makes repeated errors in his citation formats, ending up with citations that are not just technically wrong but worthless. He also incorrectly accuses other editors of vandalism. He accuses me of misusing rollback rights when I didn't rollback but undid with an explanation. There's more but this is all I'm putting in for the present. These other allegations support not the edit-warring but the claim that he's disruptive. It's not clear to me whether I should be bringing him here or to ANI, but I decided to go this route first.

    • This is additional complaint on User:Borovv from Jun.rhee (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC). There is a possibility of his edits escalating into an edit war. He is issuing vandalism warnings for my undoing his edits where it doesn't merit one; I've explained why I undid two of his edits and will be glad to elaborate to any editors watching this page. There is also NPOV issue with User:Borovv using Korean government promotion articles regarding Korean War's 60th anniversary events that have copied verbatim from www.Segye.com which is publication owned by Unification Church. I do not yet know enough how to bring this NPOV issue up with anyone. I'd appreciate it if someone were to advise me via my talk page.[reply]
    • Jun.rhee attempted to restore the article to a clean version, but Borovv reverted yet again. I've added it as a 5th revert above as further support of edit-warring (not 3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hahaha. User:Borovv has now accused me using multiple accounts on my talk page. Great. What an upstanding guy. He's not content enough to constantly call me a vandal right off the bat and posting that I've been reported as a vandal, etc., etc. He needs a class in civility. Jun.rhee (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That was quite petty of me. I withdraw that superfluous comment. -- Jun.rhee (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rockford1963 reported by User:Dkriegls (Result: no violation)

    Nauvoo, Illinois: Nauvoo, Illinois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Rockford1963: Rockford1963 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: diff


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:31, 4 June 2012

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 03:00, 5 June 2012

    Comments:

    This user has been a moderately active user for several years. They should know 3RR, NPoV, and Verification Dkriegls (talk to me!) 03:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Doh, sometimes I amaze myself. Reading is hard. We can close this out, sorry for wasting your time. I will reopen if the editor persists. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 01:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kitty101423 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked by Nyttend)

    Page: King's College School, Cambridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kitty101423 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]


    Comments:This is not a 3RR report, rather a report regarding edit-warring from an SPA who persists in adding unsourced derogatory material to the article. Example edit, including the phrase "Some parents are now asking why the headmaster is still employed by the school, having caused it so much damage and disgrace". It could be dealt with as a vandalism-only account; I've brought it here because it is arguably not quite vandalism and yet is clearly edit-warring (even if not fast enough to be 3RR) -- as quite evident from the user's contributions.

    Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Gandydancer reported by Edmonton7838 (Result: stale)

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


    Previous version reverted to: Elizabeth Warren


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning to Gandydancer about 3RR

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (1): Attempt to discuss #1 2: Attempt to discuss #2

    Comments: I have attempted to work with Gandydancer (talk) to work out the differences. However he has refused to work cooperatively.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    While Edmonton7838 and Gandydancer's edit warring on the article is problematic, diff 1 and diff 2 are consecutive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Not only that, but the timing of the 3RR warning is after the 4 edit in the list above; no further edits by Gandydancer after the warning. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the report, but Gandy is well aware of 3RR. See [18] Arkon (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be, but it's pretty bad form to make a report that includes a warning when the warning was given after the last edit in the list. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been blocked for edit warring once. [19]. Gandydancer (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale This is right outside the 24 hours window for 3RR, but as it was several days ago and no other offending edits have taken place, I would suggest marking this as stale and moving on. Kuru (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dr.K. reported by User:Funnyhaha71 (Result: no violation)

    Page: Orly Taitz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Dr.K. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orly_Taitz


    Warning to Dr.K.

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20] and on Dr.K.'s Talk Page: [21]

    Comments:
    Hello, I hope I have formatted this right.

    I made an update to Orly Taitz last night. Within 2 mins, my update was removed. I reverted to my edit, and changed the language a bit to clarify what I could only assume was the issue; nothing had been noted on the talk page. Within minutes, my edit was again changed. I have discussed this with Dr.K. on the talk board for Orly Taitz and a bit on his user page talk page. I believe that Dr.K. is engaging in edit warring.

    I am newish to Wiki, so I may be in the wrong. I don't think that I am.

    I made one more edit on the page, but it was only a minor edit to change the word "she" to "Taitz". I'm just letting you know of that edit.

    I don't understand why Dr.K. is watching Orly Taitz so vigilantly.

    One more thing; Dr.K. didn't edit a change by someone else who used the same document as a Personal Source that I used. So, the source can be used for some points but not others?

    I believe that I explained my thoughts on sourcing on the talk page for Orly Taitz. I'm happy to clarify any questions.

    I did note on the Orly Taitz talk page that I was filing a noticeboard complaint.

    Thank you for your time. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you notified Dr. K of this thread?
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've notified him. He has only touched the article three times in the last few days. I believe that you should continue to discuss on the talk page with other editors. There has not been any edit-warring here.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 23:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    He has reversed my edits twice in less than 24 hours! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnyhaha71 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The 3 Revert Rule discusses three times in 24 hours, edit-warring can be any number of reverts, but you should actually probably start with be bold, if it's reverted, discuss it on the talkpage - you really haven't given the "discuss" part much of a chance (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I read the 3 RR page before posting this. Because Dr.K. is obviously tracking edits and reversing them in mere minutes, I thought that this is a good place to encourage him to stop his behavior. I've been talking with the user. He refuses to address this in any meaningful way other than to say "you're wrong". If I fix what I perceive to be his error, I'm busted and he isn't? Good grief. Funnyhaha71 (talk) 00:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nah, you are not busted (yet) if you can still post here. But in the future, you need to avoid posting complaints like these as they may be taken very seriously and they could boomerang on you. Use the article talk page and if you still disagree then consider dispute resolution.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings Funnyhaha71, No one would see the actions as synonymous with you having been busted. All of the actions were specifically marked as edits in good faith. The vigilance you describe in monitoring the article is not a red flag for concern, but instead a commendable act of selfless service. Talk with Dr. K., you'll soon find that good fortune is working for you; there's not many, better in manner, knowledge, and deed. My76Strat (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to avoid commenting here but in the face of such praise, so exquisitely expressed, I wish to thank you My76Strat for such an honour. I also thank Berean Hunter and BWilkins for all their help in this matter. Thank you very much again guys. Take care. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 01:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnyhaha and I are discussing the content issues on the Talk page. He seems to be calming down a bit. Dr. K. did absolutely nothing wrong (I confess to being biased as I'm a big fan).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I simply can't believe this. One honour after the other, especially from editors I deeply admire and respect. What have I done to deserve this? Thank you very much Bbb23 for this honour and for offering your expert advice at the article talkpage. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you all for your assistance. It is appreciated. I have learned a lot through this experience. Thank you!Funnyhaha71 (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Question; Dr.K mentioned on the Orly Taitz talk page that I incorrectly listed the reverts I was reporting. Dr.K. is correct. Should I revise or leave everything as is. If I should revise, what should I remove? Thank you in advance for your time to answer this question.Funnyhaha71 (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's all water under the bridge now. It has been resolved and all necessary acknowledgments have been made. No further action is needed on your part. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 04:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wikipeterproject reported by User:XB70Valyrie (Result: no violation )

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

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aviator&diff=495888545&oldid=495826457

    Previous version reverted to: [22]

    • 1st revert: [23]
    • 2nd revert: [24]
    • 3rd revert: [25]
    • 4th revert: [diff]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26] 

    Talk:Aviator Whether the offender is right or wrong about "soap-boxing" the violation was still committed.

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

    I opened a line of communication which the violator did not acknowledge. I even placed a warning on their User talk:Wikipeterproject. They ignored it. They only acknowledged that an invitation from me was sent when it suited their reversion. You'll see I left a now erased message on his talk page to engage in debate ("Argue it out") before either one of us violated the rule, but he reverted a 3rd time and only then entered debate. I was not about to revert a third time so his reversion is not standing, illegally.

    No other comments at this time, other than the Diffs can be seen in the History page of the article. I'm still learning how to really understand the Prev and Cur buttons. You can see his revisions in the reflection of the edits that show -4000 Aviator: Revision history. It's clear that way. --XB70Valyrie (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to spend to much time on this. The issue was taken to the talk page and quickly resolved. I removed content that was inconsistent with WP policy, the complainant reverted the removal twice and I reinstated it twice and opened a discussion on the talk page, which quickly established that my removal of the content was correct in accordance with WP guidelines. There was no breach of 3RR on either side. It seems that the complainant is unsatisfied with the outcome of the talk page discussion and a later failed attempt to create a new article with much the same content, but that is no reason to make a frivolous complaint here, especially where there were clearly only two reverts on either side. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DBigXray reported by User:TopGun (Result: no violation)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [27]

    Also a simultaneous edit war at the related article:

    • 1st revert: [33] (misleading edit summary "per source" when that is what is being disagreed)
    • 2nd revert: [34]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: no because this was a resumed editwar by an experienced user (who has previously responded rudely to talkpage warnings).

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35] [36] [37]

    Comments: Article had reached a stable version after agreement between the involved users (as proved by this anti-vandalism revert [38] without disputing its current state, and had been this way since some time. This was recently vandalized by an IP and reverted by another user. following which DBigXray has started pushing his previous POV even after more users have edited the article in against that. DBigXray is currently editwarring against 3 users and 1 IP and is at 3RR currently at Battle of Chawinda and just short of one revert to be there at the related article Battle of Phillora too (note that his editwarring is disruptive in itself and that this is an editwar report and not a 3RR vio report). The versions being reverted to are blatantly opposite of what the article first stated... this is obvious POV pushing. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply by DBigxray

    I believe this report has been made in accordance with this threat made by TopGun on my talk page few days back.

    A little Background

    Battle of Chawinda was in stalemate and ended in ceasefire as said by a number of sources in article, no source so far claims of Pak victory in Chawinda even then TopGun, Mar4d and a few socks claim Pakistani victory .TopGun who is on a 1RR [39] has been gaming the system by reverting every other day. and not participating in the discussion with sources. Instead of backing up his false claims with sources he feels its better to frame a false report to get the user blocked. Also in the 2 out of 3 reverts in 24 hrs I have twice reverted sockpuppetry (socks = [40],[41])(per DENY) following policies. [42][43] which TopGun chose not to mention (so that his false accusations of 3RR and 24 hr appear true). Besides i have Made full use of talk page for discussing my reverts whereas TopGun still keeps away from givng sources for his false claims.

    • Another claim by TG that The versions being reverted to are blatantly opposite of what the article first stated is completely wrong, the stable version of the article never stated Pakistani Victory which he and his friends are now trying to edit war into the article. It stated Ceasefire (as supported by source) and TopGUn falsely claims of Pakistani Victory without even giving sources for victory
    Explanation of my reverts.
    • Revert 1 (11:29, 2 June 2012).I Reverted A new user (sleeper) who comes and changes the Infobox completely in violation of what was discussed in the talkpage.
    • On seeing myself reverted by another user Mar4d 17:39, 2 June 2012 I immediately start a discussion on the , Talkpage 17:50, 2 June 2012 and then restore the correct and sourced version 17:51, 2 June 2012
    • Mar4d again reverts me 18:11, 2 June 2012 and then replies falsely claiming that source does not say this (while he does not provide any source to back up his claims) on Talkpage and rather tells me to wait for his tag team partner TopGun,
    • Darkness shines supports that my revert is in accordance with source.on Talkpage
    • 18:55, 2 June 2012 On Talkpage I respond to Mar4d's wp:SYNTHESIS
    • after waiting for 2 days at the talk page for a source supporting the so called Victory I revert on 17:51, 4 June 2012

    As shown above There is no 3rr violation, I have used the talk page and clearly stated my point. I sincerely hope the admins will notice the Bad faith report, unwillingness to discuss on talk with source, Sockpuppetry , tag teaming and BOOMERANG before making a decision on this attempt to harass Me so that I give up --ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've reverted only once on the article, so better not make this about me - such false accusations are considered as personal attacks. There's no excuse for editwar whether you are discussing on talk or not. You should really read WP:AOBF. None of the diffs I gave were reverts to a sock I think. DBigXray has further labeled a simple warning as a 'threat' to WP:SOUP this report. The IP has not been established and is not as a sock either, rather more of being a normal user and DBX has labeled every one who opposes him as a sock, wrong or disruptive. I'll not comment further to prevent more WP:SOUP. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment (from a silent observer of the article in question): The chain of evidence provided by DBigXray is strong and self-explanatory. DBig conducted one edit on June 2, was reverted by Mar4d, conducted one revert, was again reverted by Mar4d. It was DBig to stop (!) the revert circle and it was also DBig who immediately started a discussion on the talk page. DBig let the version of the other editor stand to discuss on the talk.
    After waiting 2 days no sources were provided by neither TopGun nor Mar4d on the talk page which would back up their pov ("Pakistani victory") but instead DBig had acquired the support of two other established editors one of whom provided two further reliable sources on the talk page for DBig's version ("ceasefire"). As such DBig had acquired consensus on the talk page a) because a majority of editors backed up his version, b) because all reliable sources presented backed up the "ceasefire" and c) because those in the minority opposed failed to provide any source for their pov on the talk page. Such gave DBig the full right to reinstate after waiting for 2 days. Any revert of DBig by others was against consensus at that point.
    That a confirmed sock and a SPA IP then came to meddle into the article history and to revert DBig, is troublesome, possibly damaging to wikipedia, speaks for itself and would need further investigation. Reverting socks, does not count as a revert. JCAla (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Swedish IP is not on the same continent as any one in the dispute and neither is it a webhost or a proxy or confirmed as a sock by anyone. You're neither an admin nor involved. Please don't add more to the WP:SOUP already present. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it so that ones who are neither involved nor admins are to avoid commenting here as observers? Can this be rather dealt on the talk pages itself then?
    The evidence from DBigXRay is very exhaustive according to me. Whether the edits present 'opposing view' in a stalemate etc. is secondary to content backed by secondary sources per me. As reverting socks does not count as revert so 3RR stands too. User:Dannydoesia is a confirmed sock-puppet and the IP has edited just once per contribs of that 2.91.10.69.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 07:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No, JCAla is involved in a hell load of content disputes with me.. I asked him to stay away as it would appear as hounding. And I did not count the reverts to Dannydoesia. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No violation Maybe three reverts over a three day period; two others reverting clear Nangparbat socks, all several days ago. DBigXRay's timeline seems accurate. It would be best if all parties worked more on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Esemono (Result: no violation)

    Page: Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link permitted


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

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

    Comments:

    • No violation As mentioned above, the account being reverted is suspected to be a sockpuppet of a known problem user. Furthermore, separate discussions on DarknessShines' talk page show that DS has a history of cleaning up after this particular individual. Ckatzchatspy 07:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Thirdashan reported by User:Esemono (Result: indef)

    Page: Post–World War II air-to-air combat losses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Thirdashan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: link permitted


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

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

    Comments:

    User:Reinventor098 reported by User:Tom harrison (Result: 24 hours )

    Page: The Zeitgeist Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Reinventor098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 18:10, 5 June 2012


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

    Comments: Discussion about sourcing here

    Tom Harrison Talk 22:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unequivocal edit warring despite warnings. Seems to be a pattern too. I am also unimpressed by the personal attacks on other editors in edit summaries and what not.--Slp1 (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Again

    Back from his block, he's reverted again.

    Sorry if this is in the wrong place. Tom Harrison Talk 00:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rr0044 reported by User:Ism schism (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: {{Susana Martinez}}
    User being reported: User:Rr0044 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

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

    Comments:

    Blocked for 48 hours instead of the normal first-offense-24 since he logged out to keep it up as an IP. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Camoka4 reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: 48 hours)

    Page: Schengen Area (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Camoka4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [61]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Schengen_Area#Candidate_countries_shown_on_both_maps.3F

    Comments:

    One of the reverts was made by User:88.242.153.250, who based on edits such as [69] and [70] are the same editor. All the editors that have commented on the discussion have stated that there is no consensus to make the changes Camoka4 is pushing for. TDL (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I'm Camoka4, I tried to contact the user L.tak several times, although he has no argument against my edit, and although he reads my messages on his talk page, he never responds, he started to revert my edits after a very long time of my first edit, my question is how can I find a consensus when the other side keeps hiding ? Thank you.--Camoka4 (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    He gave a pretty well-reasoned argument on the article's talk page, and the consensus on the talk page appears to be in support of it. An editor's participation isn't required to form a consensus, and there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page even now. L.tak's lack of comment isn't a reason to make six reverts today. - SudoGhost 23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not even true that User:L.tak didn't respond to Camoka4's comments on L.tak's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AmourReflection reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Fractional reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AmourReflection (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77] Previous warning from March

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

    Comments:

    Edit warring over the same issue from June 3rd: [79], [80] and earlier (April, March) [81].

    The edit itself is an attempt to insert an anti-semitic rant by Henry Ford into the article about "evil Jewish bankers", based on this [82]. I'm surprised this user hasn't gotten blocked already.

    User:Schrodinger's cat is alive reported by User:Jack Sebastian (Result: stale)

    Page: James Bond (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: 1

    • 1st revert: 1 15:50, 6 June 2012
    • 2nd revert: 2 00:11, 7 June 2012
    • 3rd revert: 3 08:47, 7 June 2012
    • 4th revert: 4 09:07, 7 June 2012

    The problem is pretty much one of those lame instances of arguing over a single word (British naming conventions: 'authorized' versus 'authorised'). Full disclosure: I've reverted there three times myself before sanity prevailed and initiating discussion. Despite repeated requests by myself (in article edit summary, article discussion as well as his user talk page) for him to self revert his fourth edit, stop reverting and use the talk page, he contended that the first edit wasn't a revert and did not count towards the 3RR violation.
    I informed him that if he failed to self-revert within a few hours, I'd report him here. RL intervened and I wasn't able to file this until now - only after checking to see if the user had chosen to self-revert. He has not.
    Additionally, the editor argues that the article for the book already uses the term 'authoriZed' and not the British term, and thereby supports the Americanized version. This is strikingly deceptive, as SchroCat has specifically manipulated the article for the book to support his edit-warring in the James Bond article. To whit, he renames/moves the article to his preferred version], and makes several edits in support of that change (1, 2, 3). Furthermore, he offers as substantial citation an explicitly manipulative search of the British Library sources (ie. searching for his preferred term only when a more thorough search reveals that the British term existed prior to it).

    I've sought to sort this out with the user, but they aren't interested. As I see it, SchroCat altered the book article (written by a Brit, published in a country that uses British naming conventions about a fictional British subject) because he found a version of the book that doesn't use the British spelling. He then alters another article to support this change and edit-wars it into a 4RR vio despite warnings to stop and self-revert. I'm at odds as to how to resolve this, so I came here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (as noted above): article edit summary, article discussion as well as his user talk page - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC) -->[reply]

    Ah how nice it is to try and spin reality and get your cheap shots in first. Jack Sebastian (talk · contribs) is right on one point tho, it does relate to a UK/US spelling—and as an Englishman who lives and breathes BrEng spelling and who is constantly protecting the BrEng spelling in British articles, it is funny (almost painful) to have to use "authorized" in an BrEng article. Unfortunately JS has not yet managed to grasp the fact that the first edition published in the UK in 1973—the UK edition—uses the word "authorized", rather than the BrEng version. Perhaps a quick spin through the chronology of this sorry affair may straighten things out a little more:
    1. An edit on the Template:James Bond books page (see [here]) by Fanthrillers (talk · contribs) pointed out the Z spelling in the first edition of James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007. I checked a number of sources, including the British Library (a legal deposit library), which confirmed that the first edition from 1973 is spelt James Bond: the authorized biography of 007—see the BL reference for the 1973. This reference relates to the 1973 Sidgwick and Jackson edition and is the first edition anywhere in the world. Some subsequent editions then started carrying the "authorised" version, but not the first edition.
    2. After confirming Fanthrillers was right, I made a number of changes to articles, including James Bond (character) and the James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 article itself. This is not edit warring, this is straight editing to correct a fact. My first edit on the James Bond (character) site (dated at 21:50, 6 June 2012) is not, therefore, edit warring, but the correction of incorrect information as part of an overall editing process aimed at keeping the Bond-related articles at as high a standard as possible.
    3. After the articles were corrected, the unpleasantness on the James Bond (character) article started:
    1. At 02:07, 7 June 2012‎ Jack Sebastian reverted the edit. (JS's first revert)
    2. At 06:11, 7 June 2012‎ I reverted JS and pointed out that authorized is correct 1st edition title (Schro's first revert)
    3. At 14:45, 7 June 2012‎ JS reverted again and asked for a citation. (JS's second revert)
    4. At 14:47, 7 June 2012‎ I reverted and said that I would add to the talk page in a second (and pointed out he should also have gone to the talk page before reverting) (Schro's second revert)
    5. At 14:51, 7 June 2012‎ I started a new section on the talk page, "Pearson's authoriZed biography"
    6. At 14:57, 7 June 2012‎ JS ignored my talk page discussion and started his own, followed by:
    7. At 15:03, 7 June 2012‎ JS continued to revert the article, despite being asked not to so and despite the Talk page discussion being started. (JS's third revert)
    8. At 15:07, 7 June 2012‎ I reverted again and again pointed JS to the talk page (Schro's third revert)
    My second talk page edit was where I warned JS about the danger of him breaching WP:3RR if he continued reverting. Yes, I probably shouldn't have made the third revert (15:07, 7 June 2012), but when I've started a talk page discussion about an edit and the discussion is ignored and the edits again reverted, then I do take it as an attempt by an editor to edit war, which is why I warned JS of his approaching breach of 3RR.
    I utterly refute JS's accusations of being "strikingly deceptive" and of editing a search that has "specifically manipulated" in support of edit warring and I am furious at his attempts to smear what I have done in this way. I have edited the James Bond: The Authorized Biography of 007 article in a fitting way in the light of the information provided by Fanthrillers and no changes to the word "authorised/authorized" took place once JS started his edits: for him to suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Unfortunately JS has still not got to grips with the fact that the 1973 Sedgewick and Jackson UK edition of the book is the first edition of the book anywhere in the world and it uses the title James Bond: the authorized biography of 007. Sadly it does mean that a US spelling is in a BrEng article, but as it's the correct information then it's got to be shown as such. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's set aside the content issue for the moment, SchroCat. At what point did you think that reverting four times (haven't a clue why you think the first revert wasn't one) was an effective method by which to find a consensus for your opinion. Last time I checked, edit-warring a preferred version - without discussion - is not collaborative editing. When someone tells you that you are breaking the 3RR rule, your VERY first action should be to go to the history and count the edits, and self-revert if there is even the possibility that you have broken 3RR. Are you under the impression that no one at all could consider your four edits in support of a single word change to not be edit-warring? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Jack, you were right first time round: I am a "him", not a "her". - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies; I was looking over the AN/I blocking complaint you were involved in, and it seems they were under the impression that you were a female. I'll undo those gender changes asap. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ditto Jack: my first edit was not warring, it wasn't even bold, it was an everyday ordinary edit to correct something incorrect. Since then we have both reverted three times. I counted. At what point did you decide to ignore my discussion on the talk page and then revert edits was the proper course of action? - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    While the first revert is not considered edit-warring; subsequent reverts on the same point are. As well, your statement about using the article discussion page seems on its face disingenuous: you reverted four times (yes, we are counting the first revert as such, as you reverted in your preferred version) and THEN went to discussion more than four hours later. I simply reset the article to its pre-existing state and suggested conversation three different times.
    So, as is demonstrably accurate, discussing the issue wasn't really part of your plan...until you had reverted yourself into a hole. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure whether you believe youself or not on this. See the chronology above. I reverted twice, very rapidly following up my second revert with an entry on the talk page. I subsequently reverted your edit, which you had doneAFTER a talk page discussion had been opened. Decidedly uncool that one. I then pointed out to you nbot to revert again, warning you about 3RR. I was the one that raised that to you as I knew where I stood and I did not want to see fall into the 3RR hole. I'm not entirely sure where you get the four hour window from... again, see the chronology, with the time stamps all nice and visible for everyone to see. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I really have to do this? Okay:
    15:50, 6 June 2012 1
    00:11, 7 June 2012 2
    08:47, 7 June 2012 3
    09:07, 7 June 2012 4
    08:51, 7 June 2012 5
    Oops, a mistake on my part: from the time you were reverted to the time you posted was closer to eight hours. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting utterly, utterly ridiculous. You are displaying all the behavioural patterns of a troll, on this and three other pages. Your comments on the novels and stories talk page, where you were "getting an overview of your editing style and trying to figure you out" suggests something verging—but not quite at—WP:HOUNDING. I'll wait for an Admin to sort through this ridiculous mess and try and make sense of it all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale. Speaking of WP:LAME, I have to suggest that filing this report approximately than 24hrs after your discussion on Schro's page about the exact same subject pretty much fits into the same category. After all, a day later you're not actually trying to gain protection, you're attempting to punish. You both were edit-warring, period - it does not matter whether you didn't cross the magical WP:3RR threshold - you can be edit-warring with a single edit - but more often when you stray outside the WP:BRD cycle. WP:ENGVAR says we don't stray back and forth between variations of the language in an article. However the one logical time that one would stray is when providing a direct quote from a source/formal title that uses the other variant. For example, blah blah was authorized vs "it was authorised for use in the movie" (direct quote from source). Trouts to the both of you today (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, so now we aren't supposed to politely ask people to self revert? We just run over here and report them the moment they blow up 3RR? It isn't a content issue, BWilkins; it was about someone who ignored the rules when it came to shoehorning their pet opinion in. But thanks for your take on AGF protocol. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "you're not actually trying to gain protection, you're attempting to punish", "an overview of your editing style and trying to figure you out" suggests something verging—but not quite at—WP:HOUNDING" Jack Sebastian has an extensive history of this kind of behavior. When someone points that out he reverts and calls it "personal attack", then comes the insults, biting and cheap shots. Maybe a warning Jack Sebastian about his behavior may be in order. 65.204.124.130 (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmmm. For an "anonymous" IP editor - one who openly admits to sharing their Wiki account with several other people - you seem to have a particular hard-on for me, chum. I wonder who you really are. No matter. Things like you always get sorted out in the wash. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jack, Just by way of clarification, I am not the IP editor in question and I hope you do not think that is the case. Anything I have to say I will, can and have say directly to you under my own name. Geolocate puts this IP user in the US: I am happily tucked up in London. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.127.171.51 reported by User:50.117.56.221 (Result:semi'd )

    Page: List of modern dictators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 69.127.171.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_modern_dictators&diff=496554248&oldid=496551231>

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

    • 1st revert: [83]
    • 2nd revert: [84]
    • 3rd revert: [85]
    • 4th revert: [diff]

    The Current page is the right version.50.117.56.221 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This user has been warned many times for adding his thoughts on discussion as you can see, but each time he goes and edits the page, same he is doing it few other pages as well. 50.117.56.221 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    User:Justicejayant reported by User:I7laseral (Result: upgraded to FULL protect + block

    Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_dictators
    User being reported: User:Justicejayant, for use of proxies.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_modern_dictators&action=history

    With in a short time, 5 different ips from different geolocation reverted an ip's edits, "coincidently" to avoid a 3RV violation by user Justicejayant.

    This diff proves that User Justicejayant is atleast one of those Ips

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_modern_dictators&diff=496415802&oldid=496415378


    Checking his blocklog, this is not the first time he has been blocked. He has been blocked 5 times before for POV pushing and editing warring, the most recent ban was for a month.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AJusticejayant I7laseral (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:173.74.164.212 reported by User:Somedifferentstuff (Result: Stale )

    Page: Progressive tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 173.74.164.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [86]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91] - He didn't respond to my post on the talk page.

    Comments:

    This isn't a 3rr issue. His reverting includes the removal of a "Page needed" tag (3 times) and the usage of an Amazon.com listing as a reference (3 times). Tiring. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:173.74.164.212 (Result: No violation)

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


    Previous version reverted to: [92]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

    Did not respond to my response: [97]

    Comments:

    User engages in removing sourced material after unilaterally declaring "need a better source". Confuses sourcing of a book with "Amazon". Textbook ideological vandalism as user keeps attacking only the section that deals with opposing arguments - a violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. After engaging in removing sourced material, user makes a flurry of small edits to try to mask his initial edit. Please see entire edit summary.

    User:122.169.25.117 reported by User:220 of Borg (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Sanjiv Bhatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 122.169.25.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [98]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [103]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Admittedly not tried. :-(

    Comments: All initial reverts were to edits by Sitush (talk · contribs) plus 1 by AnomiBOT. Editor seemed to stop after being warned at 05:17, 9 June 2012, but came back and performed 2 more reverts


    User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Estlandia (Result: 24 hours)

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


    Previous version reverted to: N/A

    The user has been constantly edit warring on this article since June 8 [111] against various users, trying to present the opinion of some authors that the term concerned refers to 'islamophobic' and 'extremist' 'conspiracy theories' as indisputable truth. Attempts to de-POVize the lead are met with blind reverting [112] and baseless accusations of 'vandalism'. The user has recently been blocked for this kind of behaviour.
    What is especially alarming, is that after I edited the page Eurabia yesterday not to his liking, the user started stalking my edits to other pages like Soviet occupation of Latvia in 1940 on the topic he had never ever edited before, just to revert my yesterday's edit and start a new edit war [113]. Estlandia (dialogue) 12:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The user appeared in the Gaza War talk page where I have a dispute right after I have reverted his edit in EURABIA.I think its clear violation of WP:STALK.--Shrike (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

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

    Comments:

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 12:22, 11:53, 11:49, 11:15, and 14:42 the previous day. Antagonistic comments on talk pages and false claims of vandalism indicate this will probably not stop. I've set the block for 24 hours as this is the first actual edit warring block; will extend if personal attacks appear in connection with this. Kuru (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User:206.169.60.164 reported by User:Ism schism (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: Susana Martinez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: User:206.169.60.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [118]

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

    Comments:

    • This anon keeps mass deleting material with no reasons. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 15:19, 14:39, 14:13, 00:29; was warned prior. Ism, please note that you are just outside the automatic block window yourself; it may be advisable to limit yourself to the article's talk page for a bit. Kuru (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What the anon's last mass deletion? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    [[User:]] reported by User:Water marble nail (Result: )

    Page: Template:Bronygarth
    User being reported: Template:Peter E. James


    Previous version reverted to: [119]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not involved

    Comments:

    Water marble nail (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=us&q=lusitanic
    2. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/spellcheck/?region=uk&q=lusitanic
    3. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/british/?q=lusitanic
    4. ^ http://dictionary.cambridge.org/spellcheck/american-english/?q=Lusitanic
    5. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lusitanic
    6. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lusitanic?s=t
    7. ^ http://www.macmillandictionary.com/spellcheck/british/?q=lusitanic
    8. ^ http://www.britannica.com/search?query=lusitanic
    9. ^ http://www.encyclopedia.com/searchresults.aspx?q=lusitanic
    10. ^ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=lusitanic&searchmode=none
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=496805513"