Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:49, 11 June 2013

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

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

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

Click here to create a new report

User:Orhan-27 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result:Staleish )

Page

Near East University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Orhan-27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 8 2013 12:33 PM "menu added"
2. Jun 8 2013 11:55 AM "faculre"
3. Jun 8 2013 9:37 AM "about change"
4. Jun 8 2013 9:14 AM ""
5. Jun 8 2013 7:56 AM "about change"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 8 2013 12:12 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Near East University. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

(I'm using Twinkle to report this for the first time. I guess I'll see how it works after I've submitted it.) This article has a history of contentious editing by SPAs. Some, like this user, are affiliated with the university (they acknowledge that). I tried to explain to them on their talk page what they should and shouldn't do and why, but it apparently didn't penetrate. I blocked one of the SPAs a few days ago for breaching WP:3RR, but having challenged the content itself with this new editor, I am now WP:INVOLVED. Some of the problem may be incompetence stemming from language difficulties, but these continued edits by partisans cause a lot of disruption to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• Looks like the editor has stopped editing since this report and since they only have 7 edits I'm going to close this as I think a block would be bity. Nudge me if you need a semi prot on the page as there appears to be a concerted effort to control this content by the subject. Spartaz 19:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:FanforClark14 reported by User:Digifan23 (Result: )

Page

List of programs broadcast by PBS Kids Sprout (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FanforClark14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&action=edit&section=19#

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 8 2013 6:14 PM to Jun 8 2013 7:38 PM
   1. Jun 8 2013 6:14 PM ""
   2. Jun 8 2013 6:21 PM "/* Current programming (As of June 2013) */"
   3. Jun 8 2013 6:40 PM ""
   4. Jun 8 2013 7:19 PM "/* Live-action */"
   5. Jun 8 2013 7:26 PM ""
   6. Jun 8 2013 7:29 PM "/* Animated */"
   7. Jun 8 2013 7:38 PM ""
2. Consecutive edits made from Jun 8 2013 7:45 PM to Jun 8 2013 7:55 PM
   1. Jun 8 2013 7:45 PM ""
   2. Jun 8 2013 7:50 PM ""
   3. Jun 8 2013 7:55 PM ""
3. Jun 8 2013 8:07 PM ""
4. Jun 8 2013 8:12 PM ""
5. Jun 8 2013 8:25 PM ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:FanforClark14&diff=558981010&oldid=558980026

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:FanforClark14 (talk · contribs) reverts, noticed edit war after FanforClark14 was reported to WP:AIV

User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Rehevkor (Result: Withdrawn by Rehevkor )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Raspberry Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.72.118.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: /

Comments:
POV pushing/unreliable sources Withdrawn, duplicate of more comprehensive report below: ] Яehevkor ✉ 17:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result:Withdrawn Darkness Shines (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC) )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kmzayeem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Initial edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This user has competency issues along with the edit warring, he seems to think you can have a WP:SYNTH from just one source. He also accuses me of misrepresenting the source, yet he has not even checked it, and I quoted from the source on the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: User:Darkness Shines removed the disputed tag from the article without reaching a consensus and I've re-added it, I don't think it's a 3RR violation. My concerns about the dispute can be shown in the article talk page and they are still not addressed.--Zayeem 15:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kulturdenkmal reported by User:Pc-world (Result: Warned)

Page: PRISM (surveillance program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kulturdenkmal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558970577
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=558973204
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559064920
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=PRISM_(surveillance_program)&diff=prev&oldid=559075747

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Many people removing and readding the "Known Counter Measures" (later renamed to "Discussed counter measures") section without participating in the discussion on the talk page. --pcworld (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I participated in the discussion and I didn't revert the site four times today as you pretend - you mix up today and yesterday and you misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts (As you can clearly see here) ...
@admins just read the talk page to see for yourself: Talk:PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Known_Counter_Measures_deleted_.21 Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

"Many people" != User:Kulturdenkmal. And if it isn't four times, then prove the opposite. --pcworld (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Again: You mix up today and yesterday and you misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts... so again admin, just read the talk page to verifiy that I am acting according to the discussion. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

All linked reverts were done "within a 24-hour period" (see the top of this project page). --pcworld (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself. Capscap (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@PC-World - Again: You just misrepresent the discussion progress during my reverts. As you can clearly see here
@Capscap you didn't bring up any arguements after your first points of "original reasearch" has been devitalized - as everybody can see by looking at your comments such as "It's neither significant nor a view" - your comment "I think maybe 4-5 different users have removed the section and included valid reasons, " is just not true - stick to the facts. Kulturdenkmal (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I trust the admins can see the many comments from me and others. Capscap (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Your link proves what User:Capscap said: "You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself". And please do not randomly indent foreign comments on this talk page. --pcworld (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment:I was one of the people who reverted the additions (though I removed myself from the editing situation short of 3RR). My edit reason even encouraged resolution on the talk page , but it was still immediately undone by Kulturdenkmal. I think maybe 4-5 different users have removed the section and included valid reasons, while one user has kept readding it.Capscap (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

@Capscap you indeed "commented" but your comment was in favor of violating WP:NPOV without bringing up any argument that would justifiy that kind of violation. So again: Stick to the facts! And please stop using : and comment function at the same time ... its annoying and it visually manipulates the discussion in a way that simulates two different users. Everybody uses : so please do the same!
@Pc-world The NPOV rule is quite relevant and of course users who just want to censor aspects of a debate are simply in violation of that rule such as Capscap was - so your point ""You were acting according your opinion in the discussion, not the discussion itself"" is not true - my "opinion" is sticking to the WP rule of NPOV and so should you! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that Pc-world and I are two different users, right? And again, you have admitted that you were ignoring the discussion and acting according to your opinion. Capscap (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are ignoring WP:NPOV without bringing up any argument to support this violation. So you are just misrepresenting the situation I am not acting according to my opinion but according to Misplaced Pages policy! Kulturdenkmal (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked Capscap (talk · contribs) – for a period of 24 hours _→AzaToth 17:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I originally was not going to comment on this before, but Kulturdenkmal seems to believe that WP:NPOV supports the idea that inserting an entire section on countermeasures to PRISM that should fall under Internet privacy is ok. It seems that he fails to understand that the scope of the article does not include information of that sort, and he has been ignoring reasons to the contrary and reverting the article instead of waiting for further consensus, resulting in an edit war. Kulturndenkmal also keeps saying that the users who believe that the information does not belong in the article violates WP:NPOV when the issue is whether that information falls inside the scope of the PRISM article. This should probably be given another look. --RAN1 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. And he only responds with the WP:NPOV argument without addressing others' arguments, contrary to consensus-building. RAN1 (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note. So much bickering. Kulturdenkmal has breached WP:3RR. I have left a message on their talk page about agreeing not to edit the article in exchange for not being blocked. I will await their response. On another front, Capscap has been blocked for edit warring on the article. So, consider this a warning to all editors editing that article. Be careful that you adhere to policy. Although not a featured article, it is on the main page. Some leeway may be given to editors' attempts to improve the article ("Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page."), but disruption will not be tolerated.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Kulturdenkmal has agreed to the condition, so I am closing this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:121.72.118.83 reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Level 1 pending changes protection )

Page: Raspberry Pi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 121.72.118.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: 12:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon removes unsourced claims (1RR)
01:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC): 1st Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83
15:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC): Mahjongg reverts (1RR)
00:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC): 2nd Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83
07:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (1RR)
12:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 warned by Guy Macon
00:11, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 3rd Revert (1RR) by 121.72.118.83
00:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Mahjongg reverts (1RR)
01:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 4th Revert (2RR) by 121.72.118.83
06:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon reverts (1RR)
08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 5th Revert (3RR) by 121.72.118.83
08:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 posts to User talk:Guy Macon (WP:NPA)
08:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (1RR)
08:59, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 invited to discuss by Rehevkor
09:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 6th Revert (4RR) by 121.72.118.83
09:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Rehevkor reverts (2RR)
11:06, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 121.72.118.83 finally posts to Talk:Raspberry Pi -- about a different part of the page than the one he has been edit warring about.
11:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC): 7th Revert (5RR) by 121.72.118.83
13:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC): Guy Macon reverts (2RR)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Previous page protections:
New Zealand IP addresses that have edit warred over same material:
121.72.118.83:
121.72.121.67:
121.72.221.156:
121.74.158.215:
121.74.142.75:
121.74.137.8:
--Guy Macon (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see much point blocking a dynamic ip if we can shut them off the page for a week. I have semi prot to give you a break. If they don't lose interest after that let me know and we can consider rangeblocks or further semiprot. Spartaz 19:31, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• The article is now under level 1 pending changes for a year, which nicely refutes the IP vandal's claim that " You can't possibly block every IP address I can use." I took the liberty of updating the result in the header. Please revert if this is a problem. I think we are done here and this can be closed. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Ping Spartaz... Now he is edit warring and removing other editor's comments on the article talk page. This is one persistant vandal. Could we please have a short-term anonblock range block (to make it harder for him to start being disruptive on other pages) and short-term semi-protection of Talk:Raspberry Pi (to make it harder for him to run experiments to find unblocked IP addresses)? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• I semi'd the talk page for 3 days. I have never done a range block and I'm not entirely sure its safe for me to do one now without breaking the internet but I agree that a rangeblock is now necessary. I'll ask another admin to look at it, Spartaz 17:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 72 hours for MrT and 2 weeks for DS)

Page: Godhra train burning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Read below to get the whole picture, it is Content Dispute on my part (most editors opposed his edits), that is typical of DS, he is the one who has been causing disruption with the help of a few socks. Mr T 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the talk page will know that Darkness Shines hardly tried to resolve any dispute, he just wanted his way or highway. -sarvajna 18:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you again accusing me of sockpuppetry? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

There goes assumption of good faith, DS. Mr T 19:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. Spartaz 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:Mrt3366 (Result: No action)

User:kww & User:Hell in a Bucket reported by User:Knicksnyc (Result: Knicksnyc blocked)

User KWW has engaged in, apparently, long term malicious editing of the article for musician Marc Mysterio. He has now deleted, three times, valid quotes from the artist that were broadcasted on Russian National Radio and reported in both Digital Journal and All Voices, both reliable sources.

Its unclear what KWW motives are. I've just begun editing on this site and it took me 5 minutes to notice he has taken some sort of personal vendetta against this artist. I suggest that action is taken against him should valdalism continue. There is a difference between maintaining reliable information in Misplaced Pages, and trying to make wikipedia your own personal blog which KWW appears to be doing, at least in this instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksnyc (talk • contribs) 03:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I see here not only did you post your report to the wrong board but you are adding Digital Sources which is also a contribution site which is apparent when you look at the authors bio that made the article you are trying to cite. When I review your contribs I see a Single Purpose Account completely failing to understand the purpose of wikipedia. This is normal when people first start but KWW is doing what an experienced editor should be in this instance. So basically this report is not actionable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• "A media business where everyone can contribute and engage. We set out to build a media company where anyone can play an important role, so we can break news faster, tell stories better and take an alternative and fresh view on issues of the day. We recognize the audience offers incredible authority and expertise, and people have important stories to tell." found ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

@Hell You fail to note that the company is headquartered in Toronto, Canada and shares advertising revenue with citizen journalists who report for the site and it has control mechanisms to ensure content is accurate and well written. Contributors submit a sample of writing and are asked to demonstrate expertise to Digital Journal's editorial board. The company has an assignment desk where contributing journalists are informed of news items ripe for press coverage. It is not a free for all.

This is not a matter of whom is right and whom is wrong. The purpose of wikipedia is to educate those whom wish to learn so long as to ensure the post is indeed accurate. If you are attempting to assert the writer is in some way biased to the artist, that would only further substantiate that the quotes are authentic. We are dealing with an artist of global repute. Not sure why this is in question. Have you not hackers to chase?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/267102 http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/2008/04/24/digital-journal-launches-revenue-sharing-for-its-citizen-journalists/

I can see that you do not understand what we consider reliable here as I mentioned on my talkpage please see WP:RS, and also WP:AGF. You now have two very established editors telling you that there is a problem with what you are adding. You are new here by your own admission, you can continue to insist you know the project better then us and assume bad faith but you will likely see that your time will be short. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. I blocked Knicksnyc for violating WP:3RR and personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ratnakar.kulkarni reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 Hours )

Page: 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

OK, are you trying to confuse admins here, 1st and 3rd diff provided are from the article Godhra train burning, the fourth difference that you provided is the one where you tried to add some undicussed material into the lead which was not even present in the body. I can understand why you added a new statement, it is because a similar statement by you were reverted previously by me, you seem to have played some smart trick in trying to bait me. I hope the closing admin takes the cognizance of your tricks.Also you never tried to resolve the dispute, first of all you did not even discuss anything about your edits there.-sarvajna (talk) 19:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Spartaz 19:28, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

User:67.60.33.227 reported by User:Federales (Result:Page semiprotected )

Page: Edward Snowden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.60.33.227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Also: ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is an IP editor who has only edited the one article and never edited until 45 minutes before this report. I doubt he even knows there is such a thing as a Talk page.

Comments:
Page protection has already been requested for this brand new, high-profile BLP that seems likely to be a magnet for this kind of disruption. The IP is determined to insert his inappropriate material over the objection of three other editors and shows no interest at all in learning Misplaced Pages policies, nor is he interested in obtaining consensus.

• Page protected. Clear violation, but now very stale. The page has been semiprotected Slp1 (talk) 22:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Faustian reported by User:194.44.15.214 (Result: )

Page: History of the Ukrainian minority in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

First of all, I want to note that this is not the only page that there is a problem with edit warring with Faustian. He also has been cyberstalking-cyberhounding anonymous contributions by IP address here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stepan_Bandera&action=history and here: en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ukrainian_Greek_Catholic_Church&action=historysubmit&diff=558478063&oldid=555908985 (completely unsupported anti-Polonism, anti-Lithuanian, anti-Catholic POV) Rather than engage in dialogue with other editors he arrogantly labels such contributions "anonymous disruption" since they conflict with with Ukrainian Nationalist POV.

He has used this tactic to harass anonymous contributors, even going so far as attempt to get IP's blocked here: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:EdJohnston#IP_anon_at_it_again His provocative behavior has resulted having anons blocked from contributing to the discussion of Steran Bandera. We also have edit warring here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stepan_Bandera&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Stepan_Bandera#Recent_IP_edits I don't know if that needs an additional complaint or if it should be included here. I don't know what the rules are about this, but it is becoming tedious because there is a clear pattern of harassment, cyberstalking/cyberhounding by someone not interested in anything approaching a neutral point of view, and that is obvious from his home page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Faustian

I have attempted to engage this individual in discussion, and I have cited a leading Ukrainian historian who is internationally recognized in Poland and the UK for her knowledge of Ukrainian nationalism in the Second Polish Republic: Iryna Shlikhta in Nationalism as a Play: Ukrainian Nationalists Playing in the Inter-War Poland http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probing-the-boundaries/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/irynaplaypaper.pdf http://www.polishhistory.pl/uploads/media/Narodowosci_i_role_spoleczne_program.pdf His response was to simply revert all comments here as "restore referenced information and removed blatant falsification of sources": http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland&oldid=558758400 DIFF: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland&action=historysubmit&diff=558758400&oldid=558756495

I have also noticed that he removed reference to a Polish Ph.D., http://en.wikipedia.org/Wiktor_Poliszczuk, here as a "unreliable source": http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland#Unreliable_Source Essentially, anyone Polish, Ukrainian or other who's views he does not concur, whatever his or her academic credentials, or standing at a university like Oxford University is removed as a "unreliable source".

Lastly, I concur with other contributors that this topic needs to be merged with something else, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland stated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:History_of_the_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland

I really don't know where to go from here. All of these procedures are confusing, but I think this problem is beyond a simple edit war. It crosses into other pages from cyberstalking/cyberhounding and the harassment of attempting to get pages locked and IP's shut down to prevent anonymous contributions. I also suspect there is a sock puppet or meat puppet here who is working with him across pages.

Edit to add that this should fall under Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ARBEE Sanctions are being requested.

This IP has a history of disruptive edits, removal of referenced information, and making controversial changes without seeking consensus on the talk pages. I also suspect sockpuppetry. WHOIS of the IPs involved in this harassment of me and disruptions of various articles reveals it is probably one person. 194.44.15.214: ; and 213.174.5.82 ; this one is from the same city: 176.104.185.203 and is probably also the same person. Abusive behavior by this IP here: "Rabid Ukrainian Nationalist Faustian". About a month ago there arose a similar situation with an IP behaving in a similar way, resulting in a block of that IP due to blatant misrepresentation of sources. That situation complete with diffs is here: . The current disruptive IP appears to be writing from a different geographic location but behavior is quite similar. This is not the place for discussing content but a brief example of the IPs misrepresentation: . Phrase "Ukrainians were worse off in Poland than they were in neighboring Czechoslovakia. In that country, the first Ukrainian school system was only established in 1918 and already by 1921-1922 89 percent of Ukrainian children were enrolled in Ukrainian-language schools" taken from Janusz Radziejowski. (1983). The Communist Party of Western Ukraine: 1919-1929. Toronto: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press at the University of Toronto, pg.7, was replaced with "Ukrainians unhappy with Polish language instruction were free to study in the Ukrainian language in Vienna or Czechoslovakia" which is not what Radziejowki said (this can be confirmed on googlebooks here. The source stated "In the 1920s, the situation of the Ukrainian and Belarussian minorities was generally worse than in neighboring countries...in Transcarpathian Ukraine the first Ukrainian school system was only in 1918, when this area was incorporated into the new Czechoslovakian state. But already by 1921-1922 89% of Ukrainian children were attending Ukrainian schools") and is clearly adding a POV spin. This is the type of disruption typical of this IP.

Note that when an established user unconnected to this dispute entered this discussion, there was nothing disruptive going on and the IPs claims were not supported: . Note also that on my user page, which this IP claims is evidence of my pushing some sort of Ukrainian nationalist POV. On the user page it is evident that I have received awards from editors of various nationalities. Also, I have maintained a clean block record with respect to eastern European issues, after many years of editing in these very contentious areas.

I am requesting a block of this IP or at least semi-protection of articles being disrupted by it. Ironically, this IP engages in the same behavior it accuses others of.Faustian (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:RocketLauncher2 reported by User:75.15.222.126 (Result: Stale)

Page: The Alex Jones Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RocketLauncher2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Editor still edit warring during the page still semi protected until June 16, after being warned to stop and continues to add an unreliable source since it is currently outdated after Aaron Dykes left the show for good. He also refuses to stop harassing me after his reports were repeatedly rejected on the Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism based on false accusations.

I don't get why you are reporting reverts from late May and early June. It's been over and my recent revert comes from after leaving a message on the user's talk page where he says it's okay to revert his changes. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, they aren't false accusations. If they don't see a reason to block you then I leave it at that. I reported again because I decided to actually provide evidence that I didn't provide last time, which is probably why no one considered it. I'd say anything against you is far more damning than me trying to add a producer's name in. RocketLauncher2 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cue "I'd say anything against you is far more damning" I'll just leave this here for you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Stale. No evidence of continue disruptive activity. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Corvoe reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result:No violation )

Page: Olympus Has Fallen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Corvoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

2. This one I reverted to show you guys something.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This guy Corvoe thinks he doing those edits per the film infobox template on this movie. He's not. He's not looking at the movie poster that list the names of those on it. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm looking at the billing block of the poster currently up. Here it is, and as you can see, all of the names that were there ARE listed on the poster. However, they are NOT listed at the bottom, the billing block, which the template explicitly says to base off of if it is available. To quote:

Under the "starring" portion of the parameters section reads this:

As you can see, it says to use the billing block, which upon close inspection of the high-res poster I just linked, only listed Butler, Eckhart, and Freeman. It's available, so we use it. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The names of the other actors are listed below the title name. They may not be listed in the billing block, but that doesn't change a thing about this argument. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Except it does. Policy says to use the billing block, which does not necessarily include all of the names listed on the poster. For instance, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy has a lot of actors listed on its poster. However, its billing block varies in both order and names listed considerably. The billing block is still the correct source for the order and inclusion of actors' names in the infobox. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That maybe true and I understand the reason for that. But there are many film infoboxes that list them by poster and many of them prefer that way. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That's true, but preference and policy don't always go hand in hand, and this instance is a very good example of that not happening. There isn't really anything we can settle until an admin comes along, though. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Corvoe changed the infobox twice in the last 24 hours and BattleshipMan reverted it twice. A word to the wise, BattleshipMan, that it isn't a good idea to report an editor for something you've also done yourself!! Luckily here neither of you have broken the 3RR rule and so neither of you will be blocked. On the other hand you seem to be having a good conversation about the content under dispute, which is exactly what should be happening -though not here. It should have happened earlier, and on the talkpage of the article. I suggest you continue your discussion on the talkpage and if you need help from others to resolve your disagreement, use dispute resolution such as WP:3O Good luck!! Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Lexein reported by User:ApolloLee (Result: )

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

Note: The description of this is written in the comments at the bottom, which should make this more clear. I am not sure if the full issue will be clear from just looking at the different versions. This article is about a company that had a large ethics scandal. When I put additional information in about that scandal (all sourced from major newspapers), it was erased and I was attacked over it. More details are below.

Version before yesterday's reverting by Lexein (May Version): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&oldid=556073774

The current page displaying is the reverted (March) version that Lexein wrote originally: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&oldid=559157357

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

This issue is more about edit warring & an editor being overprotective of an article that needed updating to accurately reflect what occurred with this company. Here are diffs of Lexein's 2 reverts and one done by a random person who never had any other contribs...but the problem is not really the reverting. Rather, there were 20+ sources erased along with all of the work I (and others) added (see comments below)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&diff=559157357&oldid=559137978
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&diff=559137978&oldid=559134055
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&diff=558844199&oldid=556073774 (mystery user)

I stated the problem & warned him on the article talk page and his page with the template provided.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Journatic (see the bottom section that Lexein created - the dispute is concentrated there)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=559143804 (heading Journatic)

Comments:

When I tried to discuss the changes to this entry with Lexein, he responded to my comments with “TLDR” on his talk page and things like “it sure as fuck wasn't Journatic's PR material” (when I pointed out the article was citing “The Journatic Journal”) and “Jesus fucking christ on a stick” (for posting on his talk page) and “do not fucking republish redacted text. That's just fucking rude” (for replying to a prior version of a page that I didn’t know he updated). So, I obviously cannot talk to this person - but I will not let my contributions to the article (which took about 8 hours) be bullied out of Misplaced Pages by this. He just reverted back to his last copy in March. That was not the solution given that he erased 20+ new sources and a lot of information.

Since I added 20+ new sources and a lot of new text, the article should be reverted back to my last version in May and then opened to discussion on the talk page to remove the material that Lexein finds problematic. As an aside, I never even intended to edit the much article at first - but I posted about 15 sources in the talk page for someone to use to revise the article to be more comprehensive. When nobody did anything, I expanded the article directly from those sources (but was perfectly happy for anyone else to do it). Lexein has reverted it twice since then to his original March edit.

He is claiming it looks like a “bully pulpit” and violates WP:POINTY. I don’t agree. Journatic is a news service, and their cover up of how they generated content overseas and printed it with American names is not a small issue. Since they are a young company, they were operating under false pretenses for most of their history as well. They only stopped when they got caught (when an internal employee leaked it). Almost all details relating to this were removed from the article (though they are clear on the NPR transcript cited in my version & other reports - http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/468/transcript - see "Act Two" among many other articles as this grew). Some sources are even more “pointy” than what I wrote. Regardless, it can be edited down easily from the last version. Erasing 20+ new sources is not the solution. The reality is that this company engaged in a lot of unethical behavior and they would like it glossed over and covered up. Its CEO lied to a lot of people about many things that he was doing, which got covered extensively in many reliable sources. This was uncovered in the summer of 2012, and given the short life of the company & new (controversial) business model they are using (stated by others, not original research by me), it’s appropriate to include. All other companies and CEOs that have had these kinds of scandals have them included in detail (e.g., Enron has its own page on the scandal alone). By nature, outsourcing "local journalism" from the USA to Asia will be controversial, and that was explained in the article. Also, the “benefits” and “criticisms” sections existed before I edited anything (which Lexein erased as well).

While it is not appropriate to take a negative POV about their unethical behavior, minimizing all of it & rewriting history is not appropriate either. Journatic has already done that on their marketing/PR materials. Every other source that I cited (e.g., NPR, Chicago Tribune, Chicago Sun Times, Crains Chicago Business, Poynter, SF Gate, Houston Chronicle) has the real story about this company, and those sources were included in my edits (but wiped out by Lexein). They were reverted because Lexein thought I was being “obsessive”. I was being accurate & depicting a chronological series of events as shown in the sources. He also claimed I was going overboard because it was limited to Chicago, which it is not the case at all (Houston and San Francisco are included, among others - which is clear if you read the article). I am not going to waste time in an edit war with this person. He will not communicate in a civil manner and has already reverted it twice (possibly 3 times since another screen name appeared out of nowhere and reverted it):

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&diff=559157357&oldid=559137978

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&diff=559137978&oldid=559134055

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Journatic&diff=558844199&oldid=556073774 (mystery user who didn’t use revert but copied all the old text. User has no other contribs)

I would like it to be reverted back to reflect the 20+ new sources and accurate depiction of the company. Lexein should not be able to revert this back to his personal March version. It can be edited from there to remove things that are supposedly POV once all of the sources are read by the respective editors - not based on their emotional reaction to a factual article or other possible conflict of interest. It should also be pointed out that Journatic links directly to this page on their blog - http://journatic.weebly.com/about-journatic.html. So, they have an interest in keeping it looking "nice" as well. Thank you. ApolloLee (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Response by Lexein:: What this is, in my opinion, is an article which grew out of control with POV in one direction, then was heavily edited to reflect a strong POV in the other direction. I erred in not reverting the whole mess sooner, and farther back, and I've apologized for that in Talk. I think my baseline is neutral, and progress on the article should proceed from there, and I've explained that in Talk:Journatic. ApolloLee is quite willing to spend hours and days arguing with voluminous, repetitive text, rather than just rewrite with neutral tone. This is wikilawyering, and it wastes time and effort. The dispute would have been over and done with sooner if ApolloLee had just followed my advice. AFAIK, we have a duty to remove strong POV from articles ASAP, rather than leave it up to be gradually edited. I am not a pro or anti partisan in re Journatic, and I reverted to "my" so-called version from months ago, because it was the last one that seemed neutral to me. In Talk, I strongly suggested that further changes be discussed in Talk first, specifically to avoid revert battles. To me, literally all the other versions were taking brickbats to either the company or its detractors. If ANEW concludes I'm wrong, so be it. No problem. --Lexein (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Response by ApolloLee: Re: "ApolloLee is quite willing to spend hours and days arguing with voluminous, repetitive text, rather than just rewrite with neutral tone." - I said I was willing to rewrite what was already there and take out what was repetitive from the last version I edited on May 21. This was the first thing I wrote to you after your revert. I said, "At this point, if it is repetitive, then it makes more sense to edit rather than to revert..." - and you replied "TLDR" among other things. Regardless, I don't see why I (or any editor) should start from the March version you reverted to which erased 20+ additional sources that took 8-10 hrs to write the first time. That makes no sense to do. It is not "wikilawyering" - it's a ridiculous use of time given that the article had so much put into it already. What if you don't like the next version after 5 hours of additional editing (and the same sources that you erased, likely) - are you going to revert it again? Who would want to edit it then? Anyway, it is not so horrendously POV that it has to be taken back to a 3 month old version. All of my statements are sourced without my personal opinion stated anywhere. If my last version seemed non-neutral, it could be edited down instead of being reverted back to your version from March with the 20+ new sources gone. As soon as editors who thought it wasn't neutral started reading the source material, they dropped that viewpoint. Journatic did what they did - I just typed it in. I didn't white wash their behavior because it was the subject of 20+ articles.

When i found this article, it was heavily citing Journatic's materials and it did "grow out of control with POV in one direction" exactly as you said. Journatic's entire business involves hiring people all over the world to write content...so it's not surprising. So, I went to the talk page and posted many links to articles for someone to hopefully edit in over time. Anyone who read those sources would have written a very similar article to the one I did because the article reflects the sources. If it went too negative, let's start from that end point and edit out the stuff that went too far. I already took some out in the various revisions. It's much easier to take content out than to start from scratch (from March). All the sources are in the May version & the chronology is there as well...but it's gone in the March version. If it isn't neutral, that largely reflects the fact that 20+ articles about them were quite negative. The tone can be changed, but the facts are what they are. I know some was repetitive (e.g., I had a hard time w/ the opening paragraph sounding too much like the rest of article, etc) but I think it's definitely fixable from that point. Starting from the March copy eliminates way too many sources and information. ApolloLee (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Stop. Time to let ANEW respond. --Lexein (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Yes, I know they will respond, and I wanted them to have the most accurate details possible. This is the fourth time you have tried to control what I say on here for no legitimate reason. First, you have a major f-bomb laden overreaction because I politely asked you not to revert Journatic on your talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lexein&oldid=559143804). Thousands of editors use talk pages to discuss article changes, and your reaction was completely unnecessary. Then, you had another similar reaction on the Journatic talk page telling me I was "fucking rude" among other things (for doing exactly what you told me to do & not responding on your talk page) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3AJournatic&diff=559158721&oldid=559157745. Yes, I copied your "redacted" text because I never saw that you erased it. Then, you demanded I rewrite this article (that I already spent hours rewriting) because you reverted it all back to your March version...all the while implying that you somehow hold veto power over the article's changes. And now, you're trying to control what I post here - which is the last possible place I can even post about this. I had no intention of continuing to post here now that the last details are clarified above. I am just amazed you've made a 4th attempt at trying to control what I write, when I've never done anything wrong from the start. I have certainly not reverted your pages & told you to rewrite them, swore at you repeatedly, and told you to "stop". 10:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)ApolloLee (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Drmies reported by User:Sonsoftheserpent (Result: Sonsoftheserpent blocked 72hrs )

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

02:26, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,950)‎ . . Fistful of Metal ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Sonsoftheserpent (talk): Where to start? a. blp violation. b. excessive detail. c. long quote probably falls foul of fair use. d. overwikilinking. (TW))

02:35, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-2,129)‎ . . DeathRiders ‎ (→‎Tours: non-neutral and improperly verified (world famous, etc). blabbermouth is not a reliable source, and namedropping is not an acceptable way to attempt a claim to notability) (current)

02:36, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . Template:Anthrax ‎ (Undid revision 559326586 by Sonsoftheserpent oops--clicked "thanks" instead of undo. false claim of vandalism. previous edit summary was misleading. band not "associated" as far as I can tell)

02:40, 11 June 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,950)‎ . . Fistful of Metal ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Sonsoftheserpent (talk): Rv for the last time: BLP violation here, in addition to a host of problem caused by lack of competence. (TW)) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Sonsoftheserpent (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as I sometimes feel like it, I can't see that blocking User:Drmies here would be justifiable. On the other hand, Sonsoftheserpent is clearly in an edit war with multiple editors and clearly knows about our edit warring policies or he wouldn't have been able to post here. Blocked 72 hrs.—Kww(talk) 04:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring by Underlying lk

User:Underlying lk reported by User:AfricaTanz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tanzania&action=historysubmit&diff=551021105&oldid=550762296

Diffs of the user's reverts:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tanzania&diff=558687537&oldid=558186536
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tanzania&diff=559144379&oldid=558728187
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tanzania&curid=30118&diff=559334720&oldid=559269804

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AUnderlying_lk&diff=559263387&oldid=559163038
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AUnderlying_lk&diff=559338355&oldid=559333978

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article and user talk pages:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559340759&oldid=552349426
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AAfricaTanz&diff=558851321&oldid=558762017

Comments:
This user is also highly incivil and disruptive.
(1) Misrepresentation of my edits and the purpose thereof: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559149086&oldid=552349426
(2) Unapologetic and sarcastic admission of doing so: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ATanzania&diff=559334909&oldid=559264822
(3) Ridicule of myself for having been blocked recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Underlying_lk&diff=prev&oldid=559333978
(4) Same: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Underlying_lk&diff=prev&oldid=559338472

AfricaTanz (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I first came across AfricaTanz after reading the Tanzania article, and noticing that the GDP per capita figures were missing. I assumed they had been removed by a vandal and added them back. AfricaTanz then reverted me, insisting on their removal, as they were 'wrong'. As is customary in the case of content disputes, I dropped him a message to discuss the issue and offer a compromise. This greatly annoyed him, and he changed his tone, becoming outright obstructive. He admitted implicitly the absurdity of his stance of deleting everything when he restated the GDP figures, this time with a note pointing out his own 'right' calculations, which I removed. The rest of this petty argument is of his own doing, and his accusations are lies.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring and promotion of incivility / us versus them / retaliatory atmosphere by Taroaldo

User:Taroaldo reported by User:AfricaTanz (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:
(1) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558850063&oldid=558849262
(2) Omission of quote in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558849262&oldid=558731022

Diffs of the user's reverts:
(1) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=prev&oldid=558854097
(2) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857432&oldid=558857304
(3) Omission of article tags: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558857885&oldid=558857728
(4) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=558858177&oldid=558857885
(5) Omission of quotation in lede: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Michael_Omolewa&diff=559326146&oldid=559269303

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warnings:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558863977&oldid=558863567
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=558864629&oldid=558864311

Comments:

Taroaldo has been edit warring in the Michael Omolewa article since June 7 and continuing to the present time. The next-to-last edit in that article (as of the date and time of this post) was another edit warring revert by Taroaldo. He has been edit warring about two related issues: the omission of revision article tags and the omission of a quotation in the lede. He is in favor of both omissions, and is the sole editor that favors omission of the quotation. Myself and Lord777 are in favor of including the quotation; however, Taroaldo has unilaterally overriden that consensus in favor of his own preference.

Not only has Taroaldo been edit warring, but he has actively promoted an "us versus AfricaTanz" incivil atmosphere. And he has gone to great lengths to punish me for disagreeing with him. Here are the diffs:

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&diff=prev&oldid=558853072
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&diff=prev&oldid=558860104
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=558862292
(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lord777&diff=prev&oldid=558863253
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Taroaldo&diff=prev&oldid=558864311
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Taroaldo&diff=prev&oldid=558866130
(7) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=559117217
(8) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Beeblebrox&diff=prev&oldid=559122502
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:AfricaTanz&curid=37569588&diff=559315505&oldid=559268506
(10) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=559315149&oldid=559313913
(11) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATaroaldo&diff=559312650&oldid=559311807

AfricaTanz (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring