Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:43, 9 June 2014

• 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:Drmargi reported by User:2607:fcc8:b886:7200:a010:11bf:b579:520a (Result: Protected)

Page: Talk:Fargo (TV series) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 130.182.29.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: 130.182.31.140 (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: User has been blocked for edit warring twice before, and is using an obvious IP to get around it.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I asked a question on the Fargo TV talk page, after a previous discussion wound up driving away another editor for supposedly policy-based reasons that no one could seem to actually verify. Drmargi then deleted my questions, then announced on a talk page that he wasn't going to comment. With neither of the original editors commenting, Drmargi tried several times to hat the discussion with a snarky note, then did so again while using an obvious IP. The IP's edits are an obvious sock, her only previous edits are to ER-related articles and a discussion on Spooks, which are topics that Drmargi also edits regularly .

In the middle of all this, I realized I wasn't going to get any answers from Drmargi on the policy question I had asked, so I hatted the whole thing myself (eventually AussieLegend explained it to me, which was quite helpful) and again here with even more neutral language. However, Drmargi and the IPs continue to push for their hat edit summary, which is actually kind of insulting.

This one is admittedly fairly WP:LAME, and at this point, all I'd like to do is walk away from the whole matter with a neutral hat summary left behind me. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide.

(Updated material) I see now where Drmargi has claimed not to be online all day , even though she was definitely editing here within minutes of the first IP edit to the page . That's the only time frame of the day when the first IP was editing, and Drmargi was online at the same time. By some wacky coincidence.

Users notified here

• There is no actual evidence that Drmargi and 130.182.29.28/130.182.31.140 are the same editor and 2607:fcc8:b886:7200:a010:11bf:b579:520a has himself breached 3RR at Talk:Fargo (TV series) today, having made 4 reverts. The IP is definitely correct in saying that it is WP:LAME. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected (semi) for three days.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• As for "driving another editor away", that is unproven, accusatory, and false, especially since said editor has returned to editing. — Wyliepedia 15:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Richey90211 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: No action)

Page: Coolie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richey90211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated reverts to article space. No 3RR violation but they do voice the intent to continue warring on their talk page.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ANI discussion started by violator, talk page discussion. VQuakr (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

• While the activities of Richey90211 can be considered as long term edit warring. I still don't think that a block will help at all. User hardly gets on, and whenever he is online he maybe editing the page. There maybe a need to protect this page, for about 1 month or more. Page itself has no recent events, or it has to be updated or daily/weekly basis. Protection will prompt Richey90211 to discuss. OccultZone (Talk) 12:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What experiences I've had with him (and his attitude and purpose), if that doesn't work, a topic ban may be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: I second that, because I had reverted the user yesterday. But you can inform us if user has carried out same behavior on multiple pages. Apparently, topic ban is for abusing the edit privileges on multiple pages, or having the long history of blocks after conflicting on same wikiproject(quality is not a criteria here). OccultZone (Talk) 03:37, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

He seems to be an WP:SPA focused entirely on "righting the great wrong" Misplaced Pages has done to coolies. This has the potential to cross over into pages such as Slavery and Indentured servant (though it hasn't yet). I've seen topic bans (even recently) for editors who have been focused on a single article. But, it would be more better to protect the page and try to get him to talk about it first. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I have communicated with you guys several times and there has been no change and I will get many people to protest against this article because its racist... I have provided several credible sources that state indentured servitude is NOT slavery yet you refuse to change this in the article. You have etymology of coolie completely wrong. You put a whole bunch of hypotheticals instead of what the word actually means. The word means unskilled laborer or hireling. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie

Listen no offense to you guys, but you are re-writing history falsely. I am from those islands and this article is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has not done anything wrong to coolies. The writers of the article coolie has. Misplaced Pages is a site that is open to the public and you do not have the right to compose history the way you want to. You have disregarded my credible facts to serve your own racist agenda. I am more than willing to talk but nothing is being done to change this article and that is ridiculous because you are only accepting your own views as history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I want to talk about this and have this article changed to accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richey90211 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• No action taken. Appears to be under control, but further edit warring may result in a block. Continue to use the talk page to reach a consensus. If one cannot be found, seek dispute resolution. — MusikAnimal 20:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Krimuk90 reported by User:Abhi (Result: Both warned)

Page: Deepika Padukone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Krimuk90 (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 (User:Krimuk90 is aware of 3RR rule because he warned me about 3RR)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi (talk • contribs) 08:01, 5 June, 2014 (UTC)

It's not constructive to bring this here is it? Please sort out disputes on the talk page.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, 3RR rule is very strict. Even if you are right, 4th revert invite sure block. The old image, which was there for 2 years, is restored on the suggestion of another user. If User:Krimuk90 has no objection to that image, I would like to end this matter. Abhi (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

This is when I was blocked after 4th revert. An editor took admin decision, concluded that image will be deleted, and even before admin decision kept reverting my edits. Obviously, admins have different standards for same rule. Rampant favoritism, lawlessness. It force editors to leave wikipedia. That's why I have reduced my presence on wikipedia. Almost quit. Abhi (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:Abhi and User:Krimuk90 are both warned. A further revert by either of you may lead to a block. You are now discussing on the talk page; try to reach a conclusion there. See WP:DR if there is no result. The fact the prior image was there for 2 years is no guarantee of consensus. You need to find other people to support your view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Kjangdom reported by User:VictoriaGrayson (Result: Kjangdom warned)

Page

14th Dalai Lama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

• diff1
• diff2
• diff3
• diff4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

• diff of warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• attempt1
• attempt2
• attempt3

Comments:

Editor was previously warned, and deleted the warning from his talk page (which is his right to do). Also this is a WP:BLP, so we must be extra careful inserting controversial material that has no consensus. VictoriaGrayson (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi there!

I'm a little surprised about being 'reported', and thought I'd mention a few of points that I hope are taken into consideration.

I was more than happy to discuss the prospect of including a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy on the talk page as you can see. VictoriaGrayson on the other hand contributed very little to this discussion. Clearly consensus was reached to include a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy on the Dalai Lama's page. However, the precise wording of the section was not agreed upon.

@CFynn: made a good suggestion and I made a few small uncontroversial changes (at least I thought they were uncontroversial at the time!) and added his suggestion. I openly said on the talk page that I had made some small changes to this section, and later explained the reasons for these changes.

One of the edits I made to @CFynn:'s suggestion was for a typo.

Another change I made was to do with changing Dholgyal to Dorje - which has also been addressed (we cannot redirect to a link that then redirects again (i.e. Dholgyal Shugden redirects to Dorje Shugden).

However, the important point is that VictoriaGrayson, did not revert my version to Chris' version. Nor did this editor make any attempt at editing the section on the Dorje Shugden controversy to try and improve it. Nor did they express their concerns with my specific changes on the talk page (e.g. deity vs spirit etc). Instead the entire section was simply removed! And this happened a number of times. Personally I would question this approach, especially since it was so clear that consensus had been reached at including a section on the Dorje Shugden controversy in this article. Perhaps one of the moderators could offer some advice here (for both of us)? Thanks in advance :) Kjangdom (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom admits "However, the precise wording of the section was not agreed upon." I rest my case.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

That is irrelevant! There are no Misplaced Pages guideline that say that the precise wording of a section has to be agreed on on a talk page before an edit is made. This approach would clearly stifle editing across the board. I don't really want to get drawn into any more debate here. I will however keep an eye out for when a moderator replies. Thanks again. Kjangdom (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Kjangdom is warned that they may be blocked if they revert the article again. I count four reverts on 5 June but it is now too late to issue a block for that. People have been claiming talk page consensus but I don't see it; I recommend a more thorough discussion and briefer statements. See WP:Dispute resolution for some options to consider if you can't reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User: 217.208.57.69 reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Blocked)

Page: Plasma cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.208.57.69 (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:

The IP is also spamming similar fringe material over multiple other articles - see contribution history. Clearly unwilling to abide by Misplaced Pages policy, and only here to promote a fringe POV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. CIreland (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

User:CurtisNaito and I have both breeched 3RR on Emperor Jimmu (Result: Locked)

CurtisNaito has reverted me 6 times in the last 24 hours. I've done roughly the same backIt's already been established on the talkpage that the material he wishes to add is WP:UNSOURCED (the source he is citing don't support his claims). I have asked him to use the talk page, but in over two weeks he has only repeatedly riffed on "this material IS sourced" without actually addressing other users's concerns. I think that WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD support my claim that the material should stay out until talkpage consensus is established, but if we both are to be blocked, DON'T block my current (dynamic) IP. Block the one beginning "126..." 182.249.240.36 (talk) 00:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected (full) for one week. The report is malformed, and the IP failed to notify the reported user (I've done so). That said, everyone is edit-warring and discussing the issues on the talk page. Now, they will have to stick to the talk page as they should have done in the first place.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Tilkat reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rahil Gupta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) to 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 06:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) to 02:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 02:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 02:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC) ""
4. 16:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC) to 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 15:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "r"
   2. 15:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC) "e"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Rahil Gupta. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I'd suggest not letting this one go on account of the editor no longer appearing to edit: duties seem to have been assumed by Shaney 43 (talk · contribs). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Tilkat back in action, removing the AfD template: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• While you're at it: please look also at Arjun7007 (talk · contribs), same article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
• Blocked. Tilkat and Shaney have been indeffed for sock puppetry by Jpgordon. Arjun7007 has been blocked for 48 hours by Excirial for vandalism.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

User:WhyHellWhy reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: Blocked; warned)

Page: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WhyHellWhy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

7. Edit summary: "I will not back down..."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Also:

Comments:

Straight forward violation of 3RR and POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• I believe that that first diff isn't a revert, but the initial disputed change. The other seven are reverts though, I believe, and seven reverts goes far beyond simply breaking the three-revert rule. Dustin (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd request that the sysop that reviews this fellow's case look at his whole edit history. He has a strong history of tendentious editing in areas relating to the conflict in Ukraine, and has been repeatedly disruptive across many articles for a few months now. This is only the latest of his many spates of disruptive editing. RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. The reported user was blocked for violating 3RR and for agenda-driven editing. RGloucester, with your last edit reverting to "talk page consensus" you violated 3RR. Consider this a warning that if you revert again at the article for up to three days from now, you risk being blocked. As for your suggestion about general disruptive editing, that is generally not a topic for this board.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:151.66.43.155 reported by User:Jeffro77 (Result: Semi-protected; blocked)

Page: Rolf Furuli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 151.66.43.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 151.66.120.59 (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: The anonymous single-purpose editor has made no attempt to provide an edit summary or to respond to warnings at User Talk, so raising at article Talk would have been futile.

Comments:
The editor's IP has changed during their edits, but it is clear that they are the by the same person, and they geolocate to the same ISP and location.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It is the same anonymous user as 151.66.113.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who engaged in the same behaviour from 31 March until 4 April. See previous ANI and previous 3RR.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

When reported in the past, the user's response has been to vandalise my User page and the User page of the admin who blocked him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Note. I semi-protected the article for three months. I blocked the IP who most recently edited the article for two weeks (the other hasn't edited since June 2).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protecting the article. It's fairly evident that the anonymous editor is on a dynamic IP, so the block on the user will only help for a few days.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:86.138.156.214 reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: No action)

Page

Tiny Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612108395 by Davey2010 (talk) Failure to do this on my talk page will result in blocking me and protecting this page."
2. 18:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612107988 by Davey2010 (talk) go to User talk:86.138.156.214#Pop for a further debate. NOT the article talk page."
3. 18:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612107363 by Davey2010 (talk)  —SMALLJIM&nbsp told me to do this."
4. 18:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612107101 by Davey2010 (talk) Since when did I say stuff about twitter? I just said "please see User talk:86.138.156.214#Pop for the full discussion. Twitter is NOT mentioned."
5. 17:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612106584 by Davey2010 (talk) Again, please look at User talk:86.138.156.214#Pop for the full discussion."
6. 17:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612106438 by Davey2010 (talk) Please see User talk:86.138.156.214."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tiny Pop. (TW)"
2. 18:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Tiny Pop. (TW)"
3. 18:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Tiny Pop. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Non notable programmes */ new section"
2. 18:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Non notable programmes */ re"

Comments:

The IP seems to keep adding a non notable programme to the article despite it not being notable, I've attempted to discuss the issue and even made a suggestion but with no success, Cheers →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame that I was called away before this broke out. I had just started a discussion about a related edit with the IP. There seems to be misunderstanding on both sides here. I don't think any action needs to be taken – I'll attempt to explain to both parties on Talk:Tiny Pop.  —SMALLJIM  19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The IP continued to revert despite a discussion and thus broke 3rr, And as far as I can see I've not misunderstood nothing, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Without realizing till just now .... I've also broken the 3rr, But since there's hopefully going to be a discussion with the above 2 editors about it - Would it be a good idea to close this ?, Thanks →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
• No action taken. No disruption since Smalljim initiated the discussion at Talk:Tiny Pop. Further reverts may result in a block. Seek dispute resolution if there is no consensus. — MusikAnimal 20:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks MusikAnimal - This is a lesson I've certainly learnt :) Anyway thanks, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:Retrohead (Result: Both warned)

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: Megadeth discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lukejordan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: my talk page & his talk page

Comments:
The user has been removing cited material without previously achieved consensus. The page is already an FA, and any edit warring may question its stability. I've tried to communicate with the other party, but he continues with the edits which I disagree with.--Retrohead (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is full of crap about trying to solve dispute on talk page as I left him a message not 1 hour ago about discussing the edits, I haven't received a reply and the next minute I get a message to inform of this. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have explained my reason for my edits and the way this he says "which I disagree with" makes it sound like I just don't like it. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I enjoy editing Misplaced Pages with the best interests for the page and my goal is to improve pages not worsen them if look at my edit history you will see countless edits on UFC pages removing vandalism and adding the latest results and I am trying to tidy up and improve discography pages to make them as simple and clear whilst keeping all of the relevant and important information, I am deeply upset that this user has felt the need to report me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Warned, both having broken the three-revert rule. A further revert by either party may result in a block. Use the article's talk page to discuss the matter. Seek dispute resolution if there is no consensus. — MusikAnimal 19:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

MusikAnimal, can you revert to the revision before the warring occurred?--Retrohead (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't even believe what I am reading above you are just asking animal to revert for you because you have been told not to, the page should be left well alone until a discussion is made. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Retrohead: Why don't you just discuss it and together decide which version to use? They do not differ in a way that has a dramatic effect on the reader. Other admins may have blocked you both, but blocks are a preventive measure, not a punishment. I trust that you both can sort the dispute out peacefully. Remember there is always dispute resolution. You can call upon other editors to join the discussion if need be, perhaps via a request for comment. — MusikAnimal 20:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The burden is on him to achieve consensus since he is initiating the changes, not the other way round. And I could see that user reported again in near future judging by his vocabulary and aggressive behavior.--Retrohead (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I have said so...... many times before I am willing to discuss the edits and I think that is best so any disagreements and misunderstandings can be cleared up it is you who is refusing to cooperate in discussing the matter.

You should be grateful that animal hasn't blocked us both, I am and want to discuss and get the matter sorted not play the blame game and try to shift the responsibility on to someone else. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

User:AzraeL9128 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AzraeL9128 (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:

Previous warning on talk page concerning personal attacks .

This user could potentially be the same person as who made essentially the same edit earlier and then reverted three times before AzraeL9128 jumped in. The rhetoric in the personal attacks that the user was previously warned about resembles the comments by 2A02 on the talk page of this article. Regardless, even if not, there's a 3RR violation here. Note that AzraeL9128 has failed to participate in the talk page discussion (that's if 2A02 is not him).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:61.245.160.221 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Protected )

Page

American Academy of Financial Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Please address the issue raised at the talk page rather than accusing others of controlling the article."
2. 05:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612170095 by NeilN (talk)But still that is single source."
3. 05:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612171230 by NeilN (talk)So? please discuss on the Talk Page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on American Academy of Financial Management. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Single Source */"
2. 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Single Source */"

Comments:

One more with different IP. NeilN 05:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

A team of editors who are showing 3RR for other editors to silence them while they themselves group together to evade 3RR and super impose their POV on the article.61.245.160.221 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation: Editors with no COI looking after an article plagued by socks and whitewashing. --NeilN 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, editors representing the AAFM have attempted numerous times to control this article. A number of socks have been blocked, and I have no doubt that these IPs represent the same editors. BMK (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

If we represent the AAFM, why you can't represent the two previous directors, King and Baring, took the founder of the AAFM, George Mentz, to court for libel, slander and defamation after he made numerous claims publicly on various websites about them and their business activities..61.245.163.56 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, not to be too obvious about it, because the editors who are reverting your changes have a track record which you cannot duplicate.

NeilN, for instance, has been here since 2005, and has almost 60,000 edit to articles and to almost 23,000 pages, while I have around 144,000 edits to about 29,000 pages. If you want to make the argument that we are under the control of King and Baring, you go right ahead and do so, only I think you had better wear ear protection for tne disdainful response you'll receive. BMK (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Page protected the panda ₯’ 10:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Alaminalpha reported by User:HangingCurve (Result: )

Page

Sani Abacha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) to 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611234829 by Faizan (talk)"
   2. 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610246074 by HangingCurve (talk)"
2. 23:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612141194 by HangingCurve (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) to 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
   1. 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Sani Abacha. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is baldly reverting to a WP:PEA--laden version of the article. While normal practice calls for this to be resolved at the talk page, since the reverted version borders on vandalism I'm taking it here. HangingCurve 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:Retrohead (Result: )

Page: UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lukejordan02 (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: I'm not involved in this case, so I haven't initiated a discussion.--Retrohead (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Comments:

This user is now falsifying cases having got into a edit war with this user via Megadeth discography which resulted in us both being blocked the first thing this user decides to do after being unblocked is to make up a case about me I want a full investigation into this user please, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

As anyone who checks out the links will see, most of the revisions I did was reverting vandalism which is not apart of the 3RR. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

This user is also sending messages to my talk page without reason

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Retrohead (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014 Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Retrohead (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1 I am not currently engaged in an edit war and 2 my edits haven't been reverted as my edits were good as, reflected by 3 other editors who sent me thanks for them. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

He has since sent me another claiming I have personally attacked him on here, Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reporting https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Catflap08 for persistently edit warring on the Nichiren Shoshu page

User:Catflap08 reported by ] (Result: )

Page: Template:Https://en.wikipedia.org/Nichiren Shoshu
User being reported: Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring