Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:15, 27 November 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.

User: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker blocked for 24 hours, Jmh649 warned)

Page: Cough medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (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 first one is not a revert it is simply moving content around. In fact, Doc James reverted every try I made to reorganize the page. There is already ongoing discussion on the talk page which Doc James is making very difficult, so I wanted to make some unobtrusive reorganization. In fact in the first edit he calls a revert I _ADDED_ references. Do I need to supply links for proof? I can. Doc James immediately reverted each one of my edits - only 3 of my edits were reverts, and they were of HIS reverts to my changes. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

• Additionally his link to "trying to resolve the dispute" predates any of his diffs of changes, and was a discussion started by ME because he kept reverting my changes. He did not even engage in the discussion he linked to today. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: Reporter (User:Jmh649) is throwing a Boomerang:

Cheers.TMCk (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In the first edit was fixing the concern raised in the edit summary which was surrouding the heading which I agree was not good. The policy supporting its inclusion is at WP:MEDMOS as brought up here were there was support for its conclusions.

With respect to my other three reverts. The user in question was rearranging the article against WP:MEDMOS recommendations. Additionally they removed the best available evidence from the lead against WP:LEAD which is this 2012 Cochrane review Smith, SM (2012 Aug 15). "Over-the-counter (OTC) medications for acute cough in children and adults in ambulatory settings". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 8: CD001831. PMID 22895922. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). This even though consensus on the talk page was against doing so So currently now all the best avaliable evidence has been moved to a section called "contraindications" when really it deals with effectiveness.

So yes if the first edit counts as a revert there was only 23:26 minutes between these four edits. Lost track of time. Thus my apologies and I will be more careful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how rearranging content and adding references can count as a 'revert'. That is really really pushing it. Besides that, my edits actually brought it more in like with WP:MEDMOS, even though I was unaware of it. Now, with my latest edit , it is even more in line with it - the topic headings weren't even in line with the specification previously. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

My attention was drawn to this article after a public notice at WT:MEDICINE, and I haven't been involved in these content disputes brought up here. I note that The Magnificent Clean-keeper is personally involved in the content dispute regarding the first of Doc's edits listed (the removal of the content regarding "counterfeit" cough syrup), TMCk reverted it back here, and there are others reverting. There are also active Talk page discussions. Suggest considering applying full protection for a bit as the way to go, as happened recently at Electronic cigarette with a productive outcome. Zad68 17:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the point of your comment in regards to me??? Yesterday I made 1 single revert and today I changed the title of the section in question. Are you implying that I'm involved in the edit warring as well?TMCk (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TMCk, my point is that there's more than just two editors involved here: I count--over the last 24 or so hours--five editors involved in reverting article content back and forth across at least two (arguably more) different content areas, and as you state you're one of those involved in doing the reverting. There are active Talk page discussions, the discussion concerning the content you reverted is here, consider joining it. The purpose of the 3RRNB isn't to get editors blocked, it's to get editors to stop reverting and start using the Talk page. It's normal when there's lots of reverting involving multiple editors to full-protect the article instead of handing out multiple blocks, especially when there's evidence of willingness to use the Talk page. I don't want to see you blocked, I don't want to see anybody blocked, I don't think this is a case where blocks would be productive. I am just making these comments for the closing admin to consider. Zad68 18:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Too much nonsense. You won't see me blocked b/c I do not edit war. And BTW, I suggested article protection for the e-cigarette article instead of blocking 2 editors. So you see, I'm far ahead of you. Cheers.TMCk (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Zad68 I agree with you. You will notice that the discussion on the talk page was started by me, even though Doc James used it for his "attempt to resolve this dispute". My changes to the page, though, were uncontroversial and just reordering and ADDING of references. Rather than look at the changes and discuss them on the talk page, Doc James just blindly reverted them. I agree that things should be discussed on the talk page if there is disagreement but Doc James has persistently ignored consensus and ignored the many people who feel differently on the talk page, simply restating the same nonsense arguments over and over. Because he is on here more than anyone else, he tends to have his way, and others tend to give up. One person disagrees with him, he has his way, they get fed up and leave. Repeat. What you have is a lot of people who disagree with him but who are never on wikipedia at the same time. But that's not an issue to discuss here. IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Result: IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker blocked for 24 hours. I was in the process of reviewing this case, and considering either taking no action (as the immediate, heavy edit warring seemed to have stopped) or perhaps protecting per Zad68's suggestion. However, I then noticed that IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker had resumed reverting. I felt that the best course of action was to block IWannaPeterPumpkinEaterPeterParker for 24 hours. There has been quite a lot of edit warring on this article, and I think that Jmh649 is probably as culpable as the editor I blocked. However, given that he seemed to have stopped since this report was filed, I have chosen just to issue him with a warning. I do believe that if he reverts again, a block would be in order. I hope this resolves the matter but, if it doesn't, and other parties continue to be heavily involved, then page protection may be the next step. TigerShark (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

User:BlackHades reported by User:Aprock (Result: No action)

Page: Race and genetics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BlackHades (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:10, November 23, 2013: Undid revision 582967160 by Aprock (talk) When reverting, I would recommend actually looking up the sources instead of going by pure speculation regarding its content.
2. 23:38, November 23, 2013: Undid revision 583059486 by ArtifexMayhem (talk) Specification discussions regarding race and genetic variation involving Fst is not germane to the topic section?
3. 23:57, November 23, 2013: Undid revision 583060263 by ArtifexMayhem (talk) It carries as much WP:WEIGHT as anything else in that section. A little more care should be taken when deleting relevant content.
4. 03:39, November 24, 2013: Fair enough. The Henry Harpending source however would not be an interview statement so I restored that section. Regarding Aprock's recent tag, source is verified so I removed the tag.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:35, June 22, 2013

Other indications that BlackHades is familiar with policy and procedure regarding edit warring.

• 21:51, June 22, 2013: BlackHades filing an AN3 report for Race and genetics.
• 20:42, July 18, 2013: BlackHades filing an AE report for Race and genetics.
• 12:51, August 1, 2013: Warning another user about edit warring.
• 14:26, November 22, 2013‎: BlackHades demonstrating knowledge of WP:ARBR&I discresionary sanctions.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Observation: BlackHades extensive special pleading below indicates that he feels that the bright line of WP:3RR does not apply to him. aprock (talk) 23:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

The talk page discussion was not constructive from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aprock (talk • contribs)

Comment Aprock is completely misrepresenting the situation. These edits are not even related to each other.

The 1st edit listed was when I restored a citation that Aprock removed for what seemed invalid based on Aprock's edit summary. Aprock implies in his edit summary that he didn't even bothering looking up the source to check if his speculation is correct or not. This is the one and only revert I ever did on this citation. I then opened up a talk page discussion regarding this citation in which I later clearly stated that I have no intention of restoring this citation.

Regarding the 2nd edit, ArtifexMayhem deleted the paragraph on Fst because he thought that the sources were not related to the article of race and genetics. I pointed out to ArtifexMayhem in his talk page that the sources are indeed directly related to race and genetics, in which ArtifexMayhem has yet to respond back to. This is also the one and only revert I ever did regarding the Fst paragraph.

Regarding the 3rd & 4th edit, ArtifexMayhem deleted the paragraph on Risch and Harpending. I restored the Risch and Harpending paragraph. This paragraph has been in the article for years without dispute, and based on ArtifexMayhem's reasons for deletion, it didn't appear as though the sources should have any less weight than any other source that currently exists. Maunus then reverted my 3rd edit.. Maunus wrote in his edit summary "interview statements do not carry as much weight as peerreviewed articles and this is way undue". I accepted Maunus' reason for reverting. But Maunus' reason would only apply to Risch. Risch is an interview statement but the Harpending source is not and is a publication in a peer review journal. As Maunus' reason for deletion only applies to the Risch source, I restored Harpending but not Risch. Hence the reason I gave in my edit summary of the 4th edit "Fair enough. The Henry Harpending source however would not be an interview statement so I restored that section."

These edits involve 3 completely separate topics that are unrelated to each other. The 1st edit (citation) in which I clearly stated I have no intention of restoring. The 2nd edit (Fst paragraph) in which ArtifexMayhem appear to make an incorrect assessment in which no one else have yet to argue in support of. The 3rd & 4th edits (Risch and Harpending), this is the only one where I made even a 2nd revert and it was a partial one at that. Which should be clearly understandable given the situation. BlackHades (talk) 22:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

For the second time; No, I do not " that the sources were not related to the article of race and genetics". Please don't accuse me of being ignorant of the subject matter. You might also want to read the information at the top of this page. E.g., "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." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If you feel I misinterpreted your reason, I apologize. Regarding the information at the top, if we're talking about going strictly by it, perhaps I did technically go over it but that was by no means intention. It is more difficult to keep track of how many edits you're on when it's involving several different issues and parts of the page rather than if it was on a singular issue. I didn't realize the last edit would put me over 3RR or else I wouldn't have done it. I've been editing for over 4 years and never received a block for 3RR and it wasn't my intent to edit war. I will certainly be more careful and be more mindful on how many edits I've made from hereon. BlackHades (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Result: No action. The reverting seems to have stopped and the parties have been having some discussions on the talk page, so hopefully the presence of this report has cooled things. I will leave the parties a note, pointing at that any further warring (regardless of how few reverts take place) may result in immediate blocks. TigerShark (talk) 16:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Blurred Lines reported by User:AmericanDad86 (Result: 48 hours)

• Page: The Simpsons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Blurred Lines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

User BlurredLines has been edit warring against three other editors who disagree with him at The Simpsons article and is also engaging in incivility. These editors are myself, User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda22 as shown in the above. Actually, Blurred Lines was originally just edit warring with WikiAnthony and Grapesoda22. I only got involved because I detected the long barrage of warnings for "disruptive edits" that Blurred Lines had flooded Grapesoda and WikiAnthony's talkpages up with (as shown here , here, here , here ). Mind you, all this is in despite of the fact that it is BlurredLines who is the one edit warring against everybody at the article (as shown here at The Simpsons article history ). After being witness to all of Blurred Lines' edit warring and uncalled-for stream of warnings to everyone, I tried to step in as liaison with hopes to resolve the matter. I analyzed the edit in question and determined that I agreed with the two editors, also making sure to provide a source. BlurredLines didn't take kindly to that as shown here in his petulant announcement to wikibreak from Misplaced Pages instead of discuss the matter maturely with everyone if he had a disagreement (as shown here ). With that, we're all under the impression that the edit is no longer in contention since he's wikebreaking. A day later, I come back to see that Blurred Lines has announced that his "wikibreak" is over (as shown here ) and then reverts the edit that three people have shown disagreement with him on without him seeking consensus (as shown here ). As no one knows when this editor is and is off break, retired or when he's going to hissy fit at editors that don't agree with him, it's tremendously difficult to have a constructive discussion with him to seek consensus. At this point the editor is displaying article ownership and refusing to constructively discuss the matter with three other editors, myself included. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Note Your edits that you made were not reliable, as of what I said on the talk page of the Simpsons. No, you did not contact me whatsoever to discuss this issue, I started a discussion on the talk page of the article, but somehow either you ignored it, or you knew about it, and didn't even care to discuss the kind of matter that we are having. Yes, those edits made by those users were disruptive, as WikiAnthony was adding the logo on the article, which in my opinion I think that it's clearly disruptive, as it wasn't inserted in before, and it doesn't even look right in the infobox. There were also edits made my Grapesoda22 that were disruptive, as the user kept adding the adult genre without a source, in which of the fact that you wanted to defend him by adding a non reliable source that was just a search from Google. I made all of these points on the article's talk page, instead of jumping to here, we can all be mature users here, and resolve this matter. Also, how exactly am I refusing to constructively discuss the matter with three other editors, yourself included, hours ago I started a discussion on the talk page of the article, in which I said before, you didn't care to respond to it. Actually, no, I am not "against everybody", the only people I'm against is users who are too disruptive on an article just so they can prove a point, and that means you dude. Also, I did not pass the 3RR those days, as it was pass 24 hours, so obviously this kind of matter should be discuss, instead of speedy reporting. Blurred Lines 22:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Ananiujitha reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Prognosis */ restore huh tag. the version you think is grammatical is incoherent, that's why I asked on the talk page, checked the sources, and rewrote it. then you trashed my perfectly good work."
2. 16:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583225359 by Laser brain (talk) rv reversion. I turned incoherent text into clear text after checking the source."
3. 22:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Prognosis */ clarified, having checked source"
4. 16:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Prognosis */ is this something autistic people lack, or are deprived of...?"
5. 16:41, 24 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583108129 by SandyGeorgia (talk) rv. very necessary. at present the article is horribly pathologizing and dismissive of the people it's about."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "please stop edit warring now"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) "/* The entire article is hateful towards autistic people, and treats our differences as a disease. */"
2. 04:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC) on Talk:Autism "Archiving 3 discussion(s) to Talk:Autism/Archive 14) (bot"

Comments:

This is a new user, who has been warned, and seems to be engaging on the talk page, but, is continuing to edit war. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

User:184.91.62.109 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 72 hours)

Page

Snopes.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583306204 by Gamaliel (talk)"
2. 23:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Accuracy */ Only opinion with no factual or credible backup."
3. 20:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Accuracy */ disputes the accuracy through Supreme Court Documents. Also disputes accuracy of the william ayers situation. If needed far more discrepancies can be listed or a separate category can be added. Snopes is bias as well as factcheck."
4. 08:24, 24 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Accuracy */ statements from the subject about themselves is not an acceptable standard. Snopes has been debunked as far as politics is concerned. There are many more references if needed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Snopes.com. (TW)"
2. 23:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "edit warring at snopes.com"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

There are three other edits that fall outside of the 24 hr window. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 72 hours. Edit warring and apparent POV-pushing. The IP has removed well-sourced material that he seems to have personal disagreement with. EdJohnston (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:117.90.241.193 reported by User:JohnBlackburne (Result: Semi)

Page

List of tallest buildings in the world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted 2nd damaging vandalising POV by John Blackburn. Prior to 1997, Hong Kong would have been able to be listed under "country," but after the year 1997 Hong Kong's ownership was transferred from the United Kingdom to China Hong Kong is part of China"
2. 00:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "That GDP is list is also factually incorrect and needs to be corrected as Hong Kong, China, you people are destroying the accuracy of Misplaced Pages. It is an indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a self-governed city belonging to China, unlike your beliefs!"
3. 00:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, but it is NOT a country. The category you guys are trying to list Hong Kong under is "Country" of which Hong Kong does not qualify because Hong Kong is just an autonomous self-governed city of China"
4. 23:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted damaging inaccurate edits from Baseball Watcher that are laced with false information. Hong Kong is a city and territory of China. This is official and recognized by the United Nations. To list Hong Kong as a "country" is vandalism and POV"
5. 23:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted POV pushing by John Blackburn to non-POV version. Everyone can go google Hong Kong and see the accurate indisputable fact that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (aka. Territory) of the country of China. Hong Kong is NOT a country!"
6. 22:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC) "Reverted to correct factual non-pov version from previous POV edits that were pushed by Thomas. W who is trying to push his Hong Kong nationalistic and separatist pov by trying to list Hong Kong as a "country" when it is not. Hong Kong is a city of China!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of tallest buildings in the world . (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

There are several users: Thomas W., John Blackburn and Baseball Watcher who are trying to push there Hong Kong separatist POV that Hong Kong is supposed to be a "country" when the indeniable fact is that Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China, it is officially a city and territory belonging to the mother country of China and as such in order to maintain truthful accuracy and non-POV it is necessary to list Hong Kong under it's mother country of China. Hong Kong by itself is NOT and has NEVER in it's entire history of existence been a so-called "country" and what these Hong Kong separatists are trying to do is destroying the accuracy of Misplaced Pages as a repository of truthful information. Please intervene and feel free to read about Hong Kong and confirm for yourself that it is just a SAR of the People's Republic of China and NOT a country. Thanks! 117.90.241.193 (talk) 00:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Two points. They all appear to be edit warring. Hong Kong is part of China. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one year. The protection log shows this is a long-term problem. I don't know why Pending Changes didn't prevent the IP's reverts. But in general I believe Pending Changes is better against drive-by vandalism than for long-term POV pushing. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Thainguyencc reported by User:Hell in a Bucket (Result: 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I also believe the user was also using an IP for this dispute ]. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and my request ] It appears that it is only being objected by one user. Full protection might be needed.

The biggest problem I see is it's being claimed it's a fake map but no improvements are being suggested but the fact that I also believe the reported user was previously the IP complicates matters. I myself am up against the 3rr barrier so I am taking it here.

What do you think if a map not show California, Texas... are not an English-speaking areas without source? --Thainguyencc (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Comments

The actual issue at hand is a bit dicey. Knowing where to look, one can find the source, but it is poorly explained. Thainquyencc may be over 3RR, Hell in a Bucket definitely is is at three - there's no way to cast either edit as clear vandalism or anything. Protection is probably more appropriate than blocks for everyone. WilyD 14:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually reverted 3 times as it appears to be an unsupported change. The 4th edit you see is a revert of a modification to the protection template ] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this is correct - there's a fourth revert of someone else in the jumble of reverts, HIAB is at three reverts, not four. WilyD 14:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

And ] the changes continue. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I replaced by a new map, and added source, not revert.--Thainguyencc (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

As I have stated on the talkpage "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." this is directly from the 3rr policy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours for edit warring. It looks like Thainguyencc began the edit war using IP addresses and then continued with his registered account after semiprotection was imposed. It is fair to add up all his reverts when deciding on sanctions. In this edit he put the words "Kwamikagami's fake image" into the text of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Zavtek reported by User:IJA (Result: Blocked)

Page: Hiking in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zavtek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

This user is a suspected WP:SOCK: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. This user was also topic banned from all Kosovo related articles. IJA (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

To the person dealing with the issue, I have self-reverted and that is how the article shall remain. Zavtek (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Since Zavtek is a sock, a block is inevitable, one way or the other. bobrayner (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely at WP:SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

3. . This revision was done by anonymous user, however, Shervinsky put his nickname instead of the IP as showed in this diff.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I tried to discuss the issue at the talk page, and suggested to user Shervinsky to prove his statement by providing a reliable reference, but he refused to do so continuing editing war.

--Andrux (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I myself started the discussion but have been involved into an edit war by users who don't even react to arguments by pure claiming they are "not convincing". Please make users participate in the discussion. --Shervinsky (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Shervinsky's contributions in the past have been nothing less than argumentative, uncivil and based on dubious editing practices. I would be more than happy to provide examples of lengthy discourses and attacks on editors rather than content in the past should it be required. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Aless2899 reported by User:DESiegel (Result: )

Page: Societal attitudes toward homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aless2899 (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:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Societal attitudes toward homosexuality#Use of File:Status of gay persons.jpg (entire section is about this one item.

Comments:

Entire issue consists of repeated insertions of File:Status of gay persons.jpg. See talk page and user page reasons given for not using this policy-violating image. DES 23:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

DESiegel, you did not give Aless2899 a WP:Edit war warning; notifying Aless2899 of this report is not a warning. Aless2899 is a WP:Newbie, obviously; WP:Newbies usually do WP:Edit war until they come to truly understand how this site is supposed to work (and even then some of them carry on with their WP:Edit warring reputation after finally becoming experienced Misplaced Pages editors). Flyer22 (talk) 00:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough I was perhaps too quick on the trigger, although this talk-page warning came prior to his last revert. But he seems to be engaging on the article talk page now, and not continuing to revent, which is the important thing. DES 00:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Since this new editor was almost certainly not aware of our edit warring policy, I suggest that this be closed with no action. - MrX 04:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FilmandTVFan28 reported by User:Two kinds of pork (Result: )

Page

Tara Platt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

FilmandTVFan28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Threats are not allowed."
2. 04:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 583483609 by Two kinds of pork (talk)"
3. 02:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "Her filmography is correct. Please do not attempt to undo it. I don't want to have anymore problems again."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

I've been through this with him before last week, so it's not like I haven't tried to talk to him already.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

This editor apparently doesn't appear to understand that we require sources for all articles, especially for BLPs. Can someone please try and explain this to him? I've notified the BLP board about this article. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring