Adding new report for 207.161.234.111. (TW) |
207.161.234.111 (talk) Undid revision 696466417 by Dan Koehl (talk) |
||
Line 402: | Line 402: | ||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
||
# {{diff2|696460224|08:39, 23 december 2015 (UTC)}} "General note: Removal of content, blanking on [[Lovifm music]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
# {{diff2|696460224|08:39, 23 december 2015 (UTC)}} "General note: Removal of content, blanking on [[Lovifm music]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
||
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
|||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
|||
== [[User:207.161.234.111]] reported by [[User:Dan Koehl]] (Result: ) == |
|||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Konami}} |
|||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|207.161.234.111}} |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
|||
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
|||
# {{diff2|696466145|09:49, 23 december 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 696465994 by [[Special:Contributions/Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]]) This has been disputed in talk." |
|||
# {{diff2|696465198|09:40, 23 december 2015 (UTC)}} "Deemed Undue weight on Talk page [[WP:CONSENSUS]]" |
|||
# {{diff2|696465064|09:38, 23 december 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 696394035 by [[Special:Contributions/Elephanthunter|Elephanthunter]] ([[User talk:Elephanthunter|talk]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|696361953|17:04, 22 december 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Criticism and Controversy */ Undue weight" |
|||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
|||
# {{diff2|696465119|09:39, 23 december 2015 (UTC)}} "Welcome to Wikipedia! ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
Revision as of 10:00, 23 December 2015
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:101.182.142.136 and User:101.189.22.150 (appears to be the same user) reported by User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (Result: Semi)
- Page
- Professional wrestling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 101.182.142.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 101.189.22.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 07:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "removing unsourced information"
- 22:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) "no such decisions"
- 07:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision: no such decision"
- 00:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision: that's vandalism"
- 23:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision: reverting actual vandalism"
- 06:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision: prove it - until then it's vandalism"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
The user(s) has undone repeated revisions resulting in an edit war between him and several users, including myself, which I have attempted to avoid. The user(s), 101.182.142.136 / 101.189.22.150, appear to be the same person based on editing patterns and hostility toward myself and other editors. The user appears to be undoing all edits in an attempt to maintain possibly vandalized/inaccurate version, while accusing edits from several editors of being vandalism when they clearly are in good faith. Another user (The Jobber is Here) attempted to move discussion of topic onto the talk page for discussion/consensus, but also had his smaller revision undone and the the user refuses to come to any consensus or allow any further editing or corrections. The user repeatedly has replaced unsourced information within the article with other unsourced information. I have asked the user to cease the vandalizing revisions/removals, but the user continues to undo edits and accuses anyone who undoes his editing of vandalization. WHWC (talk) 09:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- My reversions are correct as the edits being placed are original research. No sources have been provided. If I am edit warring then so is the reporting user because he is not listening and understanding that original research is prohibited on Wikipedia. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months due to edit warring by IP-hopper. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Incorrect decision as now controversial information has been added that is unsourced and I can't remove it per WP:OR, and edit war is not resolved at all. He is simply taking advantage of your decision to semi protect the page knowing that I can't do anything about it. You've been used by an OR vandal. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Try to reach agreement on the talk page. It is unclear whether either side of this dispute has sources to back up their views. EdJohnston (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
- Incorrect decision as now controversial information has been added that is unsourced and I can't remove it per WP:OR, and edit war is not resolved at all. He is simply taking advantage of your decision to semi protect the page knowing that I can't do anything about it. You've been used by an OR vandal. 101.189.22.150 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
The edit war has continued, with the IP side being taken up by Mega Z090, who I had already filed a Sockpuppet investigation against (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mega Z090), as he appears to use the registered account and the various 101 IPs to give the appearance of extra support in disputes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would agree as well that they may be Sockpuppets with Mega Z090. I'd have reported him for warring earlier, but I originally thought it was two different IPs, though he later admitted he had used the multiple IPs unintentionally. It's not just the similar positions, but also the very similar irrationally uncivil tones and editing. I think it might just be a very persistent troll. WHWC (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the two sides continue to revert while nobody provides genuine sources, based on links that work, it may be necessary to fully protect the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:113.169.194.187 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Semi)
Page: Pia Wurtzbach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:113.169.194.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
OR text removed not in link cited. Quis separabit? 02:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC) Diff of edit warring/3RR warning: [8] (done out of order but IP will not engage in any way, anyway) Quis separabit? 01:59, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
- Result: Semiprotected two months due to edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
User:2.48.132.253 reported by User:KylieTastic (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Muhammad and messianic prophecy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2.48.132.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid unhelpful edit"
- 10:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Reverted bad faith edit"
- 10:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696170785 by Vansockslayer (talk)"
- 10:54, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid vandalism by a meat puppet"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Had issue with 'same' editor in the past see ANI report and ANI report KylieTastic (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
User:66.87.103.106 reported by User:Caballero1967 (Result: Semi)
- Page
- W. Craig Jelinek (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 66.87.103.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 10:25, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+34) . . W. Craig Jelinek (I'll keep editing.) (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
- 09:47, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+64) . . W. Craig Jelinek (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)
- 09:47, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+24) . . W. Craig Jelinek (Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)]
- 09:46, December 21, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-13) . . W. Craig Jelinek (Keep deleting these facts I'm screenshots get it everytime.)(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit, Visual edit)]
- Comments:
I was alerted to the possible vandalism or disruptive editing of user: 66.87.103.106 when the edit warring had already begun. I advised the user to follow instructions in sourcing and explaining the material, but she/he decided not to follow advice, and as you can see above, decided instead to "keep editing." The user has already surpassed the three edit rule WP:3R. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- If the disruptive editing stops, I will withdraw this case in two hours. I have requested a page protection, and perhaps that would be more effective. Caballero/Historiador (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- The pages has been protected, and I think this would be the best route. The user seemed obsessed only with this page. So, I am withdrawing the case. Thanks.
- Result: Article semiprotected one week by User:BethNaught for violations of WP:BLP. EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! Caballero/Historiador (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Aeonx reported by User:Doc James (Result: )
Page: A2 milk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aeonx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]
Comments:
While this article is has being worked on by a paid editor from the company in question User:Aeonx states he is not paid but a consumer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Reply: I believe Doc James is making this personal because he disagrees with the viewpoint that A2 Milk may in fact be helpful. Furthermore, if you read the talkpage, there apparently USED to be someone that was a former employee of the company (but this is no longer the case). This is just another indicator that Doc is simply trying to push a POV and claim I'm a paid employee - I again will state I have no connection to any A2 Milk or any milk related company. Also please review the diffs above carefully, I have not even made 4 reverts that violate the WP:3RR; there is at most 2, the others were adding content which I opened for discussion in talk, noting Doc only provided talk and Warning AFTER the first 3 diffs. IMO user:Doc James does not show behaviour consistent with a WP admin - this should be looked at. Aeonx (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I am misreading him, Doc James is repeating a claim that a paid editor is still editing the A2 article. If so, and he is referring to me, it looks like a deliberate act of mischief-making. At this edit on 21 December I made quite clear that the financial arrangement I'd previously had with the A2 Milk Company to expand the article was long finished. I had declared my payment in July 2014 and removed the notice in January 2015. If it is not me whom Doc James is maligning, who is it? BlackCab (TALK) 09:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thks for clarifying User:BlackCab. Have adjusted is to has. Missed that comment when writing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Unless I am misreading him, Doc James is repeating a claim that a paid editor is still editing the A2 article. If so, and he is referring to me, it looks like a deliberate act of mischief-making. At this edit on 21 December I made quite clear that the financial arrangement I'd previously had with the A2 Milk Company to expand the article was long finished. I had declared my payment in July 2014 and removed the notice in January 2015. If it is not me whom Doc James is maligning, who is it? BlackCab (TALK) 09:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Invisiboy42293 reported by User:Sir Joseph (Result: )
- Page
- Shlock Rock (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Invisiboy42293 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 04:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* top */"
- 04:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696290941 by Sir Joseph (talk) Formed in America, sings in English, covers American pop songs. Also, Jewish rock is a new article."
- 05:12, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696292024 by Sir Joseph (talk) Look, nationality is standard in band article leads. Beatles are British. Unless SR are totally Israelis, they count as American."
- 05:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* top */ Their FB says hometown NY, current Beit Shemesh, so I'll offer this as a compromise."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 05:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) ""
- 05:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* American? */"
- 05:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC) on Shlock Rock "Reverted 1 edit by Invisiboy42293: First of all, it has American as origin on the side, and independent here means it's not affiliated with any record labels. In additin, SR is in Israel so the current roster of Shlockers is mostly Israeli, but that is..."
- Comments:
He kept reverting the Independent to American, when I either pointed out to him that 1) SR is not necessarily American, considering they cover all music, and 2) the independent is on the affiliation of the band that they are not part of any record label. I have used the talk page, I have explained myself on the reverts. Sir Joseph (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies, did not mean for this to become an edit war. To quickly clarify my position (because its hard to express things in edit summaries):
- The nationality in the lead is standard, and is meant to be general rather than covering every specific member. Since Shlock Rock was formed in the US but is currently based in Israel, I have changed the lead to "American-Israeli".
- I did not realize "independent" was referring to them not being signed to a record label (admittedly I wasn't reading the edit summaries all that carefully). Even so, label status is typically covered in the infobox or later in the article, not in the lead sentence.
Again, very sorry that things got this far, and hopefully we can come to an understanding.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:97.85.113.113 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result: )
- Page
- Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 97.85.113.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- Consecutive edits made from 07:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC) to 08:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- 07:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696252252 by Maxbaby01 (talk)airline article disagrees, please take to talk!!!!!!!!!!!"
- 08:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696309093 by 97.85.113.113 (talk)restored due to a disagreement with a disruptive editor"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
There are plenty more diffs showing edit warring by this IP, I wasn't able to select them with Twinkle, however. CatcherStorm talk 08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Maxbaby01 reported by User:CatcherStorm (Result: )
- Page
- Minneapolis–Saint Paul International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Maxbaby01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696140640 by 97.85.113.113 THIS IS STILL CONSIDERED A HUB PER GREAT LAKES AIRLINES WEBSITE REGUARDLESS OF IT ONLY BEING TWO FLIGHTS A DAY! IT IS STILL CONSIDERED A HUB ACCORDING TO THE AIRLINE!"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:08, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
There are plenty more reverts showing edit warring, but I wasn't able to select them using Twinkle CatcherStorm talk 08:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Dennis Bratland reported by User:Spacecowboy420 (Result: Warned)
Page: Dodge Tomahawk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [18]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
new version: [20]
new version: [23]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[[26]] (previous 3RR warning) + [27] (warning made on his talk page after the current batch of reverts in violation of 3RR.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] (not a diff, as the discussion has been ongoing for a long time)
[[28]] article talk page.
We requested a 3rd opinion. (who agreed that the content the above user was trying to include was not suitable) We then went to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (which was closed due to deadlock) We then went to RFC (and apart from the above user voting to keep his content, every other user voted to remove it)
Comments:
This is a case of a well established editor, who knows exactly what the edit warring/3RR rules are (having reported others and been reported in the past [[29]]) We have gone through all the steps in dispute resolution and at every step he has been told that he is wrong. Other editors have been drawn into the revert cycle (myself included) and have had the self control to back down. Also, and I don't know if this is relevant or not, but the same user is reverting my edits on my own talk page. [[30]] - I know it's only once, but this goes to show the incivility of the user along with previous comments such as [[31]] . Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - As noted, this dispute was taken to third opinion and to WP:DRN. The Third Opinion request was removed by the coordinator because DRN "outranks" Third Opinion. I tried to mediate the case at DRN, and failed it because the reported editor refused to compromise on the insertion of language that other editors thought was WP:UNDUE in the voice of Wikipedia. We then posted a Request for Comments. In my opinion, courtesy by the reported editor would be either to leave the article alone or to edit the article only after discussion until the RFC is closed, and then follow the consensus of the RFC. I would suggest a warning, except that the reported editor has already been warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- It looks as though User:Dennis Bratland is the only person who broke WP:3RR. They are risking a block. The disputants agree that the speed record is bogus, so I don't know what keeps them from finding suitable wording. EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Spacecowboy420 (talk · contribs) is forum shopping and gaming the system. Creating a skunked dual-report at 3O and DRN at the same time, which then jumps back to the article talk page for an RfC. And even that process is not allowed to run to completion. Instead Spacecowboy420 and Tsavage (talk · contribs) just charge ahead making the very changes that are still under discussion, and gaming 3RR to push through their preferred version. Their reverts are just this side of the line and so they get to try to win the battle. I requested page protection a week ago so it wouldn't come to this, but was turned down.
Others have noted [32][33] what is obvious to me: Spacecowboy420 is a highly experienced Wikipedia warrior who didn't just start editing this last October. This is someone who has been seeking controversy and using noticeboards to target enemies for quite some time. The reasons for creating a "new" account just a couple months ago are easy to deduce.
We are still waiting expert opinions to resolve this false balance problem on Dodge Tomahawk, using Wikipedia to advertise and promote Dodge cars by treating implausible performance claims as equal in weight to the independent sources which have with one voice told us these marketing claims are laughable nonsense.
I have no intention of reverting any more. This is going to have to be resolved at a higher level forum. I'm not going to accept voting on whether or not an article will take flat-Earth nonsense seriously, but I will cease reverting. It would be nice if others could do the same. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Result: Warned. This was a 3RR violation, but no block seems necessary since the editor has responded. All sides should note there is little point in having an RfC if people are going to keep on reverting right through it. If you think the edit warring is likely to continue, I can apply full protection for the duration of the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, EdJohnston. I'm sure that despite the differences of opinion, that Dennis Bratland's edits were made in good faith, with the intention of having a good article. I'm sorry, I assumed the RFC was concluded with the votes to keep or remove the offending terms, my mistake. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Unbuttered Parsnip reported by User:HavenHost (Result: Blocked)
Page: Naga, Cebu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unbuttered Parsnip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[38] (warning made on editor's talk page after the current batch of reverts in violation of 3RR)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff
Updated 14:22, 22 December 2015 – As of this writing, user reverted my edit for the 4th time (reverted-without-talk). Here is the link to the talk page's diff: diff
Comments: User refuses to accept other editor's edits. In our case, user keeps reverting edits thus removing inline sources.
Updated 14:22, 22 December 2015 – As for his/her 4th revert-without-talk, user stated that the information I added is "tosh on his perspective" (POV) as per edit summary. As per history review, Unbuttered Parsnip had previous edit warring warnings and issues with other editors, as well as personal attack notices.
- User:Unbuttered Parsnip has broken WP:3RR and is risking a block. I left a message and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. User has been blocked previously for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Parrot of Doom reported by User:Davey2010 (Result: No action)
- Page
- Mince pie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696329160 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- 09:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696261199 by Davey2010 (talk)"
- 23:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696245426 by Davey2010 (talk) arbitrary changes to sourcing based on personal taste"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 11:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Mince pie. (TW)"
- 12:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "/* December 2015 */ +"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Yesterday I fixed 2 sources (changing the publisher bit from "independent.co.uk" and "bbc.co.co.uk" to "The Independent" and "BBC")[39],
PoD reverted saying "arbitrary changes to sourcing based on personal taste"[40]
So I reverted saying "Website addresses are never used in "Works/Publisher" - The only thing that's supposed to be in "Works/Publisher" are the company names",
He reverted[41] so I obviously reverted and left a warning and then a note basically repeating the above in the hope we could have a civilized conversation instead of warring but the only reply I got was to "Piss off"[42] so here we are.... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Publisher names are always preferred over website addresses so I really cannot understand what the problem is ? .... Anyway thanks, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 14:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- On the point of substance, that isn't necessarily true - website names can be and are used in some citation styles, although usually in the work field rather than publisher. Using publisher name instead isn't wrong, but per WP:CITEVAR if the article has an established style using website name it should be left alone.
- On the point of procedure, both of you are edit-warring and neither of you have taken the issue to the talk page. Keep in mind that 3RR isn't an entitlement, per BRD you should have gone to talk on the first revert, so this proceeding will likely end either with the page protected or with both of you (not just PoD) blocked. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC) Adding: or with no action, since he hasn't broken 3RR yet and you could take it to talk right now... Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've never seen Website names used on any article and the ones that I have seen I've changed them (and no one's ever had an issue), I disagree I believe he is edit warring... To be fair I've taken it to his talkpage after the 2nd revert and he's twice told me to Piss off so at this point me going to the talkpage would achieve absolutely nothing other than being told to Piss off .... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Takes two to Tango. I see it the same way as Nikkimaria – either block the both of you (Parrot of Doom for reverting after the warning you left, and you for reverting right before the same warning), or you can take it to the article talk page now. Prodego talk 18:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I kinda assumed his talkpage was fine but obviously not!, I love this fucking place at times!. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Davey2010: My apologies if this was confusing. There wasn't anything wrong with notifying on the user talk page, It is completely fine to start a discussion there. However, before you left that message you reverted Parrot's reversion. Regardless of whether or not you notified him, you should not revert a reversion of your own edits without discussing it first (per WP:BRD). It doesn't matter whether or not it was permissible to revert your edit to begin with. Does that clear things up? Prodego talk 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Prodego - Nope I agree It would've been better if I left that message once I was reverted instead of quickly smacking undo, Problem is I constantly think using the edit summary is fine (even in edit wars) but it's not!, I apologize for the rather blunt message above, Could I ask tho what made you decide not to block me ? ... Bet it was tempting!
, –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Prodego - Nope I agree It would've been better if I left that message once I was reverted instead of quickly smacking undo, Problem is I constantly think using the edit summary is fine (even in edit wars) but it's not!, I apologize for the rather blunt message above, Could I ask tho what made you decide not to block me ? ... Bet it was tempting!
- @Davey2010: My apologies if this was confusing. There wasn't anything wrong with notifying on the user talk page, It is completely fine to start a discussion there. However, before you left that message you reverted Parrot's reversion. Regardless of whether or not you notified him, you should not revert a reversion of your own edits without discussing it first (per WP:BRD). It doesn't matter whether or not it was permissible to revert your edit to begin with. Does that clear things up? Prodego talk 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I kinda assumed his talkpage was fine but obviously not!, I love this fucking place at times!. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- Takes two to Tango. I see it the same way as Nikkimaria – either block the both of you (Parrot of Doom for reverting after the warning you left, and you for reverting right before the same warning), or you can take it to the article talk page now. Prodego talk 18:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- I've never seen Website names used on any article and the ones that I have seen I've changed them (and no one's ever had an issue), I disagree I believe he is edit warring... To be fair I've taken it to his talkpage after the 2nd revert and he's twice told me to Piss off so at this point me going to the talkpage would achieve absolutely nothing other than being told to Piss off .... –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Not blocked. It's a mystery to me why either of you thought it worth edit warring about. Thank you for at long last taking it to talk, Davey2010. Closing with no action. Bishonen | talk 19:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC).
User:2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 reported by User:Vansockslayer (Result: Article protected)
- Page
- Copa Eva Duarte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 2001:620:D:4AD2:0:0:0:323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 11:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696330488 by Suitcivil133 (talk)you are wasting your time, consensus was reached before you joined wikipedia, trolller"
- 11:53, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696329955 by Suitcivil133 (talk)do not vandal or rever the page catalonian."
- 11:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696329585 by Suitcivil133 (talk)So obvious suitcivil is a pro barca vandal, moderators should take a look at his edit history. All FC barcelona related."
- 11:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696329089 by Suitcivil133 (talk)Stop pushing barcelona to more titles with frivolous records. its obious you are a barca fan."
- 11:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696323403 by Suitcivil133 (talk)reverted back to consensus version"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:02, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Copa Eva Duarte. (TW)"
- 13:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Football records in Spain. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Test,see if it works. Vansockslayer (talk) 14:07, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Page protected – 5 days. Use the talk page to reach agreement. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Suitcivil133 reported by User:Vansockslayer (Result: Article protected)
- Page
- Copa Eva Duarte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Suitcivil133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 13:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Vandalism. A consensus has already been established. Another douce that confirms it. http://www.fcbarcelona.com/football/detail/card/honours-football Now there are at least 3-4 sources. On the other hand you have zero that prove the opposite."
- 12:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "I speak Spanish fluently. You do not. Which consensus? From the mouth of the horse (RFEF). http://www.rfef.es/noticias/rfef/historia-supercopa-precedentes-1936-1953 Second last paragraph. You really need to grow up."
- 11:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "You can continue your vandalism but eventually the facts will prevail once a moderator discovers your trolling. It's futile. You are disputing FACTS and removing SOURCED material confirmed by RFEF and numerous other sources."
- 11:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Do not removed sourced material? What is it that you don't understand Nepali?"
- 11:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Ongoing vandalism by a sockpuppet. Moderators should take action. This user is removing SOURCED material that is confirmed by multiple sources. Take a look at his disruptive user history as well where he is removing sourced material at will."
- 11:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Stop removing sourced material that is confirmed by multiple sources. You have been warned."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 13:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Copa Eva Duarte. (TW)"
- 13:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Football records in Spain. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Page protected – 5 days. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
User:Jekson Bim reported by User:Dan Koehl (Result: )
- Page
- Lovifm music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Jekson Bim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:38, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696460033 by KDS4444 (talk)"
- 08:35, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "Article suitable for inclusion in the wiki !"
- Consecutive edits made from 06:25, 23 december 2015 (UTC) to 06:27, 23 december 2015 (UTC)
- 06:25, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "←Created page with 'Lovifm Music is an independent online free radio provider, based in the Byelorussia.The company was formed in...'"
- 06:27, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "/* References */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:39, 23 december 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Lovifm music. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments: