HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) |
HJ Mitchell (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 323: | Line 323: | ||
:Cheers, I think the editor might be quite young and not quite grasp the idea that points of view need to be sourced though. He works quite hard on the Harry Potter articles, maybe a mentor would be the best way of dealing with him? [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
:Cheers, I think the editor might be quite young and not quite grasp the idea that points of view need to be sourced though. He works quite hard on the Harry Potter articles, maybe a mentor would be the best way of dealing with him? [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Knowitallfortoday]] reported by [[User:Drmies]]. Take a deep breath. (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Knowitallfortoday]] reported by [[User:Drmies]]. Take a deep breath. (Result: Out of scope) == |
||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Clan of Xymox}} <br /> |
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Clan of Xymox}} <br /> |
||
Line 354: | Line 354: | ||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
||
I hate to say it, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue. I think this need wider input than a single admin or the small number of admins who patrol this noticeboard. It might be advisable to go to ANI and seek community input. I don't really think this is a 3RR issue. Sorry. [[User:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Teal" face="Tahoma">'''HJ Mitchell'''</font>]] | [[User talk:HJ Mitchell|<font color="Navy" face= "Times New Roman">Penny for your thoughts? </font>]] 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
==[[User:Keith-264]] reported by [[User:Brookesward|Brookesward]] ([[User talk:Brookesward|talk]]) (Result: )== |
==[[User:Keith-264]] reported by [[User:Brookesward|Brookesward]] ([[User talk:Brookesward|talk]]) (Result: )== |
Revision as of 01:29, 5 January 2011
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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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. |
|
editwarring on Money creation
User:Amraamny reported by User:Zabanio (Result: No vio)
- Page: Chengdu J-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User being reported: Amraamny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I warned the editor on their user talk] page, which they reverted. I discussed the matter further on talk page. Please note I believe this editor is involved in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. He has just started a brand new Wikipedia account and he is quoting Wikipedia policy, that a newcomer should not know.
User:Amraamny started the article Chengdu J-20, it was written poorly with no citations and another editor placed a "no citations +tag" on the article. I rewrote the article using some of the information in the original article and I place proper citations in the article. User:Amraamny essentially keeps reverting the article back to its original state, removing the majority of what I and others have written including the citations.
Thank you Zabanio (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for looking into the matter. All four reverts are within 24 hours:
- Revert 1 = Revision as of 21:54, 30 December 2010
- Revert 2 = Revision as of 21:58, 30 December 2010
- Revert 3 = Revision as of 22:40, 30 December 2010
- Revert 4 = Revision as of 01:47, 31 December 2010
- These 4 reverts happened within 5 hours, well within the 24 hour 3RR rule. Thank you Zabanio (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That was 21:54 last night. To blcok almost a day alter for that would serve no purpose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The 3RR happened within 24 hours and the editor will be back again, trust me. So, block him now before it starts over again! The 3RR policy is clear, and the editor is in violation. Thanks Zabanio (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Admins aren't required to issue blocks. There seems to be a bona fide dispute about the quality of the sources, in which Amraamny has a pretty good argument, though he should not have continued to revert. It would be sensible for Zabanio and Amraamny to discuss the quality of the sources (blogs versus Aviation Week) on the talk page. I have notified Amraamny of this report and invited him to respond here. If agreement can't be reached, use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- err what? I'm being discussed here. Seems hypocritical to the nth degree that Zabanio says I should be banned because I reversed 4 times. Did he not do the same? I am the creator of the article and just wanted it to the based on facts and truthful. Zabanio apparently does not believe the credibility of sources is important. What else can I do? I already left messages on the "talk" page of Zabanio and the article itself. Amraamny (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Admins aren't required to issue blocks. There seems to be a bona fide dispute about the quality of the sources, in which Amraamny has a pretty good argument, though he should not have continued to revert. It would be sensible for Zabanio and Amraamny to discuss the quality of the sources (blogs versus Aviation Week) on the talk page. I have notified Amraamny of this report and invited him to respond here. If agreement can't be reached, use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:71.164.114.50 reported by Nahome (Result: 31h)
Page: List of oldest companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.164.114.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 16:34, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Someones messing with a brand from a competitor, its so obvious and ridiculous")
- 04:48, 31 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 02:00, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "once again reverting back to the old after Bambu brand saboteur references with obscure spanish essays.")
I have reported this user before but not for this particular edit war. User seems to be intent on promotional text without references (and deleting well referenced text that must be contrary to their goals or perhaps their marketing). Please assist with a review and page protection (preferably long term) and thank you - happy new year everyone! —Nahome (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Blocked 31 hours for personal attacks by User:Materialscientist. EdJohnston (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
- Please give a full protect to the page and to Bambu rolling papers, the Bambu promoters are back and reverting all of our hard work again :( Please assist and thank you Nahome (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Slow-moving edit war on Meenas (Result: Semi, warning)
- Users being reported:
- Bigbrothersorder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) vs. IP editor using
- 86.12.227.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 82.17.249.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
- 81.101.116.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Since December 9th, these two have been edit-warring on whether to call these people a "tribe" or a "caste". I have no idea who has the better case, but there's been no discussion on the talk page at all, simply reverting and some edit summary remarks. The IP has vandalized at least once with an anti-Meenas remark, which BBO cleaned up, but BBO, who has socked as User:Agnivanshitribalmeenas also shows ownership issues with the article. I have no connection with the issue, and have never edited it or related articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected the Meenas article for three months. Warned User:Bigbrothersorder not to revert again on the subject of tribe vs caste without getting consensus first. All three of the IPs are from Belfast. User:Ashishmeena gives a work address at Belfast on his user page. He should not use IPs on the article if he already has a registered account, per WP:SOCK. He asserts he is the creator of the Meenas article. Let him make any further changes with his registered account. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Danjel reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: No action)
Page: Talk:Xavier College (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: editor is aware of 3RR
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [I am not involved in this dispute at all]
Comments: That's it. ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 16:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Looking into this as an administrator, as Danjel's reverts have been edit summaried with an objection to the refactoring of his comments. —C.Fred (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Note Have made an offer to Danjel on his talk page explaining why the comments that were refactored should be—and offering to close the report with no blocks or other sanctions. Waiting on his reply. —C.Fred (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) What's all this, "without admitting you broke 3RR..." nonsense? It's not a matter of admission. He made four reverts on the same page within one day. It's objective fact. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'll take responsibility for those reverts, as they were reverting vandalism, in this case, attempts to WP:REFACTOR my comments. In the edit summaries, I repeatedly noted that I disagreed with the reverts for the reason that it hid my objection to the WP:UNCIVIL behaviour on the part of User:Pdfpdf. On the last two occasions warned Pdfpdf for his insistence on refactoring my comments at [[6]] and [[7]]. He has since removed both those warnings.
I'm having a great deal of difficulty in appreciating TreasuryTag's involvement in this situation. Pdfpdf noted in his removal of my last warning that I should "see [my] talk page" [[8]], which was 11 minutes before the addition of this entry here at AN3 [[9]], which would suggest that TreasuryTag is working closely with Pdfpdf. This smacks of a concerted effort at baiting.
- To respond to TreasuryTag's raising of my previous block for "edit warring", that block was removed. [[10]]
- In terms of moving to a resolution, I have walked away from the dispute that was in progress at Talk:Xavier College because of the wholly WP:UNCIVIL behaviour on the part of Pdfpdf. That being said, I object to my protests against that WP:UNCIVIL behaviour being refactored in an attempt to "hide the evidence", or what have you. -danjel (talk to me) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I only raised your previous block to prove that you had been aware of the 3RR before, that's all. I resent the completely false accusation of baiting and would ask that you retract it. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Suggest reading WP:VAND, as the refactoring was explained both by the user making the edits and now by an uninvolved user here, and was clearly not a deliberate attempt to undermine the project. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- TreasuryTag: if you're saying that it was mere coincidence that Pdfpdf told me to look to my talk page 11 minutes before your post there, with no further posts from Pdfpdf, then I'll strike my statement out. -danjel (talk to me) 17:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Looking at Pdfpdf's edit history, his next edit was this comment at User talk:Danjel where he explained his removal of the template and replied to the warning. I think it's fair to say that's what "see your talk page" meant. —C.Fred (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- So you noted my warnings to Pdfpdf, because, as you say, you were watching his talk page. And then you brought me here, after finding that I was reverting his refactoring? I'll assume good faith, but I find it extremely hard in this instance. -danjel (talk to me) 17:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- C.Fred, that's true. TreasuryTag: I don't know why you have an interest in this situation; you brought it here not me. That being said, and keeping my assumption of good faith on your part in mind, I'll apologise to you, TreasuryTag, otherwise unreservedly. My entry was made on the basis of a suspicion and may have arisen out of my irritation with this whole situation. I should not have let it get the better of me, and I'm sorry. -danjel (talk to me) 17:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Going to sleep now. I'm not quite happy with C.Fred's suggested path to resolution at User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College, but, sleeping on it may bring me around. -danjel (talk to me) 18:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Of course in the meantime, you may well be blocked by another admin as having blatantly violated the 3-revert rule... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- That's true. But I think I've explained myself above; it was not a blatant violation of 3RR, as it's definitely in the grey area. It's a risk I'll have to take. -danjel (talk to me) 18:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- A block now would be punitive, since the respondent has acknowledged this and appears to be offline. While it was technically a 3RR breach, the other parties were wrong to repeatedly collapse Danjel's comments without attempting to discuss it with them. Tl;dr: no action necessary at this time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
without attempting to discuss it with them. - Huh? I repeatedly tried to discuss it with him. Perhaps you should re-read what was there? (On second thoughts, don't waste your time.) I was trying to improve wikipedia by indicating which parts of the text were not relevant to the topic, in an attempt to make reading the topic easier for others - there is nothing relevant to the topic in the areas I was indicating. But never mind - this little outburst from danjel has already wasted far too much of everybody's time.Pdfpdf (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)- BTW: For the record: My actions were independent of Treasury Tag. The time lag between the events mentioned was due to me going and making a cup of coffee. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Again for the record: Examination of danjel's actions will quickly show that his modus operandi is to not read things properly, then jump to the wrong conclusion, them make false accusations. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm. I've just read User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College. Some comments:
- Despite danjel's repeated false accusations, I will repeat here what I have already said at Talk:Xavier_College#The_Last_Post
- are you afraid of people seeing what you and I said? - No. Far from it. If I was "afraid", I would have deleted it. The material I "hid" is irrelevant to the topic under discussion, and hence of no interest to anyone trying to follow the topic.
- I am quite happy for danjel's strange accusations, and my responses to them, (and HiLo48's responses - provided, of course, that HiLo48 agrees) to appear anywhere that it is relevant for them to appear. However, in the middle of a conversation about multi-campus schools is not a relevant place for them to appear.
- Regarding C.Fred's proposal at User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College:
- 1.Refactor by collapsing the discussion as described above. - Fine by me.
- 2.Remove entirely the Talk:Xavier College#The Last Post as a comment about an editor and not the article - agree that it is off-topic. (That's why I tried to indicate it as such.) However, if you are going to remove that section, then I insist that you also remove danjel's strange accusations and other off-topic postings.
- 3. & 4. - No comments.
- Regarding some of danjel's comments at User_talk:Danjel#Talk:Xavier_College:
- In regards to your 3rd point, no dispute resolution is necessary as I have walked away from the dispute. - Errrr. There seems lots of evidence that danjel has not "walked away from the dispute".
- I'll agree that it was off topic, but a casual observer might wonder why I've suddenly withdrawn from my proposal. - Hmmm. Fair comment. Perhaps add a step to C.Fred's proposal? e.g. 5. danjel to add a WP:CIVIL non-personal posting to Talk:Xavier College#Proposed new articles for Burke Hall and Kostka Hall Campuses to the effect of "I have decided to walk away from this discussion because ... " (C.Fred & danjel to mutually agree the wording.)
- And for the record: I disagree with danjel's highly biassed (i.e. false) and WP:UNCIVIL comments about my motives. Perhaps it might have been wiser for him to ask me why I was doing what I was doing, rather than to assume that he knew (knows?) what my motives were/are? As I have already said at said at Talk:Xavier_College#The_Last_Post:
- BTW: Stop putting your words into other people's mouths, and then accusing them of statements they didn't make. You have provided a multitude of examples of this, and I have yet to see even one case where your assertions of your opinions bear even a passing relationship with reality.
Finally, I have no particular desire for danjel to be blocked. However, I do wish he would read things properly and I do wish he would stop jumping to wrong conclusions. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- For the record: In response to C.Fred's suggestions, as a sign of good faith I have refactored Talk:Xavier College#The Last Post. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Time for me to add just a little here. I responded to a comment from Danjel that he had no knowledge of some other schools in Melbourne, whose situation and articles I thought relevant to the Xavier article. He had proceeded to comment on these schools' articles. My response was that not knowing anything about those schools was "a bit of a problem". Danjel's response to me was "So having intimate knowledge of those schools is now a requirement for editing those schools? Don't be ridiculous. What an absolutely offensive thing to say. This is argumentum ad hominem..." Obviously I had NOT suggested that intimate knowledge was required. I called him on the misrepresentation and overreaction, and judiciously withdrew from the conversation. Danjel was not discussing things. He was (over)reacting, and misrepresenting what others said. Not helpful. HiLo48 (talk) 03:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Admins C.Fred and HJ Mitchell have made an effort to close this 3RR in a diplomatic way. The alternative to diplomacy might have been blocks for Danjel and Pdfpdf. When a case is closed quietly, the hope is that those involved in the dispute won't keep coming back to the report to add their grievances. No more admin action should be expected here so there is no point in further discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: No sanction)
Page: Back to the Future (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [11]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Comments:
Rusted AutoParts seems determined to insert information not relevant to the Back to the Future article; information that is covered in-depth in the sequel article. Normally, I would let this go, but his ownership issues, along with his decision to falsely label another edits as vandalism led me to this report. He was warned abot breaking 3RR, and still continued to revert. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, you're both equally at fault for this revert war. The only difference is that RAP has crossed the 3RR line (only very barely within 24 hours). The reason you're both equally at fault is the ongoing reversions without discussion. MW: you should have explained the revert on the talk page and stopped reverting. RAP: you should have defended the addition on the talk page, and also stopped reverting. So either I block you both or I block neither. I'm going to block neither, revert the article myself to the status quo (per WP:BRD) and ask both parties to hash it out, seek outside opinions if need be, with a strong warning that any further reversions (whether 3RR or not) are going to result in a block. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's all I asked... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- No worries. For anyone passing, I note I haven't protected the article because there are too many other editors trying to edit the article and I don't want to lock them out. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks - that's all I asked... MikeWazowski (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Closing this as no action per MK, but if you don't follow his advice, I'll block the next person who reverts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Off2riorob reported by User:Stonemason89 (Result: Protected)
- Page: Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User being reported: Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is not technically a 3rr violation, but rather an edit warring pattern. Off2riorob has been going right up to the limit (i. e. making 3 reverts but refraining from making the fourth) repeatedly. One other user has already been blocked twice for edit warring and 3rrvio on this highly contentious article.
3 reverts within 24 hours on 2 January 2011: [17] [18] [19]
Fourth revert: [20]
3 reverts within 24 hours on 31 December 2010: [21] [22] [23]
The talk page thread surrounding the discussion. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- UPDATE: With this revert made just a minute ago, this is now officially a 4rr situation. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There is plenty of explanation on the talkpage to which this user has not joined in at all. His input is a drive by revert. I have presented and investigated the citations on the talkpage today and IMO the addition is unsupported and unattributed by the citations and as such is a BLP violation. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have to agree with O2rr on this one, stating someone is "anti-Islamic" is highly contentious and POV; use the sources available to refer to their actions etc. as appropriate, but it's not for us to label an individual as anti-Islamic (though it's less problematic to state that the media have labelled her anti-Islamic, if that's referenced). Reverting BLP violations is an exception to the 3 revert rule. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- But mainstream coverage of Geller almost universally portrays her as either anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. Her self-description isn't a reliable source for anything other than her self-description. The idea that America is currently being "Islamified" (as implied by the name of Geller's group) is a decidedly FRINGE idea, and one that doesn't have wide acceptance. That idea in and of itself could be considered an anti-Muslim canard. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- One improvement to the article could be to find a picture that makes her look less like a vampire. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- But mainstream coverage of Geller almost universally portrays her as either anti-Muslim or anti-Islamic. Her self-description isn't a reliable source for anything other than her self-description. The idea that America is currently being "Islamified" (as implied by the name of Geller's group) is a decidedly FRINGE idea, and one that doesn't have wide acceptance. That idea in and of itself could be considered an anti-Muslim canard. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Page protected for three days to let discussion on the talk page and any other dispute resolution proceedings to take their course. I've deliberately protected the non-contentious (O2rr) version (that's not to say I prefer that version, but the non-contentious version should subsist until the dispute is resolved). Mkativerata (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Drmargi reported by User:Smyth (Result: 72h)
Page: List of Top Gear episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [24]
Last week I gave the user a warning on his talk page which he removed without responding.
Since then he has made at least two non-overlapping infringements:
- 03:26, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Restore to sourced version. See talk page.")
- 08:53, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "See discussions")
- 19:44, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405364399 by Nfitz (talk) Original discussion did, new source doesn't. Don't revert until we get that issue sorted out.")
- 00:05, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405389614 by Nfitz (talk) See WP:CONSENSUS")
- 16:10, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Please give consensus process time. There ia more than one option under discussion.")
- 20:34, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Clean up the mess the BOT left") (despite edit summary, this is also a reversion)
- 01:38, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405602701 by 193.35.132.43 (talk) Rvv.")
- 08:11, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "Once more -- see discussion and help us reach consensus on the correct listing")
- Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_Top_Gear_episodes#Episode_numbering_and_removal_of_sourced_series_numbering
– Smyth\talk 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Seems to have been aggressively reverting for several days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:70.82.96.170 reported by User:CapnPrep (Result: Protected)
Page: History of French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.82.96.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 02:37, 1 January 2011
- 14:00, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "")
- 18:18, 1 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405340432 by Tty29a (talk)")
- 15:51, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "No since Vulgar Latin came after")
- 19:58, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "previous is a well known vandal")
- 20:21, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405550492 by Nortmannus (talk)")
- 20:55, 2 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 405552795 by Nortmannus (talk)")
- 01:57, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "illogical process because the syntax has never changed")
- 14:59, 3 January 2011 (edit summary: "This is not vandalism")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none
Comments:
Aside from edit-summary bickering, there has been no discussion among the editors involved in this dispute. Registered editor Nortmannus is unfortunately also in violation of 3RR.
CapnPrep (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Reisio reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: No vio)
Page Standard diving dress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reisio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30]
Also [31] and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reisio&diff=prev&oldid=405748103
Comments:
- I did tell him to read WP:3RR, guess he didn't bother. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Hallows Horcruxes reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action)
Page: Harry Potter (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hallows Horcruxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [32]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]
Comments:
The accused editor is point of view pushing on the article. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was made as a single production and is going to be released in two parts. The editor maintains that the two parts constitute just one film rather than two films, even though they will have two releases, two box office runs etc, audiences will have to buy two tickets etc. Another editor clarified that the franchise would consist of eight films and I added sources from the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal that explicitly state there are eight films in the series. If the producers (and this editor) wish to maintain there are only seven films, then that is their point of view (and one maybe worth documenting in the director's case), but by the standard definition of the word and how it is interpreted there are eight films, and this is backed up by high quality sources. It's not the place of editors to say how many films there are, if it is disputed the claims should be backed up by reliable sources which is what was done in the article, but the editor is removing perfectly valid and reliably sourced content to maintain his point of view. Betty Logan (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Editor was informed of this case but has deleted the message: [39] Betty Logan (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to have just resolved itself (see respondent's last edit summary), but if the edit warring continues, let me know or come back here. I'll leave this open for an hour or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- Cheers, I think the editor might be quite young and not quite grasp the idea that points of view need to be sourced though. He works quite hard on the Harry Potter articles, maybe a mentor would be the best way of dealing with him? Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Knowitallfortoday reported by User:Drmies. Take a deep breath. (Result: Out of scope)
Page: Clan of Xymox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knowitallfortoday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a complex issue, and I cannot easily follow the template. What it boils down to is this: the user I am reporting has, over the past couple of days, consistently thwarted my and others' efforts to improve the article. When I first ran into it, in November 2010, it looked like this. After cleanup, it looked like this. Not good, I grant you, but a bit better. Two edits by Knowitall later, it looked like this--note the unverified claims of grandiosity, the broken English, the fan talk. Then, another editor alerted me to the state of the article, and I got to work, rewriting, cleaning up, and adding references--on 1 January, I had this version. Since then, it's been going back and forth, with Knowitall preferring versions like this one. I have resorted to tactics I really don't like, like wholesale reverts--but all the while I have tried to discuss matters with Knowitall (much of which was blanked on their talk page), up until recently, here. To no avail.
To show my good faith, after I saw that Knowitall had dropped a Flickr link on their talk page, the URL of which they had inserted as bare URLs for a reference, I went to that page and looked at every individual article, including the information I deemed valuable--see here and here. But look at the most recent series of edits by Knowitall, this one, and you'll see that even those nicely templated references were undone, in editing moves that make a mockery of WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:NEUTRAL, and proper English (no alphabet soup necessary for that one).
I have focused, in the diffs above, on the founding date, for which I have found a very reliable source. Plow through all the diffs, all the references, and you'll also find 1983 and 1984--but 1981 is pretty solidly referenced by The Great Indie Discography, by Martin C. Strong. I could list every single diff, every single dispute, but life is too short for that. I am tired of this hot mess, and a call on WP:ANI for help was not responded to. I personally think that this is disruptive editing beyond the point of reason, I think this user should be blocked, but definitions of vandalism and disruption differ--an edit war is clearly verified, though, by the history.
Speaking of said history, it is entirely possible that I've gone well over 3RR, though you'd have to look carefully at which edit undid which edit. I believe, though, that my reversals were in the best interest of the article: I have added references, made copyedits, and continuously tried to communicate, in edit summaries and on talk pages, including the article talk page, Knowitall's talk page, and other involved editors' talk pages (see User talk:Anka Wolbert and User talk:Hablador). If my actions are reproachable or blockable, that's fine. If an admin decides that I should stay the hell away from the article, that's fine too--I'm sick of it, but I'm even sicker of a bunch of band members and fans fighting stuff out on Wikipedia's pages. Yes, it's a larger story--see the efforts of Knowitall to remove remarks about the singer's English here and here, and their comment here. I'll stop now, and will bear the consequences.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, see the talk page, and its history.
Drmies (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
I hate to say it, but I don't think this is the appropriate venue. I think this need wider input than a single admin or the small number of admins who patrol this noticeboard. It might be advisable to go to ANI and seek community input. I don't really think this is a 3RR issue. Sorry. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Keith-264 reported by Brookesward (talk) (Result: )
Page: FN FAL (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 13:36, 4 January 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "The usual purpose is to inform readers that any errors or apparent errors in the copied material are not from transcription.")
—Brookesward (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have warned this user. He is very close to violating 3RR, as he reverted to his preferred version three times. Minimac (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
User:97.83.77.172 reported by User:Cuchullain (Result: )
Page: Rick Scott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) , List of Governors of Florida, and various other articles on U.S. state governors
User being reported: 97.83.77.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [44] (for Rick Scott); [45] (for List of Governors of Florida
At Rick Scott
At List of Governors of Florida
The user has made similar edits at many other articles on governors of U.S. states.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53][54] [55][56] and [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58][59]
Comments:
This editor has been placing information at various articles on US state governors indicating that the governors are called by the honorific "his excellency", despite repeated requests from various editors that they stop. This has resulted in disruption at a wide swath of articles.--Cúchullain t/c 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Was about to report this editor as well - Another definite 3rr violation on Governor of Michigan. Dpmuk (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)