Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vacio (talk | contribs) at 21:40, 25 October 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    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 {{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
    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.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Mandruss reported by User:2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (Result: both blocked)

    take it somewhere else. --Jayron32 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Page: Shooting of Samuel DuBose (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mandruss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Comments: The editor believes he's allowed to edit war to return to a previous version, or to disrupt a discussion he refuses to engage in. User_talk:Mandruss#Ownership. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    The OP has been disruptive at this article since they arrived there about an hour ago. Their lack of Wikipedia knowledge is quite apparent in threads on their talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page, but their competence is greatly surpassed by their aggressiveness. This complaint was filed after I reverted their second attempt at this POINTy edit, which stems from the dispute about gun model. They had no interest in this content except to make a point in that dispute, and I have referred them to WP:POINT several times on talk pages and in edit summaries. I was close to going to ANI with a DE complaint. As this editor is apparently low-experience, I'm not inclined to urge a WP:BOOMERANG sanction, but this complaint is completely without merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly dispute that there is any disruption created by asking for sources. But even if that were the case, there's no WP:EW exemption for the reverts that Mandruss has made. FWIW, the editor invited me to resolve this problem by going to a noticeboard.[7] So here we are, per his request. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the editor Mandruss has made false accusations of edit warring by others. [8] He does not seem to have read the actual policies in question, while making aggressive threats based on his mistaken interpretations. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143 (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mandruss: you have violated WP:3RR. Why do you say "this complaint is completely without merit"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If one looks no farther than 3RR, I'm as guilty as sin; will an admin please do your duty and block me. But I have been told by experienced users in public talk venues that we look deeper, into context. In my limited exposure to this page and ANI, it seems we do just that.
    So here is the context as I see it. The OP will no doubt have a response, but I avoid unproductive pissing matches and will not have any further comment here unless requested by someone else.

    1. The OP, who I will call 2602 for short, added content about the gun model wth the meaningless edit summary "add".[9]
    2. I reverted per BRD with the meaningful edit summary "relevance?".[10]
    3. At this point, it was established that 2602 wished to add content, and that the edit was a disputed edit. 2602 could have and should have opened a discussion in article talk. Instead, they re-reverted with "relevance is obvious - it's the alleged murder weapon". This relevance is not at all "obvious" as their edit summary claimed. At this point I began to suspect that 2602 does not know what "relevance" means.
    4. A brief edit war ensued.
    5. 2602 belatedly opened a discussion in article talk. In their opening post, they asserted that NPOV requires inclusion of this content.
    6. I failed to see what NPOV has to do wiith inclusion of the model of this gun, so I asked 2602 to elaborate. I also tried to explain relevance as "bearing on the case".[11]
    7. At this point, a good faith response would be to (1) explain exactly what NPOV has to do with it, or (2) drop the NPOV argument. Instead, 2602 simply doubled down on NPOV without explaining it. They demanded that I explain how NPOV justifies omission, after I had stated that I don't see how NPOV has anything to do with it. They also referred to other items of information in the article, implying that I cannot oppose the gun model on relevance grounds unless I also oppose those other items.[12]
    8. They linked to the article Factoid since I previously used that word to describe the disputed content. They asked me whether my use of the word meant that I was calling the gun model "false or spurious information", since they saw those words in the first sentence of the article. Had they read on for two more sentences, they would have seen this: "...the term...has assumed other meanings, particularly being used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information. (emphasis mine) Or, they might have just used their knowledge of English vocabulary to deduce what I probably meant by that word. At this point, I was suspecting that 2602 was just being argumentative for the sake of argument, throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. This is not good faith debating in my book, and I was beginning to become frustrated.
    9. Time after time, I asked 2602 to explain the applicability of NPOV, and they just kept repeating that without explanation.
    10. I gave specific examples of what would be relevant.[13]
    11. 2602 re-asked the questions I had previously answered, indicating that they were not listening to what I was saying.[14] This was clear evidence they were simply being argumentative, which is disruption of article talk.
    12. Meanwhile, more argumentativeness and obtuseness was occurring on our respective talk pages. I won't detail that, but it's there for anyone to see and evaluate. Note especially 2602's logic (illogic) around staying off user talk pages.
    13. 2602 demanded that I cite policy for the omission, ignoring the fact that they had not shown any policy basis for the inclusion (beyond simply throwing the letters NPOV at the wall). They asserted that my argument was WP:IDONTLIKEIT, ignoring the fact that I had previously stated that my objection was on relevance grounds, which is clearly more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    14. 2602 opened a separate discussion challenging two other pieces of information which they consider irrelevant. This was WP:POINTy behavior, as they had no interest in that content until they needed to make a point in the gun model discussion. We don't do this.[15]
    15. And so it went like that. After being referred to WP:POINT several times, 2602 ignored that and twice attempted to make POINTy edits related to that other content. I reverted both because they were POINTy.
    16. Throughout, 2602 showed no desire to collaborate in good faith, preferring instead to act dodgily and manipulatively, repeatedly missing or ignoring points, making ridiculous assertions in response, and responding to references to WP:POINT by doubling down on their POINTy behavior. To top it off, they then file an edit warring complaint when their POINTy edits are reverted. If one set out to be as aggravating as humanly possible (read disruptive), I think it would look a lot like this. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a content dispute, pure and simply. I'm not seeing anything particularly manipulative beyond that, although it may have appeared that way to you because you have a stake in the article. Please remember that WP:3RR is a bright line rule. I'm closing this with a 24 hour block for both of you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't edit war. The description of events above is highly inaccurate. I only made a single revert. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:1105:7CE0:662D:37EC (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Although you did not actually violate 3RR, you were edit-warring and contributed towards this situation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And blocked this new IP too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The block of Mandruss needs to be reviewed. This is an excellent editor with an impeccable record being blocked for doing his job as a conscious editor. This block is not deserved at all. I request a formal review of this block which was not warranted given the circumstances. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ... and for an editor with exactly 13 edits they are quite familiar with AN/3RR... Can anyone see what I am seeing? This was a clear case of a disruptive editor and it needs to be taken into consideration when editors like that post requests for blocks for long term and dedicated editors such as Mandruss. Admins have to think of the project, and not just follow rules blindly - Cwobeel (talk) 03:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding sourced, relevant, neutral information is not disruptive. Deleting it repeatedly with no policy reason is disruptive. That's why there's a rule against it. User:Mandruss has made it clear that he does not understand Wikipedia policy. He believes, for example, that he can make unlimited reverts in order to preserve the status quo of an article. I'm sure he's a good editor in some ways, but he has exhibited ownership of articles. Also, I do have more than 13 edits - this IP scheme rolls over every day. I have no control over that. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:C849:153C:837F:8143—I'm just curious—why haven't you registered an account? Bus stop (talk) 12:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the 'Captcha' test gets old fast. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 does not have any reputation to lose and Mandruss does have a reputation to lose. Edit warring does not take place on a level playing field, not between 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:BCE2:A74:FB06:BFB7 and Mandruss. Bus stop (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If Mandruss was concerned about his reputation, about maintaining a clean block log, then he shouldn't have reverted four times. It's pretty simple - most editors figure it out. In any case, this is history. My block was lifted and Mandruss's has expired. If you want to change the WP:EW policy to allow Mandruss's interpretation - that established editors can revert IPs as often as they want, then this isn't the page for it. We can move it to the policy talk page if you want to pursue it.2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is gaming the system. More correctly, the system allows for this, because 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 has made a grand total of four edits to Wikipedia. Bus stop (talk) 22:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you care? Maybe we're better off without "aggressively incompetent, chronically disruptive editors" like Mandruss. As for my own edits - I think I've added more to the DuBose article in a day or two than Mandruss did over many months, despite his thousands and thousands of words disputes on the talk page. He was the one trying to game the system, by creating his own rules. And when the site's rules are applied to him, he cries "foul". I'm not impressed. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:8DC4:BB80:568F:2021 (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What is obvious by now, that you don't give a hoot about this project. With your actions you have managed to get an excellent editor out of our roster. Shame on you. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This venue is not the appropriate location to discuss this anymore. The blocks have all expired. --Jayron32 03:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Lemondropzzz and User:Contaldo80 reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Blocked and Warned)

    Page: LGBT rights in Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lemondropzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Contaldo80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [16]

    Diffs of Lemondropzzz reverts:

    1. [17]
    2. [18]
    3. [19]
    4. [20]
    5. [21]
    6. [22]
    7. [23]

    Diffs of Contaldo80's reverts:

    1. [24]
    2. [25]
    3. [26]
    4. [27]
    5. [28]
    6. [29]

    None of the two users have discussed their edit war on the talk page (I have no part in it myself and have not edited the article, just happened to see it. )

    Comments:

    Comments: Both User:Lemondropzzz and User:Contaldo80 seem to have broken WP:3RR on this article. Can either of them explain why they should not be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Upon closer inspection of User:Lemondropzzz, I would not be alien to an indef block as per WP:NOTHERE. There are so many 3RR violations just today that it makes me dizzy. I tried to revert and restore another article one (where I count around 10 reverts by Lemondropzzz just today), but of course I just got reverted. Pardon me for just showing the edit history, the number of reverts is insane [30]. Lemondropzzz's actions during October 21 could break the Wiki-record for heavient edit warring (across multiple pages) in one day ever. Jeppiz (talk) 23:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Lemondropzzz blocked 48 hours for continuing to revert without responding. Waiting for User:Contaldo80 to respond here. --NeilN talk to me 23:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for your patience. I have tried to act constructively on this issue - suggesting Lemondropzzz try and explain his/her controversial edits in more detail so we can then better understand the concerns. I was particularly concerned that the wider edit history of this editor showed a number of questionable edits on a range of articles which bordered on the disruptive and in several cases challenged NPOV; or lacked sources for a claim. It did not seem to me that they were prepared to act reasonably. But this approach failed in quite an aggressive way. I have dealt with many articles where the issue of homosexuality is central, and it is the case for whatever reason that they attract a high degree of vandalism and disruptive editing. Eventually, I realised that I myself was in danger of being seen as edit warring and so I stopped, and proposed some revised text that attempted to find some common ground and break the impasse. I should really have just referred Lemondropzzz directly to one of the administrators noticeboards in retrospect. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As the person filing the report, I tend to agree with Contaldo80. I reported both users, as both had edit warred, but I also found there to be a difference in quality, with Lemondropzzz being by far the most disruptive; the decision is of course up to the closing admin but I would not be alien to consider Contaldo80's action as a counter-vandalism effort, even if a bit over-zealous. Jeppiz (talk) 10:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked Warned Lemondropzzz blocked per above. Contaldo80 expected to follow their own advice and seek outside assistance instead of edit warring. NeilN talk to me 13:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HHH Pedrigree reported by User:Funkatastic (Result: Both editors warned)

    Page: NXT Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), NXT Women's Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and NXT Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: HHH Pedrigree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    List of the user's reverts:

    Comments:

    User is constantly removing referenced content from title reigns, claiming a consensus on a topic that has yet to be discussed. Is in clear violation of 3RR on three different pages, NXT Championship, NXT Tag Team Championship and NXT Women's Championship. Doing so on one page is means for blocking, and this user has reverted the same thing four times on each of the pages. As well as nonstop reposting messages on my talk page that I've already read and removed. Why he's doing any of this I'm not sure, maybe the account was hacked, maybe he believes he's immune to these rules. But nonetheless, user is in clear violation and action is necessary.

    The user Funkatastic reverted the editions of Four users. The users explained him the consensus, but he doesn't listen and still reverting all editions in the articles he mentioned. I warned him 3 times, but he delete the messages. Speaking to inmune to the rules. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Untrue, I've reverted different edits from different users who simply think saying the word "consensus" is a viable edit summary. I've never reverted edits by users four or more times, as this user did. Claiming "I don't listen" because I don't comply with whatever this user wants. This user comments above "I explained him the consensus" which is untrue, all he did was claim there was a consensus, no linking and no specifics. I checked the talk pages, no such consensus. Even if there was a consensus it's possible it would be irrelevant because the way this brand officially recognizes is different than all other wrestling brands. This is why I decided to reference the chart itself with the official website of the brand, which the above user removes in all 12 of the above edits. At the end of the day, The above user violated the 3RR, I did not as you can see in the edits the user himself linked to this page, none of these reverts include four reverts of a specific user (which HHH Pedigree did). The proof is in the pudding, I didn't make the rule just simply making sure it is well known. Sidenote, I strongly encourage any user to try and find where I claimed I was "Immune to the rules" because I'm 100% certain I would never say anything so ridiculous. Funkatastic (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As three users explained to you in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling, that the consensus. We use the date the wrestler won a title. Howeevr, you reverted the articles again and again. Also, you reverted your talk page with arguments like "your opinion" or "It's my talk page", instead of talk with other users. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, user has linked to a page that doesn't lead to a consensus, and in this case leads to continued harassment similar to that of the spamming of my personal talk page. If he claims a not-even day old discussion in which users harass the user they disagree with instead of providing simple non-opinion based arguments is a consensus, then we all can see what's wrong with that. Regardless of which side you think is "right" in this case, the user has still yet to provide any legitimate defense proving he didn't break the 3RR rule (because he did according to the terms) and has not provided any concrete proof that I violated the 3RR rule (which I didn't according to the terms). And I'd like to remind that the purpose of this notice isn't to a settle some pro-wrestling dispute, but to notify an administrator of a user who is edit warring. P.S. It's my personal talk page, I can edit it as I please and don't have to discuss things there if I find the user to be rude, repetitive or making an argument irrelevant to the case at hand. Funkatastic (talk) 22:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, three users explained to you the consensus were established and youtr editions were disruptive. However, you edited the articles over and over, even when I explained to you the situation and I warned 3 times. It's not a "simple non-opinion based arguments", it's how the project works. Also, it's your personal talk page, but delete all messages and warnings are rude. I tried to talk, but you reverted the editions and cleared your talk page. Also, you never gave anybody a reason except "your opinion". --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to add to the counter-discussion regarding Funkatastic's general conduct by referring to the Drake_(rapper) article. This editor is currently demonstrating disruptive editing unbecoming to the improvement of the article.

    • I previously cleaned up a section of the article for clarity, neutrality, and encyclopedic language: "Cleaned up Controversy section. Deleted references to Rihanna re: Chris Brown because none of the citations explicitly referred to the CB feud; feel free to re-add with applicable sources only. Deleted uncited passages re: Meek Mill."
    • Funkatastic reverted and edited an older version of this section much later, with the summary: "There's an open discussion on the talk page, if you just simply remove this section on your own merit you will be reported."
    • In turn I reverted this edit, believing it may have been done in error, and if not, then to justify it in Talk: "A previous edit reverted to an old version of the Controversies section. If done deliberately, explain this in Talk. Do not revert to old edits without justification."
    • Funkatastic did not justify his revert in Talk and reverted again: "You're the one making big changes to the section before proper consensus has been reached."
    • As the edit improved clarity, did NOT delete any of the original cited information from the article, and there was no discussion regarding this on the Talk page, I reverted his second revert: "This section is not sacrosanct because it's disputed in Talk. Newer revisions improve writing and omit no content; your reverts are unjustified."
    • Funkatastic reverted a third time with an aggressive, uncompromising summary and (again) no discussion on Talk: "Reverts MIGHT be fine if you weren't adding opinionated, pro-Drake content to a section thats literally about feuds and needs to remain unbiased."

    The section in question is currently disputed on the Talk page for relevance. Neither following Funkatastic's reverts and protests to the section's update was there a dialogue opened on Talk specifically regarding his concerns about the quality or neutrality of the writing in the section. Note that his first revert was not in the last 24 hours, and so technically does not break the 3RR (as I did not see his revert until later), but his evident unwillingness to engage in conversation with other editors regarding protests to his revisions is a severe obstruction to the improvement of WP articles. Antinate (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    One can simply check the talk page of Drake (rapper) and can see that the above claims are simply untrue, and this user even acknowledges I didn't break the 3RR. This is a page for edit warring. Which I have not done but the user HHH Pedrigree has which is what we're here to discuss.Funkatastic (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And to this I'll note that you made zero discussion on the Talk page to justify your reverts. I was not going to be baited into breaking the 3RR myself (acknowledging that you have a history of rebuking personal dialogue about your edits), and as you are involved in this noticeboard already, I left this note to allow the admins to do with it what they will. It seemed pertinent to the discussion. Antinate (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All you did was link to the edit history of the talk page, READ the actual page because I've been involved in the discussion long before you came here. It seems very clear that you have no interest in reading as you once again bring up the removal of content I've already read from my talk page, despite the fact I talked about it on the page we're on right now just a few paragraphs above where you're making your comments. I'll remind you that this discussion is solely about, user HHH Pedrigree violating the 3RR rule so you bringing it up here is not at all pertinent. Funkatastic (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, your involvement on the Talk page only demonstrates you being combative and uncompromising and in no way addresses your unexplained dispute against new editors' improvements to the article. Like I said, the dispute over the relevance of the Controversy section—in addition to your "precedent" as a party to the project (which does not in any way claim lordship or superiority over newer article revisions)—does not make your preferred version of the section sacrosanct. Nor is mine, but seeing as it was my contribution that was reverted without explicit discussion or collaboration, I only see myself justified in restoring it. I would like to remind you that disruptive editing impedes progress toward improving an article, and I'm pretty sure that even if you did not break the 3RR rule explicitly, your "contributions" constitute as edit warring. So should I create a brand new report on this page specifically for you, where you're already involved on this noticeboard, or isn't that excessive? Because you are not a passive party to this report, thus your own conduct is not without scrutiny. Antinate (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You absolutely should create a separate report, all you've done here is post personal complaints against me with little-to-no-evidence and though whether that constitutes edit warring is irrelevant when you post it in an unrelated report instead of creating a separate report. Funkatastic (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Furthermore, the user in question attempted to obscure this dialogue by deleting it. Antinate (talk) 02:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't try and "Obscure this dialogue" I removed it and was in the process of posting a copy of the edit at the bottom of this point for reference before you went and undid it. I removed this content because NOTHING YOU'VE SAID HAS RELATED TO USER HHH PEDRIGREE AND HIS VIOLATION OF THE 3RR RULE! Funkatastic (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I also have a problem with Funkatastic. This user is basically 'the pot calling the kettle black', as he also violated the 3RR rule. I tried talking to him about the title reigns, but he cleared his talk page and said "Your opinion". Just now at the NXT tapings, The Mechanics won the NXT Tag Team Championship from The Vaudevillains. I would love to add the team to the list, but Funkatastic will tell me to wait until the show airs to make it count.--Keith Okamoto (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    If I violated the 3RR rule please post the links here, as this is the place to do so. And thank you for spoiling the show for me, jerk. Once again, this page is ONLY for edit warring notices not a place for you to air your grievances about me and my talk page. If you go to my talk page and use it as a forum for your opinion and don't interact in a polite way, I'm going to delete it and not respond which I'm aloud to do because it's my talk page. If you have actual evidence that I violated the 3RR rule PLEASE POST IT ON THIS PAGE, don't just say it happened with no evidence. Side note: spoilers are aloud for professional wrestling on Wikipedia (WP:Spoilers) the only thing in debate here is that the air date should be considered as the start of the reign. "but Funkatastic will tell me to wait until the show airs to make it count" don't go out on a limb and assume what I'm going to say, that's called putting words in someones mouth. If you had actually posted it, with a reference (which you can still do) go ahead and I won't revert it because it has nothing to do with the issue we discussed ON THE RESPECTFUL PAGE. Funkatastic (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This page isn't just about 3RR. It's also about edit warring, which you are clearly doing. You have failed to prove to those of us who have pointed out to you both on the Wiki Project page and in edit summary on the pages concerned that your edits are correct. Further, you have failed to address the points we have made, preferring to try and target HHH Pedigree in order to achieve some sort of victory to justify your edits. It doesn't work like that. You have to seek a consensus for your edits, and at present you have not done so. HHH Pedigree is correct when he says consensus already exists against your edits, hence the onus on you to prove otherwise and not edit the pages until you have achieved that aim. Mega Z090 (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Both Funkatastic and HHH Pedrigree have breached WP:3RR, and @Funatastic, I am not going to post the diffs here because I give you some credit to be able to count. Also, don't call other editors jerks. The last revert was 24 hours ago, so I am charitably going to Warned both editors that if they resume their battle at the article, they risk being blocked without notice, and for Funkatastic, that includes personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kworbi reported by User:LLArrow

    Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Kworbi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 22:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
    2. 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    3. 01:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    4. 05:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
    5. 11:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 17:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

    Comments:
    The user has been warned several times on their Talk page to no avail. This is just one recent example of their disruptive behaviour, constantly demonstrating their opinion on articles. I ask that you seriously consider an extensive block, at the least. LLArrow (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    When I contribute to the article, I provide explanations and proof of my edits. I always have, and if my edits are wrong, then I try to understand why they have been undone. In these cases, LLArrow has reverted my edits without an explanation, and even sometimes with insults. I am here to help make the page for Hotel better, but I cannot when LLArrow personally reverts any edit I do. For example, when I added the new guest stars from episode three, he undid them with no explanation at all. When another user re-added the information I put, he didn't revert their edit. I don't understand his logic in this report as he has done the same thing I have, except without explaning why he did it. Thanks for understanding my perspective. --- Kworbi
    Kworbi, time and time again your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. Per WP:BRD you should have either stopped or raised a discussion in talk page, gain consensus and resumed editing. Instead you chose on to edit war, inspite of the numerous warnings. Serves you well that this report was generated. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 09:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worthy of notation, is the fact that although being instructed how to on several occasions (just take a look at their frequently blanked Talk page history), the user refuses to sign comments. LLArrow (talk) 17:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rudy235 reported by User:BatteryIncluded

    Page: Kerberos (moon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Rudy235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    1. [31]
    2. [32]
    3. [33]
    4. [34]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

    Comments:
    User user:Rudy235 and user:Huritisho, who are who is under a sock puppet investigation ([36]) keep adding numerical values that are not supported by the cited reference. Specifically, their source states: "measurements of Styx and Kerberos have not yet been downlinked." But that does not stop them from falsifying the data and edit-warring. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    So now finally they realize I am not User Hurishito. Good! We are progressing? May I ask who am I supposed to be now? Because I must be someone else to be under sockpuppet investigation. Am I correct? Why don't you simply admit that the investigation on me is totally bogus and it isd only there to limit my ability of contributing to Wikipedia?Rudy235 (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am very sorry I do not undertand what is this user batteryincluded alluding to. If anything HE should be reported for reverting more that 3 times even though I have had amply advised of what I was doing in the Talk page of Kerberos. As to me being "under investigation" that, excuse my irish is Malarkey. I am "being investigated" for no reason. No one has given me ANY justification whatsoever as to why am I supposed to be a Sockpuppt Whatever the frick that thing is. The point being is that this is simply abuse. May I ask? what is the PENALTY for promoting a BOGUS investigation and why the fact that somone is "being investigated relevant? If I promote a vengative investigation agains Battery included for sock puppetry am I going to be allowed to say everytime I refer to him/(or her) that he/she is under investigation? Can I get some reasonable explanations here? I have conducted myself with utmost professionalism I have taken the matter (before the unwarranted deletions by Batteryincluded) to talk and asked for opinons in a candid form and yet LOOK what happens here. Is that the way you "hammer the nail" when it appears to be showing its head over the surface of the wood? I am not use Hurishito! A simple IP verification can bore that out! However that simple test does not prevent the maliciousness shown here towards me. I would like to impeach everything this user batteryinclluded is saying. Is there a forum where I can make my protest be heard?Rudy235 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined. The diffs - and as far as I can tell looking at the history myself - do not show a breach of WP:3RR. Given the unfounded allegations by the filer of sock puppetry, I'm closing this report. However, I strongly advise both parties to control their reverts at the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Danrolo reported by User:Diego Grez-Cañete (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

    Page
    Template:Chilean political parties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Danrolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687193996 by Diego Grez-Cañete (talk)"
    2. 22:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC) ""
    3. 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687197248 by Danrolo (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Page moves against naming conventions or consensus on Independent Democratic Union. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User's overriden 3RR and has been making malicious page moves. Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Adepss and sock IP 220.157.131.109 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked indef)

    Pages
    Users being reported
    Please note

    This is not a classic 3RR report. The report is about a block-evading, disruptive named sock providing edit-warring support for IP sock of blocked master AnnalesSchool. Edit-warring across multiple articles. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AnnalesSchool.

    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 03:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687221904 by Dr.K. (talk) Dr. K violated the wikipedioa fairness policy,and is censoring data."
    2. 03:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Casualties */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 03:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 7th Armoured Division (United Kingdom). (TW★TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Long-term abuse by sockmaster AnnalesSchool. Dr.K. (talk) 03:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stolichanin reported by User:LjL

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


    Previous version reverted to: [37] and earlier [38] as per previous report filed

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [39]
    2. [40]
    3. [41]
    4. [42]
    5. [43]
    6. [44]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as per previous report

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire talk page, really, including an open RfC, but see diff given in previous report

    Comments: After being unblocked from a 48h block for edit warring, the editor immediately resumed deleting the section under dispute again, while now copying it into a separate Crime in Sofia article, which an admin warned was a copyright violation.

    LjL (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: noticeboard discussion notification was given, but subsequently removed by the editor. LjL (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, because Ljl push a not reliable controversial sources.--Stolichanin (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's irrelevant. There's an RfC on the article talk page about this very subject. You should wait until consensus (not majority) is reached before making any changes to the article. clpo13(talk) 18:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you create a brand new article that relies entirely on these "not reliable controversial sources"? Makes no sense. --NeilN talk to me 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Reverted again. clpo13(talk) 19:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And again. I'm getting a strong WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT vibe here. clpo13(talk) 19:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile I am the one vandalizing in his book. LjL (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Anmccaff reported by User:DissidentAggressor (Result: )

    Page
    Disappearing gun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Anmccaff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to
    [45]
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [46]
    2. [47]
    3. [48]
    4. [49] - a reversion of [50]
    5. [51] - a revision of [52]
    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] - apparently a chronic problem.
    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    Talk:Disappearing_gun#Installations
    Report filed
    19:51, 24 October 2015‎ DissidentAggressor

    Comments:
    As the user's own diffs will show, he attempted to add a minor, barely notable subject to a list of significant examples of the type. As the talk page and history will also show...well, take a look for yourself: [58] Particularly note the poisoning the well throughout. Note that the editor listed a number of accusations on edit-warring which were -all- shown to be unfounded, including a couple by a tag team now involved at Arbcom. Anmccaff (talk) 21:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Anmccaff is continuing to unilaterally revert any and all edits I make to that page - even after I filed this report. WP:OWNership is blatant. The Dissident Aggressor 12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. When I first looked at this report, it was apparent to me that both DissidentAggressor and Anmccaff were edit-warring. However, I also noted that DA had failed to notify Anmccaff of this discussion, which is required. Because it wasn't an open-and-shut case (meaning obvious breach of 3RR by the accused and clean hands by the filer), I notified Anmccaff myself but took no other action. Although in some ways DA should still be blocked for edit-warring, at this point their role has become stale, whereas Anmccaff pointedly reverted yet again, even though this report was still pending. @DissidentAgressor, be aware that if you revert Anmccaff now that they are blocked, you run the risk of being blocked as well. As you correctly state at the article Talk page, there is no consensus for either user's version. Although not relevant to my decision, I have no idea what Anmccaff's reference to ArbCom means.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zzz369 reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: )

    Page
    List of programs broadcast by Telemundo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Zzz369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687337327 by Philip J Fry (talk) por favor no vandalizes"
      2. 22:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687337327 by Philip J Fry (talk) por favor no vandalizes"
      3. 22:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687338231 by Zzz369 (talk)"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 22:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "mi edicion es 100 % correcta, los datos hablan por si solos, primero informate y entonces actua"
      2. 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Soap operas */"
    3. 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687334095 by Philip J Fry (talk)"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) to 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Currently broadcast */"
      2. 21:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* Soap operas */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "/* List of programs broadcast by Telemundo */ new section"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    While leave you a message in your discussion and I got rid your edits 3 times, the user wants to impose its editions, asking me who do not vandalism. You wrote in Spanish is the only language this user speaks. Whenever I leave messages to this user on their discussion refuses to answer them and instead, prefers to fall in war of editions. Philip J Fry talk 23:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry, I will write in English from now on. I was saying that what I edited is correct and I do not know why the user Philip J Fry keeps undoing my edits with the false ones. The information I put can be easily checked by opening any program table from Telemundo. Nevertheless, I will also add some references that further prove what I am saying. Please do not permit user like Philip J Fry to vandalize good work.--Zzz369 (talk) 08:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The way the table was layed out before looked better and was clearer, also in your edits you added in other shows without actually citing a source for the additions, and as such would be reverted anyway.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lemondropzzz reported by User:When Other Legends Are Forgotten

    Page: Zionist political violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lemondropzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [diff]
    4. [diff]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

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

    Comments:
    This page is subject to a 1RR restriction. Editor is just coming off a 48 hour block for similar edit warring - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ALemondropzzz

    User: SPECIFICO reported by User:Ogreggy

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


    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Keynesian_economics&diff=687357590&oldid=687336303


    Comments:


    While there is debate within the academic community about the accuracy of keynesian economics (and for that matter, ALL economic models), there is no tolerance on wikipedia for any other viewpoint. The economics pages read like they were written by a high school clique of Keynesians, and their viewpoint is enforced with "undo" and rollbacks even for a request for discussion (whether that request is on the article page or the talk page -- debate gets squashed immediately).

    Discussion or debate is not possible when even requests for discussion are undone, and personal attacks made against anyone who dares to challenge the cliques opinion. Administrators told me last week to request a discussion (which I did now, on two separate occasions) and twice my request for discussion was quickly undone and dismissed. Ogreggy (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mehdi ghaed reported by User:Pixarh (No violation)

    Page: Mulla Hamzah Gilani
    User being reported: Mehdi ghaed


    Previous version reverted to: [63]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [64]
    2. [65]
    3. [66]

    Diff of edit warring: [67]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

    Comments:The editor's article violated WP:N so I placed a tag, he removed it and said, the article is not about a living person. That still did not meet the notability criteria. All his references are fake and redirect back to the same page. Unsourced article and not a single WP:RS. Time after time, I told him to provide references and to read Wikipedia guidelines and policies but he ignored it both on the article's talk page and his own userpage. Removed maintenance tag and when he failed to improve the article after a few days, it was up for WP:PROD but without contesting for it, he removed the template. Even his talk page is full of WP:Disruptive editing.
    Pixarh (talk) 07:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Since two out of the three are removal of a Prod tag there is no violation here. Anyone can remove a Prod tag for any reason and it can never be readded. The second removal was just complying with policy. -- GB fan 11:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    not only I try to behave according to rules but also I try to bring reason for reverting. I don't know why the editor Pixarh try to introduce me as violation while I try to reach to a consensus. I think he is very hurry in editing and deleting.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:166.175.191.200 reported by User:Ryk72

    Page: Alignment (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 166.175.191.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/687111688 (Talk page consensus for removal of unsourced or poorly sourced information)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [69]
    2. [70] (edit summary claims "unexplained removal of content", despite extensive Talk page discussions)
    3. [71] (restore substantially the same information; edit summary claims "negotiated clarifications"; no Talk page consensus for inclusion)
    4. [72] (edit summary claims "unexplained removal of content", despite extensive Talk page discussions)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/687471990

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

    Comments:

    NB: 3 intermediate reverts to remove the poorly sourced information are mine, and (I believe) in line with previously established Talk page consensus. I will not further revert. I have also raised an AIV report here.

    Editor appears to be IP hopping, may now be at 166.175.57.226. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 20:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Karah kenze reported by User:LjL (Result: )

    Page
    Jay Ward Productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Karah kenze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 15:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Leve it alone you moron"
    2. 15:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Don't worry I'm the right one I know about the company thanks to a to bill Scott who I talked to before he died"
    3. 16:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Let's keep the page the way it looked a year ago since the other guy has no proof"
    4. 20:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "don't worry I left a message on the other users talk page plus it says on the Wikipedia pages witch years the shows ran"
    5. 20:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC) "I said I took care of the editing war plus you didn't have a reason for deleting my version (the right vision)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [74]


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    None by me, but edit summaries show editor was well aware of rule breaches


    Comments
    I am re-reporting this after User:McGeddon withdrew the original report on the basis that "the talk page agreed with the edits", because there is only one thing on the talk page, while there were several editors reverting Special:Contributions/Karah kenze, whose user contributions show is being quite litigious (i.e. edit warring, removing content) on other articles as well, with no talk page justifications. So I think this does need to be brought to attention.

    LjL (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note this threat to an anonymous editor. clpo13(talk) 21:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ans2015kivanc reported by User:Vacio

    User Ans2015kivanc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaged in excessive edit warring and continues to do so after being warned by an admin. He reverted edits in the article Ganja, Azerbaijan 5 times in 24 hours:

    In total he reverted the same edits 17 times since October 9. Thank you for your attention. --vacio 20:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=687483439"