Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3RR}} on their user talk page.	(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
You must notify any user you report. You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes: You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. 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 than 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 the 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.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

User:Deb reported by User:Dman41689 (Result: warned; reporter and sock blocked)

Page

November 12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Deb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

obsessive edit waring and vandalizing the page Dman41689 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I note that User:Deb seems to be the only involved party who said anything on the talk page. Why did you not attempt to resolve the dispute, Dman41689? You didn't provide a full report here, either. LjL (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Redsky89, Deb, and Dman41689: Can you guys clarify what's going on here? It's not vandalism, for starters, but Deb has also not been very clear on what guidelines are involved and what criteria she's using; from what I can tell, these are bluelinked and the dates seemingly correct. I'm also not familiar with date pages. --slakr^\ talk / 23:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The best I can explain it is to ask you to look at the long discussions at Wikipedia_talk:DOY. It's inconclusive, as you can see, but the topic has been raised repeatedly over the years and there are archived discussions in more than one place. It doesn't trouble me if people change what I've done, because I go back every few weeks/months and re-prune (and obviously some entries that seem inappropriate one day can become appropriate a little while later). However, it does trouble me to be called a "vandal" when I have made an effort to discuss potential improvements. Deb (talk) 09:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@Deb: While that link is helpful—it was difficult to discern from the actual article's talk page—I'm still concerned that repeatedly re-pruning the same article with the same changes over only a couple of days might be construed as edit warring, hence the reason why we're even here. :P Furthermore, the guideline doesn't seem to actually reflect a minimum-inclusion standard of 'n' number of interwiki links, which makes this much more along the lines of a simple content dispute, and while being labelled a vandal is poor judgement on the part of another editor, I'm concerned that using rollback on the corresponding revert might be considered equally, if not moreso, problematic. I'd strongly recommend that you avoid continuing to revert on that page (which it seems you have) and simply gain consensus to change the underlying guideline if that's what's appropriate. That way people will understand why you're making the changes you are and will be less likely to revert (or make the mistake of calling you a vandal). For what it's worth, I just filed an RFC to deal with a bot matter, and I promise it's not that painful. :P --slakr^\ talk / 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

As you can see, I have already made huge efforts to "gain consensus to change the underlying guideline". Others have suggested criteria, which I am still trying out. Earlier this year, Redsky89 appeared to be in agreement. I always try not to revert and it's very rare for me to make the same changes I did previously, for reasons I explained above. When I remove entries, I re-check to see if they have five corresponding other-language articles to show that the person is internationally known and also whether they are listed on an appropriate "Year in topic" article - if not, I go to the additional trouble of adding them there. I believe that even the complainant would agree that there are good reasons to prune these articles. There's a history of certain individuals adding entries relating to their own nationality or interests that affect the balance of the lists. For example, adding all Estonians or all porn "stars" or all cyclists, and this has to be dealt with somehow. Deb (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concerns; there is a problem with excessive entries being added to these pages. I understand that, and it's evident from the referenced talk page. However, the problem is that the consensus needs to find its way into the guideline, and barring that, you need to build consensus on the individual talk pages of the date articles. Even then, that only gives you benefit of the doubt when it comes to edit wars and the three-revert rule. The normal dispute resolution channels still apply, much like they would when it comes to editing disagreements over undue weight, for example. It's not a good idea to revert war when you feel that part of the article fails UNDUE or is slightly NPOV, because those are judgement calls. That said, I'm fairly confident socks were involved here.  :P --slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that I've always tried to avoid reverting. I agree, that last one was unwise even though I felt provoked by Dman41689's conduct. I've hesitated to consider sockery because I've always assumed good faith on the part of Redsky and he did previously appear to be in agreement with the proposed approach.Deb (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• This report is nonsense. I'm engaged in a similar dispute with Redsky89 and DMan41689 in an AFD, where they're similarly ignoring consensus on the applicable guideline talk pages and casting aspersions on the nominator (moi). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  Well, yes and no. See below. --slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked as a clear sock of Redsky89 (also blocked). Editor interaction and behavior demonstrates clear pattern of being used to edit war with other editors. --slakr^\ talk / 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

User:80.42.122.69 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Two articles protected)

Page: Abu Qatada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.42.122.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 80.42.119.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person.

Previous version reverted to: edit by 80.42.122.69 at 18:23, 20 November 2015 deleting paragraph (→‎Views: PoV source. Extremist salafi scholar condemning another extremist salafi.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert by 80.42.122.69, 18:27, 20 November 2015‎ (how is salafiminhaj.com a reliable source?)
2. revert by 80.42.122.69, 18:29, 20 November 2015 (how is salafiminhaj.com a reliable source? Don't just revert)
3. revert by 80.42.119.75, 12:54, 21 November 2015 (no it's not. Read reliable source examples)
4. revert by 80.42.119.75, 13:36, 21 November 2015] (not an acceptable source. Stop edit warring and adding non encyclopaedic info in a bio of a living person)

IP 80.42.119.75 has admitted being the same person as IP 80.42.122.69 by reverting edits on the talk page of the latter, [1] and [2].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: at 1824-18:34, 20 November 2015 by @CatcherStorm:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:38, 21 November 2015 by Toddy1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abu_Qatada#Shaykh 'Abdul-Malik ar-Ramadani al-Jaza'iri -- Toddy1 (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Couldn't answer me in the talk page so decided to make a complaint here. He also accused me of being another editor. The guy is a PoV pushing retard who doesn't like it when people disagree with him. Toddy1 also reverted twice and is gaming the system. He refused to continue discussing on the talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.16 (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Editwarring on another page
Page: List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 80.42.122.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 213.205.198.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) These are the same person.

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:58, 20 November 2015 80.42.122.69 (Undid revision 691293354 by Toddy1 (talk) undid edit of pro yazid PoV pusher)
2. 06:11, 21 November 2015 80.42.122.69 ((Undid revision 691625190 by Edward321 (talk))
3. 05:29, 22 November 2015 213.205.198.16 reverted Edward321 (hippocrene books : famous for fairy tales. What a rubbish source)
4. 10:37, 22 November 2015 by 213.205.198.16 reverted Toddy1 (find a proper acceptable publisher : not some crap that suits your pro Yazid PoV)
5. 15:28, 22 November 2015 13.205.198.16 reverted Edward321 (rv unexplained addition of poorly sourced material)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:40, 21 November 2015
Removal of edit warring notice by 80.42.119.75: 13:02, 21 November 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala#Army or Companions

• Evidence that 80.42.119.75, is the same person as 80.42.122.69.[4] and [5]
• Evidence that 213.205.198.16 is the same person as 80.42.119.75.[6]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

He/she is still at it.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments:
Toddy1 has himself undone 3 editors for the same content on this page. Pot kettle black. Also he refused to discuss further on the Abu qatada talk page. I was the last one to talk. He is playing the system as he has experience of edit warring and getting people blocked and getting people blocked who disagree with him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.16 (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not refused anything. When I started the talk page discussion, I also asked the other editor you had been reverting if he/she would also contribute.[7] To achieve consensus it requires other people to contribute. You might note the unfortunate heading on his her talk page, but you were the one that put it there.

I also noted how your statements on the talk page seem irrelevant to the questions. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

You couldn't explain on the talk page how the unknown bloke ramadani from the crappy website salafiminhaj.com had any relevance to the Abu Qatada article. Because you couldn't explain this you made a complaint here to get me blocked. it is you who are a tendentious editor.

Result: Fully protected the two articles named in this report for one month: Abu Qatada and List of casualties in Husayn's army at the Battle of Karbala. Blocks would be undesirable, because the IP editors who are defending the quality of sources are also hopping IPs and leaving personal attacks. Consider WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Hoppyh reported by User:Gwillhickers (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

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

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

Comments:
On the Thomas Jefferson talk/GA page I made an attempt to discuss the importance of certain context regarding a famous topic involving Thomas Jefferson. I waited a couple of days before making any edits and there was no objections, so I included the text in question which only consisted of one sentence. Before this I made an attempt to appeal to reviewing editors to not remove important historical content without covering it in the daughter articles, but that was also ignored by this editor. Since the article was nominated for GA reviewers have been doing good work correcting spelling, fixing citations, overlinking etc, but are not giving the historical narrative much attention. In the process large amounts of important context, which many editors spent months and years discussing, have been removed in an effort to reduce page length, but too often with no discussion with the contributing editors involved, or anyone, and only with the generic claim (in edit history) that these 'details' belong in a Daughter article. As a result, even famous landmark issues, like the 'Separation of Church and State', are only mentioned with a phrase, while ignoring the idea that Main articles and their Daughter articles must sync up and share a fair amount of textual overlap. This has been interpreted by this editor as to mean that 'all' details must be put in the daughter article, with no sync-up and textual overlap to the main article. The editor in question needs to stop this sort of arrogant editing, show more concern for the text that is being removed, wholesale, and participate in reasonable discussions when content issues come up. I have made appeals in edit history to please discuss reverts and so far this editor has not taken the time to say anything in the discussion and has made four reverts with no discussion, in the middle of a GA review. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The GA reviewer has advised the complainant on the review page that the article's detail is too great to meet GA criteria. The complainant disagrees and refuses to comply with the reviewer's guidance. That said, I plead guilty. Hoppyh (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth talking to the GA reviewer in question here, Viriditas, before taking action on this. --Coemgenus (talk) 21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Both users have clean block logs, so one can only surmise this was a temporarily lack of judgment in their shared pursuit of article improvement. Both users are honestly trying to bring this article to GA and above, and tensions have been raised in the process. My personal preference would be to see both users sternly warned without blocks, with the idea firmly lodged in their heads that if they show up here again, they will likely be blocked for edit warring. A block right now on either party would be punitive as we are trying to work out the dispute on the talk page. I have previously raised the idea of compromise, which led at least one user to leave. I would very much like to see both of these users keep working together constructively without any further reverts. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Warned @Hoppyh and Gwillhickers: Please heed what Viriditas says above. Any more edit warring will result in blocks. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas and NeilN: Viriditas, thanks for your encouraging words. To all concerned, I have always gone along with consensus, even when I strongly disagree. I made an attempt to discuss the importance of the 'Separation of Church and State' issue, pleaded for discussion in edit history when reverts were being made, and even waited another day after the 3RR violation in the hopes that a discussion would ensue. When it became clear that the editor in question had no intention of even talking to me, let alone striking a compromise, I felt I had no choice but to pursue the matter here. I'm in partial agreement with the decision here and feel that a block was not called for, esp since the editor is doing much work on the article, but feel that lumping me in with Hoppy is in appropriate. I made attempts to discuss the issue on the Jefferson/GA talk page, made several appeals to Hoppy and violated no policy -- yet I receive a warning also. Not exactly fair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Please examine the article history to see good evidence of your reverting and edit warring on November 19, which is what this report entails. I'm curious why you believe you are exempt from this report. It takes at least two people to edit war. Viriditas (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:5.81.242.80 reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)

Page

Moral panic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

5.81.242.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691750515 My summaries - NOT original research - of two important points taken from two published works are being deleted by an 'editor' whose arguments make no sense whatsoever."
2. 18:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691675275 by Fyddlestix (talk)"
3. 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691615601 It's not synthesis - I took the argument directly from the book I referenced. If crime is not really declining public concern is rational and not a 'moral panic'. If you can't understand that you shouldn't be editing this subject."
4. 00:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "/* 1970s–present: Crime increase */ reverting Rhododentrites' deletion because reason given made no sense - if crime is not declining then fear of crime could be rational and not the product of mediated 'moral panic'"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Moral panic. (TW)"
2. 23:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Moral panic. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Crime increase "...however..." synthesis */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Castncoot reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Warned)

Page

Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Castncoot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691735530 by Sitush (talk) If it's ongoing, then you don't alter the status quo."
2. 21:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691671951 by John (talk) already discussed on talk page"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

DS notice

Comments:

This page is under WP:1RR, pursuant to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL sanctions. This user is aware of this, having been given a SCW&ISIL DS notice. Despite this, he continues to edit war. RGloucester — ☎ 00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Until a short while ago, Talk:Reactions to the November 2015 Paris attacks didn't even have a sanctions warning notice on it, and despite some vocal proponents of the sanctions, I maintain it wasn't clear at all to all editors (I suggest asking User:Fuzheado or User:John for instance) that particular article was intended to fall under the sanctions' wide umbrella, being an article about reactions about something that was probably done by ISIL affiliates (which has its own article). On whether what User:Castncoot did constitutes edit warring deserving of sanctions, I have no opinion, but I wouldn't consider 1RR as a factor in deciding it. LjL (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Much as I disagree with Castncoot regarding the specific issue, I too am bewildered regarding the 1RR thing and was not aware of it. I would be surprised if I have not breached it myself. There is some sort of mission creep going on here, and some assumption of the legal notion that "ignorance is no excuse". I'm afraid that I find that unacceptable in the current situation and I think that Castncoot should at least be given the benefit of the doubt. Let's do a bit more IAR and a bit less GovCom or whatever. - Sitush (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this and am flabbergasted myself. I'm sure this can't be serious. I've never heard of this before within Wikipedia. I am a respectful editor in good standing. How can one particular topic (or any topic for that matter) be given a 1RR limit? That completely paralyzes the ability of editors to debate and edit effectively. That violates Wikipedia's mission. It's also completely ambiguous whether this applies to a reversion issue with one particular editor or in total. I in fact thought it applied in a one-on-one situation and really wondered about its authenticity. And how far peripherally within a topic does this go? This is not even the parent article in question. And for how long? It's already been one week since the attacks have occurred, and the evolutionality has slowed way down, such that it's not much different in tempo from many other relatively "current" events. I have to agree with the term "mission creep" here, and on a broader note, it's exactly this kind of operative conduct among some within Wikipedia that is disillusioning many new and current editors from editing. I think this rule (if it really exists as this complainant wants to interpret or enforce it) is patently bizarre and should be voided, returning this subject to the general Wikipedia policy. Best, Castncoot (talk)

You have no reason to be bewildered. I provided the standard notification to you, which informed you about the 1RR. If you did not read it, that is on you. The procedure has been followed, and should be enforced. The notice that I provided you says "All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here". If you'd have clicked the link, you'd have seen that it says "When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert". There was no reason for you to continue reverting, contrary to the 1RR that has been in place on SCW and ISIL-related articles for years. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been editing this topic "for years," nor have I ever heard of a 1RR policy in Wikipedia before this. Obviously, if that's the policy, then that's what I will follow. But I am bewildered. Castncoot (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. However, that's why I gave you a DS notice, in line with the procedure specified at WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. The purpose of those notices is to notify editors of the system, so that they are not bewildered. If you did not read the notice, again, that's on you. Having had the notice, which clearly mentioned the scope of the sanctions, and explained 1RR, etc., there was no reason for you to revert more than once per twenty-four hours. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Since blocks are meant to be preventive rather punitive and since the editor says that they will now follow the restriction, I don't think there's a need for any type of sanction here. Volunteer Marek  04:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I can understand this position, and it seems sensible. RGloucester — ☎ 04:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Castncoot is warned that they may be blocked if they are unwilling to stay within the WP:1RR restriction on articles subject to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. This noticeboard is not the right forum to complain about a sanction regime. If you succeed in winning support for your changes on Talk you will find that staying within the 1RR is a doable task. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Tkaehfdl1234 reported by User:Phoenix7777 (Result: )

Page: Korean sword (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tkaehfdl1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 04:54, 27 October 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,152 bytes) (-463)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 98.224.110.9 (talk): Unsourced addition. (TW))[12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:22, 21 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎[13]
2. 22:06, 21 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Undid revision 691727363 by Phoenix7777 (talk))[14]
3. 02:23, 22 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Stable version)[15]
4. 05:34, 22 November 2015‎ Tkaehfdl1234 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,578 bytes) (+464)‎ . . (Stable version Revert.)[16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:06, 21 November 2015‎ Phoenix7777 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (13,494 bytes) (+13,494)‎ . . (3rr warning) [17]

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

Comments:

Phoenix7777, Tkaehfdl1234: If I had seen this yesterday then a block would likely have been issued. As this report is now stale, I will warn both of you that this kind of conduct is not acceptable, and if it persists then I will issue blocks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edward Furlong (Result: Page protected)

hi again;

NOW is is an edit war?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edward_Furlong&action=history

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=690562425

& see: Wikipedia:Edit warring for relevant WP.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

notice to user hillbillyholiday (again)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hillbillyholiday&oldid=691801758

Lx 121 (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

AND the user hillbillyholiday is still completely ignoring any attempt to discuss/resolve the matter on the article's talkpage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Edward_Furlong#latest_.22dispute.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&action=history

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_Furlong&oldid=691799830

"whitewashing" & lack of "good faith"; requesting the user at least be blocked from editing this article, if not given a blanket "time out".

Lx 121 (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

side note -- i did not "double sign" the previous post, & that's the 2nd time tonight i've had a duplication-type signing error on here. is mediawiki glitching like that for anybody else? Lx 121 (talk) 07:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comments make me suspect that a previous request was denied, but the page history easily shows edit-warring by multiple parties. It looks like a content dispute rather than someone(s) fighting against significant abuse by someone(s) else, so page protection is best. Lx 121, for future reference, it's easier for admins if you use the preloaded form; select the "Click here to create a new report" near the top of the page (run a search for "be sure to use the pulldown"; it's immediately below), because the system will prompt you to provide specific evidence. This was an obvious enough situation that you didn't need to provide specific evidence, but many edit-warring cases aren't so blatant. Nyttend (talk) 23:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• comment -- i used the "form" the first time i filed. i found it complicated & use-unfriendly. i included a link to my earlier request above, it is the second link in in the original post:

"re: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=690562425"

with all due respect, that kind of proves my point about people not reading before they respond.

i appreciate finally getting some action on this, & i know there's a large volume of material to get through, but perhaps we should have a rule about being required to read & check before responding?

this is not directed @ any one particular person; i had the same problem with the previous filing, & many many, many times before, in other matters. it gets very frustrating...

Lx 121 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:7uperWkipedan reported by User:Jeppiz (Result: Topic banned)

Page: Amin al-Husseini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 7uperWkipedan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] Warning by NeilN

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

The user 7uperWikipedian is an obvious sock [25] created with the sole purpose of supporting the sock master on 1RR restricted articles. While both the sockmaster and the sock games the system by not reverting inside the 24h limit (reverting even once in 24h would be an immediate block), the diffs above makes it clear that 7uperWikipedian is actively edit-warring, despite NeilN's warning about edit warring and 1RR, and despite a clear consensus [26] to the contrary. Unfortunately we do not know who the puppetmaster is (the edit history makes it clear there are three candidates) but this WP:DUCK-sock is guilty of extensive and disruptive edit warring, and has not commented in the discussion even once, despite NeilN's warning. Jeppiz (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC) -->

7uperWkipedan topic banned. [27] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

User:E-960 reported by User: Faustian (Result: blocked)

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E-960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page (talk page is a mess due to this disruptive editor: [33]

He has been disruptive for a long time, but this latest round began when he decided to ignore the results of a previous RFC and removed referenced information without achieving new consensus. Diff of RFC being closed: [34]. My request not to remove info before reaching consensus: [35]. Comments:

I'm posting this here because it looks like the ANI he filed against against me which was rejected has been avoided by admins, (perhaps understandably) unwilling to wade through the stuff he posted on it: [36].

His pattern is extensive, and as noted by Iryna Harpy (talk) : "He's an SPA who's NOTHERE being allowed to continue BATTLEGROUND tactics on all things ARBEE. Please see these archived ANIs: here, here, and here. He's a bully, pure and simple."Faustian (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Note to refute claim

I would like to make a statement in my defense, we are in the process of discussing RFC feedback with several editors who have lent considerable input regarding the subject matter. The general consensus is that the section in question contains WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK, a discussion is going on at the moment to resolve this problem. Unfortunately, Faustian has tried to insert text that has not gained consensus here: [37] and also removed statements here: [38] which haven not been discussed yet. Also, he argues in favor of keeping text which other experienced editors agree DOES NOT reflect what the source says here: [39] and reverts the changes. Please note the comments made by another editor who reverted Faustian's attempts to keep the text: "in this instance I agree that the text DOES NOT reflect the source. The source does not say BA did this". Also, Faustian is accusing other's of Bullying but has made objectionable comments to other's such as editor Volunteer Marek when he said: "So far every non-Pole thinks thinks that it reflects the source" and accused me of: "Double-standards motivated by nationalism". here: [40]--E-960 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"he argues in favor of keeping text which other experienced editor have agreed DOES NOT reflect what the source says" refers to the text that had passed an earlier RFC. The other editor isn't edit-warring to remove that referenced text before consensus is reached. You are. As noted by another editor in the ANI you opened against me : [41], "You shouldn't be making those changes before the RfC is complete so Faustian is right to revert you."Faustian (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Pls refer to commetns made by editor SMcCandlish regarding your constant objections: "But see WP:VESTED and WP:CCC; there is no such thing as an "established [topic] editor" whose views count for more than those of other editors. Consensus forms and changes (any time, anywhere on WP) based on who cares enough to give their input into the matter. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and WP:OWN are also relevant in this regard; many wikiprojects collectively delude themselves into thinking they have the right to control articles they feel are entirely or mostly within their scope, but they do not, and the entire point of WP:RFC is to bring in outside editors" --E-960 (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Pls see most recent comment from another editor participating in the RFC who also objects to Faustians editing and his reverts: I have to concur with E-960 here. That was both inaccurate and unnecessary. Volunteer Marek 06:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC) --E-960 (talk) 07:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you are flooding this with quotes taken out of context and that are off-topic to this report. TL;DR strategy?Faustian (talk) 08:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As no one else has attended to either this request or the thread on ANI, I have reviewed the situation and issued a short block for the 3RR violation. The violation is clear, and there has been no inclination to self-revert or admit they were wrong. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Faustian: Looking further I see you have been blocked previously for edit warring on this very same article. If evidence is produced that more than three of your five edits on this article yesterday were reverts, then I will consider blocking you too. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Natsume96 reported by User:Einstein95

Page

Metrostar Rattler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Natsume96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts

• [43]
• [44]
• [45]
• [46]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

• [47]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user is repeatedly removing a deletion notice from the article claiming that the "discussion is closed", despite the notice haven only been added less than an hour prior, and so not after the 7 day period. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that other edits also revolve around fake video games. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@Einstein95: which articles are you alleging are fake? If there is a wider problem, we may need to consider a longer or indefinite block. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@MSGJ:: The "Metrostar Rattler" and "Proton 1M" systems, "Natsume: Moonwing Warrior (Metrostar-Bizzare/Studio Vector) 2001/Codename: Nightstar 2002", "The Star Knight", "Street Wings", "Street Warrior Natsume", "Wing Knight", "Streets of Rage Remake" (using MUGEN and "E-Metro32"), "Metro-Active X: Streets of War", "Streets of War: The Bureau", "Project R: The Contagion" and "Project X: Love Potion Disaster", of which the last four would be fan games at best (not regarding Project X is supposedly a Sonic hentai game). -Einstein95 (talk) 13:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I've looked through deleted contributions and can find nothing related to "Proton 1M". Can you provide links please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

[48] and [49] -Einstein95 (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Vague Rant. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Retro-redakteur.u12 reported by User:Green Zero (Result: )

User Special:Contributions/Retro-redakteur.u12 without arguments delete text from page Yury. In the his user talk page do not want talk about this and delete my questions. What can i do the next step? — Green Zero обг 18:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

First, new editors need to be warned about edit warring before being reported here. I've added an appropriate warning. Next, Retro-redakteur.u12 please stop reverting and explain your deletions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:27, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:StigmaUncured (Result: Declined)

Page

Bigg Boss 9 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

On a mission to eradicate the entire Bigg Boss 9 page. Keeps deleting information from the page without given the users a chance to install references. First he deleted the entire weekly summary in this edit here regarding it as fancruft despite the fact that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother states that these sections are essential in any Big Brother article [50]. The same goes for the voting history which he removed. Under this part of the project it clearly states that a Big Brother article must contain a nomination history in all incidents where votes have been cast which lead to evictions of housemates. None of the sections he has removed is promotional in any way. Furthermore he recently blanked the entire sidebar stripping the page of what little progress the page had. It seems that this user is oblivious to how a Big Brother article operates and is making these changes in ignorance. Regardless of that this needs to be dealt with. Both of these sections are clearly being retained in all the international versions of Big Brother. See [51] [52]. --StigmaUncured (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Three consecutive edits spanning almost a month and that's it. Small trout for StigmaUncured for posting this. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

He's been given a rather larger trout William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)