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 TreadingWater (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 2 October 2009. 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:Likebox reported by User:Ronhjones (Result:72 hrs )

    Page: Quantum mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    • 1st revert: [2]
    • 2nd revert: [3]
    • 3rd revert: [4]
    • 4th revert: [5]

    Most of the reversion is being done piecemeal, rather than automated reverts, hence there are a lot of edits for the page in a very short period of time - Total of 37 edits just today, and 13 yesterday. There are a similar number of edits on the talk page, but I don't think that there is much agreement in the content of the page.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

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


    Comments:

    I have not done any reversion on this page. User:Lightbound has tried repeatedly to try to steer the page to a good version, and is not really succeeding.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this report, as I do not know diffs well enough yet to have made it myself. I was going to just give up on the article. I prefer to handle things at the lowest level, but User:Likebox has had problems with another user, User:OMCV, whom I came to aid through a posting on a portal page. The article was in "general distress" and in need of more editors. I came to assist and found that the article is written like an essay that argues that the term "quantum mysticism" is to be used as in the derisive sense. I did research on this, new subject to me, and found that quantum mysticism is an actual practice that has been in existence at least since 1993. I discussed changes on the talk page in an attempt to actually document this practice, report its claims, and facts. It is my opinion that Likebox is not going to simply give up the "old notion" of this articles previous state. I even went as far as trying to rename the article, simply because the contents do not match the topic of what quantum mysticism is. I would love to add content, but I am afraid that may be futile, since this person has dominated it. Thanks again, Ronhjones, as I appreciate someone looking out and see that I am just trying to do right by Wikipedia. I am unsure how many other editors have been dissuaded by this type of intimidation. Perhaps this will bring his actions to light. --68.51.237.91 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, this is my comment above, I am using the beta and secure sever log in and it logged me out of Wiki when I clicked to this page from the https namespace. I had to log in by non SSL means to be able to sign! --☯Lightbound☯ talk 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have been only slightly involved in this wiki article, giving a "third opinon" and being involved in some minor discussions on the talk page. I more or less support Likebox' point of view as far as the content of the article is concerned. About editing the article, my experience here on wikipedia is that two editors with such different views on the focus of the articles cannot intensively edit the article at the same time without one or both of them violating 3RR. This doesn't have to be "edit warring".

    I think locking the article pending a consensus reached on the talk page is the best way forward. An alternative approach could be that everyone agrees that one editor, say, Lightbound will be the only one who edits for, say, a week. Others editors (in this case Likebox) only give their comments on the talk page. This is the format that I recently tried with another editor on the entropy page. I had severe differences of opinion on the focus of that article with that editor. In that case this approach did not work because it turned out that the other editor did not understand the topic at all. But in principle, this could have worked had the other editor at least understood the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must add that two users now have edited my user page. Not my talk page, but the user page itself. I can not help but feel this is related. One of the users was just created recently, User:Xobekil and I believe may be a sock-puppet or somehow related. I do not wish to edit the article for two weeks. I will just give up entirely. I think it is an injustice to wikipedia, though, that an article is to be used as a debate page and not written about the subject itself. I have also begun 3rd option and am attempting to use dispute resolution. I am quickly running out of steam, though. If it is going to be this difficult to document what the article means, perhaps I am not meant for wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ talk 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I recently reverted an edit by User:Xobekil on mass energy equivalence, and if you look at what I reverted, you see that User:Xobekil is unlikely to be a "copy" of likebox. Also, the edit you reverted wasn't insulting. You can't call that "vandalism". Look at the edit history of my user page to see real examples of vandalism. Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User has a history of edit warring and the page concerned was recently locked due to this editor and another edit warring. Blocked for 72 hours. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, now that the block is over, at least I am aware of this discussion.
    I am very upset at this stealth-blocking which was proposed by an uninvolved party out of the blue. The edits of the user I was arguing with, lightbound, on the quantum mysticism page consisted of a bazillion rewrites and tag-insertions which were a monster to follow. I went through all of them one by one, and removed inappropriate tags. Lightbound is new to Wikipedia, and uses tags inappropriately sometimes. In particular, he tagged with "weasel words" something he should have tagged with "npov" (that's what he meant). In addition, he overused tags. So I deleted a bunch of redundant tags that he inserted. All of these modifications were unique, not challenged, and not reverted.
    The other change I made was to move two sentences which used to be in the intro back into the intro. Considering the number of changes that he made, this was a completely novel edit. He then moved the sentences back to the other sections, and I did not challenge this.
    NONE of my edits were in any sense of the word "reverts", except for the tag removal, which I explained and lightbound agreed. I am annoyed at the reviewer, who did not listen to the parties involved, and who confused a much more substantive disagreement with OMCV (which we worked out pretty much ok) with the absolute nothing involved here.
    In the meantime, I was blocked, and lightbound has completely deleted the contents of the article which was the product of several editors working over many years.
    I would suggest to the admins evaluating edit warring accusations to pay attention to involved parties (in this case lightbound and count iblis) and to ignore the input of non-involved third parties.Likebox (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To say we had worked out our differences is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. While our conflict might be centered over specific text edit warring is still a major problem and hurdle in that conflict. The situation/problems identified and described by Ronhjones is directly related to the conflict between Likebox and myself. I have sought resolution to these issues at Wikiquette_alerts, [7], and WP:3O among others. As Vsmith noted this isn't Likebox's first block for edit warring. I have been away form Wikipedia for nearly a week during that time nearly all my recent edits were reverted between this and this edit cycle by Likebox, essentially negating any of my contributions. I strongly support Ronhjones insightful observations from outside the conflict.--OMCV (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OMCV, you have to understand that all this wikilawyering by you is counterproductive. E.g., You start with an argument about nondeterminsim in classical physics, which then becomes an argument about OR/Synth simply because what Dennet may or may not have written. This already is a step in the wrong direction, because what Likebox wrote is almost trivially true based on the physics. Now, Likebox did go along (I think he shouldn't have) and then because he is still approaching the problem from the point of view of the physics you got an ever escalating dispute.
    Another example. When I removed the citations tag on the article relations between specific heats and you restored it, you again did not discuss anything about the content and argued purely on the basis of wiki-law. That causes irritation. There are always cases that are not covered by wiki-law and WP:IAR explicitely mentions this. You went as far as suggesting that the article could be deleted. What you need to get into your head is that some limited amount of OR and Synth is unavoidable if we want to have a Wikipedia that also contains subjects above Kindergarten level. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kildruf reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 15h)

    Page: United Kingdom – United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Kildruf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [8] and [9]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

    Comments:

    The first revert is a revert of this edit I made. As I had the article watchlisted after editing it, I noticed Kildruf make inappropriate additions regarding the Lockerbie bombing with language such as "heinous crime" or largely duplicate information, and attempted to discuss things politely on their talk page without resorting to the use of warning templates, and this was met with a claim of vandalism and threats to get an administrator. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gallery of passports edit warring reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: page protected )

    Page: Gallery of passports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Earl of China (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.

    Comments:
    Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring without any discussion. User:Bosonic dressing, the craetor of the article, possesses it like its owner and is edit warring. User:Earl of China, and others are also edit warring. Admins should protect the article and block some users.

    Protected for 1 week since too many users are involved to justify blocking. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of object to being included here. I made an edit then resorted to discussion on the talk page. Bosonic Dressing, however, is practicing WP:OWN, and is reverting at least four other editors (myself, Earl of China, Readin, Wikilaurent) on the Taiwan presentation, and one or two others on some Turkish territory. I do not believe he has surpassed 3RR, but the WP:OWN issue is pretty clear - he wrote it and it is going to stay his way. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if any further disruption occurs, I can hand out specific warnings. I generally agree with your assessment, and I'll leave a note on Turkish Flame's talk page asking him to revisit his report in light of your comments. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am simply trying to maintain a semblance of order to an article that, yes, I created and has been subject to POV editing from the beginning and other commentators above. The report has little merit (at least as directed at me), and reporter even less so: Turkish_Flame has been blocked multiple times for edit warring regarding Turkey's placement in this article and others: the report is out of spite for being called to account. And, correction: SchmuckytheCat made an edit, I reverted it, he then nominated the article for deletion presumably out of similar spite (a report on which Turkish_Flame also commented, curiously), has reverted since, then initiates discussion days later on the talk page (amidst a troll who has been doing little else but reverting recently), and now proceeds to weigh in further on how the article is structured? Rather hypocritical, if not disingenuous -- so much so, that any assumption of good faith there may have been with this editor has been lost, and this editor's comments no longer register with me; in the least, this editor's commentary should not be taken at face value. Anyhow, it seems moot to lock down an article that will likely be merged with the list of passports, which is fine with me. So, Jc, you may want to reevaluate your assessment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit tennis on Infinity Bridge (Result: Stale)

    Getting a tad fed up of 77.99.190.88 [of Camden on Telewest] making the same repeated, erroneous, unsourced change to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_Bridge Having done the bulk of the legwork on this article I could walk away from this but there are users prepared to repeatedly roll it back every time. This needs some kind of intervention. Stuffed cat (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Stale. The cited IP has not continued to revert since the last change on 28 September. Since he is quarrelling about how to state the authorship of the bridge design, why not start a Talk discussion on this point? You could file a new complaint if he continues to revert without giving his reasons on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WTF95 reported by User:Mjrmtg (Result: Semi)

    Page: Sylvester, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: WTF95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

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

    Comments: On each of my reverts I've asked him to stop vandalizing the page on the comment line.

    Result - Semiprotected. POV-warring by brand-new editor, denying Sylvester's status as a peanut capital: Sylvester .. is not the "Peanut Capital of the World" due to its lack of peanut production. Dothan, Alabama is the true "Peanut Capital of the World". EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Vexorg reported by User:Jayjg (Result: no action at this point)

    Page: Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Northern Ireland Friends of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Benjamin H. Freedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Vexorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous versions reverted to: Criticism of YouTube, Northern Ireland Friends of Israel, Benjamin H. Freedman

    Comments:
    User:Vexorg has, for the past few days, done little besides revert three articles. In the case of Criticism of YouTube, he has reverted 12 times in 9 days, fighting 3 editors, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. In the case of Northern Ireland Friends of Israel he has reverted 5 times in 9 days, fighting what appear to be the same editors, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. In the case of Benjamin H. Freedman, he reverted a couple of times, then went away for a month, then came back to the article to resume the edit war, again, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. He's well aware that edit-warring like this is inappropriate; he's been blocked 6 times for edit-warring, and has even told one of his opponents to stop edit-warring[37]. His new strategy appears to be revert two or three times, then go away for a period, then return to do the same again. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a long-term pattern of edit-warring to me, and the five previous blocks for edit warring do nothing to dispel that impression. I suggest to Vexorg that he agree to a 1RR per week restriction in lieu of a block. His last block was for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd recent.;ly noted the edit warring by this user too. If he doesn't respond soon one remedy or the other should be imposed.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. The user User:Jayjg who has reported me here has had a long term agenda against me. All my edits are in good faith and much of it is with sourced material. It's also worth noting that the user User:Jayjg who made this complaint didn't even bother to notify me so I could have a right of reply. Jayjg made this complaint 26 hours ago. It took ANOTHER editor EdJohnston to notify me . Thankyou Ed. I've made nearly 3,000 edits on wikipedia and yes I have been got caught up in edit warring in the past, I don't deny it, but it has been insignificant compared to my total amount of edits. But it's only with a passion to improve Wikipedia. But remember it takes two to edit war. Anyway as an ordinary editor I cannot compete with Admistrators like User:Jayjg who have agendas against other editors. Therefore I shall take a break from editing for a while, especially those articles included in this complaint. I think anyone looking at this complaint should note the deliberate disadvantage against me by the lack of notification to myself regarding this complaint. Hopefully a non biased administrator will attend. Vexorg (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:68.224.86.3 reported by User:tide rolls (Result: IP blocked for 24 hours)

    Page: Chickadee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 68.224.86.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [38]

    User continues to add article content to a disambiguation page despite repeated attempts to gain an explanation as to their reasoning.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

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

    User will not discuss their changes after repeated attempts at contact on their talk page...see [44], [45] and [46]

    Comments:

    Editing problem has been (we think) resolved by making Chickadee redirect to an article and move the dab page to Chickadee (disambiguation). Only purpose to pursue further would be editor education. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Result: User blocked for 24 hours. The content might be appropriate on Tit (bird), but the edits to the disambig page were inappropriate. Hopefully the block encourages him to discuss. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Everyman21 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result:Indef Blocked )

    Page: Code Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Everyman21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]

    • Additional content added, but the list is the same.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

    Comments:
    This user is a self-admitted sock (see above diff of talk) of MataNui44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for use of multiple accounts and edit warring. He's returned to the same behavior. The source he's using has already been discussed with him at length under an IP address, and does not adequately support his assertions. Nevertheless, he persists. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted that article three times only, not four. Everyman21 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You restored your previously deleted broadcast list, knowingly. That is a revert. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, no - It was remade from scratch, with sources added. That's not a revert. You're the one at fault here. I've given you sources. You find whatever fault you can in them. Everyman21 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: No action taken)

    Page: 867-5309/Jenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

    Comments:
    User keeps removing a speedy tag from an article, with a hangon and an active discussion in progress, which was wrongly moved to an inappropriate title. Radiopathy •talk• 07:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It has already been explained to you that that template is not to be misused. You were misusing it, labeling good-faith edits as vandalism when they were clearly not, and using it to try and move a page under discussion. As it is under discussion, it is a controversial move, and therefore the template doesn't apply.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I haven't violated any policies, I've only made 3 reverts, if I had made four, there would be a problem, but I haven't.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The page was not under discussion when I first speedied it. It clearly needs to be moved back to its original title, since the m dash in the phone number is not what WP:MOS calls for; the proper symbol was already in place, and the person who moved the article has a history of misguided edits: [59]. Radiopathy •talk• 07:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point? It's under discussion now, and therefore the move is controversial, therefore the template cannot be used.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's under discussion because the editor who made the bad move put a {{hangon}} tag under the speedy tag, which is proper procedure - and the tag stays til the discussion is over. It's not a controversial move since the editor took it upon himself to move to a bad title and his move needs to be reverted. so your reverts were entirely inappropriate. Radiopathy •talk• 07:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, its under discussion because you don't like the move, and because it is under discussion, it would be controversial to move when consensus is in the process of being developed, therefore the template cannot be used. It doesn't work like you say. I've been here longer than you, I know what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what do you know, the speedy was declined as it was not 'uncontroversial'.— Dædαlus Contribs 10:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And you are misguided as well. There is no m dash in the phonenumber. Here is a comparison chart to assist you:
    glyph Unicode[1] HTML[2] HTML/XML[3] TeX
    figure dash ‒ U+2012 (8210) none &#x2012; or &#8210; none
    en dash – U+2013 (8211) &ndash; &#x2013; or &#8211; --
    em dash — U+2014 (8212) &mdash; &#x2014; or &#8212; ---
    horizontal bar ― U+2015 (8213) none &#x2015; or &#8213;
    swung dash U+2053 (8275) none &#x2053; or &#8275;

    The one used is the first one, the figure dash, used in phone numbers. It is not the m dash as you incorrectly think.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    As a note to anyone reviewing this, I have self-reverted.— Dædαlus Contribs 08:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No action taken. Speedy deletion tags removed in good faith by third-parties should not be returned, but instead be discussed, although it would have been preferable for one of the parties to go to WP:ANI in leiu of edit warring. The drama should be over now, so no benefit from blocking either party. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Wiki alf and IP sockpuppets reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: )

    Page: Russell Blaylock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Wiki alf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [60]

    Note that User:Wiki alf has also used two IP addresses: 86.3.142.2 and 163.1.147.64 in an apparent attempt to avoid WP:3RR. In addition, User:Wiki libs, who to my knowledge has never previously edited this or any similar article and thus appears to be acting as a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, made the following reversion: [65].

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User responded to a talk page invitation from another editor by dismissing the need to discuss: [67]

    Comments:

    • I have not exceeded the three revert rule and I am not engaged in an edit war. The last edit I made to Blaylock's article was to change the word "believes" to "states" as neither sources states that this is his belief, merely that, in the Free Lance-Star source it says "Dr. Russell Blaylock in his book, "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills," stated that the ingredients" [emphasis added] and in the accessmylibrary.com source recording E Magaine it says "causing damage of varying degrees," argues neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock" [emphasis added]. Making an argument can said to be a statement, but not a belief, and the first souces uses "stated", I changed the word. It is hardly edit-warring. On reflection though, maybe the words we should use are "has stated".86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Wiki alf/IP socks has clearly made at least four separate groups of edits in ten hours, all of them involving some form of reversion. This, in addition to apparently asking a previously uninvolved friend (with a rather similar name) to make a meatpuppet-type reversion. The rationale for these edits doesn't matter; they were done, they were done using different accounts/IPs to avoid scrutiny, and they continued after a 3RR warning. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The fourth did not include some kind of reversion as adequately, if not eloquently stated above. I made no on- or off wiki- communication with Wiki libs who is on a different continent and is most definitely a distinctly different being than I. I replied to Buba hotep's and Libsy's comments on my absence on my talk page as I logged in for "!voting" at an AfD that Carryonandkeepcalm created for the Russell Blaylock article. If Libsy checked my edits and thought that the removal of information pertinent to the AfD was not a good idea and changed it back, that is his affair, go ask him, I made no contact with him except on my logged-in account's talk page, which you can see has no such requests for any action by him regarding this matter. I am now at my home, so until I get up this will be the computer in front of me, which rule makes me log in to make a simple, non-controversial, change of one word, which in no way hid anything, the least of which is any form of reversion.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Until I logged in to "!vote" at an AfD on 09:00, 30 September 2009, I had not logged into my account since 21:55, 16 July 2009 when I added two items to the See also section of the article about the Logan Act. During the daytime I am (supposed to be) working and during the night I am at home, none of the changes between the two ips are due to anything other than having to change from one place to another as a regular pattern of daily living. Is there a problem with me not wishing to use my account for a while and editing from the two places I happen to be in due to my normal daily existence? I logged in to make sure that my "!vote" was counted. I said I was editing when needed but anonymously and intended only to have to deal with essentials when logged in.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Venomspider123 reported by User:Bobisbob (Result: 48h)

    Page: Venom (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Venomspider123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [68]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

    Comments:

    Venomspider has stopped reverting after the warning but he doesn't seem to be listening, perhaps a final warning or a short sharp shock. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We'll have to wait and see. He's waited this long before and then reverted again. Bobisbob2 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Result - 48h. This account's only mission in life seems to be long-term revert-warring about the date of first appearance of certain comic book characters. Discussing things on Talk pages does not interest him. If he can't find anything to do on Wikipedia except revert others' edits, I think an indef block might be on the horizon. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Legolas2186 reported by User:GoldCoaster (Result: )

    Page: Celebration (Madonna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [79] (applies to last four reverts)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (User removed the warning from his talk page with the edit summary "go to hell")

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [86]

    Comments: Typical case of hardened fan trying to take ownership of article pages, going mad with the Revert button, and trying to turn Wikipedia into a fansite for his idol by removing information that does not show the article subject in the best possible light, even when sourced. No less than six reverts were made by him on this one article in a 6 hour period, the last four of which were regarding the same specific material. Attempts by another editor to discuss the issue on the article's discussion page were met with a general lack of civility. A warning about edit-warring left on the reported user's talk page was removed by him with the edit summary "go to hell". User is clearly out of control and needs to learn Wikipedia rules before doing any more editing. GoldCoaster (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not really worthy of a revert war, the addition is not very important even if it is right or wrong, take him to the talkpage and talk about it for a couple of days . imo, Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reverting seems to have stopped. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not really relevant if its worthy of a revert war, the fact remains that the user is guilty of edit warring as shown above and it should be dealt with accordingly. Attempts have been made to discuss (see above). And the reverting has only stopped for now because he has not logged in since his last revert some hours ago. Looking at the user's edit history, there is clear pattern of revert-mania and territorialism. GoldCoaster (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't you just try and talk to him a bit more? Off2riorob (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Im perfectly open to discussions. However, accusing me of territorialism and revert-mania is something I would really like to discuss and know what the accuser's problem is. Let him ping me aat my talkpage. --Legolas (talk2me) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I perceive a 3RR violation by Legolas2186 on 30 September and a misuse of rollback. On his talk page, I proposed to Legolas2186 that he accept a temporary 1RR/day restriction on certain articles in lieu of a block. Before an admin closes this report, I suggest that they listen to Legolas's answer to this suggestion. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

    Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raymond Dundas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 21:57, 29 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "please explain how the edits have a conservative POV. Your additions have an incessant bias")
    2. 23:41, 29 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv. it was succinct enough to explain in the revert. If you disagree, please discuss it on the talk page")
    3. 16:04, 30 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Rick has not responded in months. You have not responded at all. Why do you refuse to discuss it? If you cannot substanitate it, why do you insist on keeping it here?")
    4. 21:34, 30 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv, I have no intention on repeating myself")
    • Diff of warning: here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

    The Four Deuces (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:


    Result: Blocked for 24 hours. I know that this is actually his third block for edit warring on the same page, but the last one was so long ago, hopefully 24 hours is enough to prevent further disruption. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:82.29.16.209 reported by User:MassassiUK (Result: )

    Page: Stedman Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 82.29.16.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [89]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [104]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [105]

    Comments:
    Not a 3RR violation, but IP user has been edit-warring on this article for the past month, continuing to revert sourced material without reason because it is not flattering towards the subject. He has been warned three times now by another editor on his talk page, but has persisted with behaviour. Article page was even semi-protected for several days due to this, but once protection expired, the IP user continued. Request lengthy or even permanent blocking for the IP address in question. MassassiUK 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just had a little look at this and the article does seem to have a poorly cited controversy, which this ip has been reverting, I would say the article needs a little look to ensure it is not a BLP issue, small artlicle with a big controversy section, I suggest if the ip is blocked ( he has been warned on his talkpage) that the block is small as a first block and that we should try to talk to the ip to see what the problem is. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just left the ip a welcome, he has been here a month and has only been warned and never welcomed.Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the article and removed the controversy section as a BLP protection, it is controversial and weakly cited, I was almost immediately reverted, the article is in need of an admin having a look. Off2riorob (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edits were reverted because you are a known troublemaker who has already been blocked for disruption more than half a dozen times this year and you removed adequately sourced information. Now it appears you are going up and down this noticeboard, causing more trouble for your own twisted amusement. The sources given on this article in question were from two leading UK music magazines and are suitable for inclusion. You have already been reported to the Admin Notice Board this week by other editors for disruptive behaviour as seen here. 80.41.82.61 (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comments are unworthy of AGF editing and verging on rude, please comment on the edits and not the editor. As I said those citations were poorly cited and if you look someone has found some stronger ones. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your history of disruptive behaviour speaks for itself. Get off Wikipedia and find something else to occupy your time. 80.41.31.169 (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not log in and be uncivil? Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.70.102.204 reported by User:Piano non troppo (Result: )

    Page: List of Jewish American entertainers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 81.70.102.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring warning: [109]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [110]

    Comments:

    Editor has made dozens of changes to an article, never explaining in edit summary. They regularly add uncited material that includes WP:PEACOCK words. They seem to have little understanding of Wiki etiquette, and may simply be ignoring rules. E.g., in this edit they inexplicably remove a reference for Emmy Rossum, and replace her entry with peacock language, leaving an HTML error: [111]

    Editor repeated replaces deleted material. Editor was given three final warnings, has been blocked for disruptive editing, and given other warnings by several editors. There's no response from them. Piano non troppo (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:HAl reported by User:Scientus (Result: 10 days)

    Page: Office Open XML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: HAl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [112]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [125]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Office_Open_XML#Vandalism_of_the_page

    Comments:
    user:HAl has a long history of uncivil behavior. including hiding origins of Microsoft-run sites, being called out for apparently biased editing, being blocked for edit warring, among other things.Scientus (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Result - Blocked 10 days, after seeing the current 3RR violation and a long record of previous reverts on this article. I count four reverts by User:HAl on September 30. They occurred at 12:03, 13:27, 13:37 and 16:55 UTC. His last edit-warring block was for one week, on July 1. Other admins are welcome to study the situation to see if anyone else should be blocked, but I didn't see a recent 3RR violation by anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case I suggest blocking User:Scientus as well, as he is obviously a huge hypocrite when posting this on the admin notice board. He has been blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing on this article before as well and everything he is accusing User:HAl of doing can easily applied to him as well.
      • Here is a list of his recent edits: Edit warring of User:Scientus.
    Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see a recent 3RR violation by anyone else. If HAl would agree to abide by consensus on this article, and stop edit-warring, he might be unblocked. That would probably require a 1RR per week voluntary restriction. If he would agree to that, attention would then shift to others to see if they were also behaving well. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Scientus is a long term edit warrior as can easily be recognized looking at the provided diffs of his long list of disruptive behavior. He generally does not engage in discussions and consensus-building on the talk page, unlike User:HAl who already tried a request for mediation and also tried to get help from the Wikiproject computing ([126], [127], [128], etc.). Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Scientus does not appear to have been the locus of the repeated edit warring on this article over the last few months. If it so happens that Scientus proceeds to edit war with users other than this one, that's a separate issue as far as I'm concerned. This user has most certainly not restricted his edit warring to reverting Scientus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm reported by User:Killervogel5 (Result: )

    Page: Pete Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Yankees10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Johnny Spasm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [129]

    Added
    • 5th revert (is from an IP but gives no explanation, cannot determine whether this is the same user): [138]
    • 5th re-revert: [139]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Johnny Spasm and Yankees10

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nearly all of Talk:Pete Rose is dedicated to this issue at this point.

    Comments:
    I have tried to mediate disputes between these users; however, I have obviously grown fed up, as a party who was external to the original discussion, of trying to get them to discuss. I know that at least one of these users has been blocked for edit warring before (not going to name names here), and it seems like, whether there is discussion or not, that the edit war, and discussion through edit summaries, will continue. This is really just an extension of the earlier edit war, which I tried to mediate and halt before it got out of hand, and regarding which there is a lengthy discussion on the talk page. One of the two users (Yankees10) involved in this particular incarnation of the edit war tried to re-open discussion on the talk page, but even after being asked to contribute to it, the other user continued to revert instead of discussing. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Shrieekk and User:Dewatchdog reported by User:Rajithmohan (Result: )

    Page: Kochi, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Users being reported: Shrieekk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    and Dewatchdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [140]

    Revert history of Shrieekk: 30-september-2009

    01-october-2009


    Revert history of Dewatchdog: 30-september-2009

    01-october-2009

    02-october-2009


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (Shrieekk): [163]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (Dewatchdog): [164]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [165] AND [166]


    Comments:

    The involved editors are new and focus only on the same article. I feel the article should be protected for a week or so to avoid using alternate accounts or anonymous IPs (revert done without logging in: [167]). Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.148.51.53 reported by Postoak (talk) (Result: )

    The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.148.51.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 18:41, 1 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317201720 by Tim Song (talk)")
    2. 18:44, 1 October 2009 (edit summary: "Thought this was useful in choosing a future workplace.")
    3. 19:21, 1 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317331502 by Postoak (talk)")
    4. 19:33, 1 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317334302 by Postoak (talk)")

    Information being added violatesWP:SOAP and is inappropriate to the article. —Postoak (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:TimothyHorrigan reported by User:ThwWeakWilled (Result: )

    Page: Boston (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: TimothyHorrigan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [168]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [173]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174]

    Comments: I'm basically the middleman here. I expanded the article, and have seen this all over my watchlist. The talk page has been used, but there seems to be no changing some people's minds. I have no opinion on this matter, I just want to get the **** article off C-class and to GA or FA status soon! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    User:TreadingWater reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: )

    Page: (multiple, see below)
    User being reported: TreadingWater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Text dump of Special:Contributions/TreadingWater (all times PDT = UTC-7); comments indicate that they are all reverts or intended to be reverts.

    • 16:47, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Template:Cultural gens ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:46, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Baby boom ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:45, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Post-World War II baby boom ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:18, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation X ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:18, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:17, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Baby Boom Generation ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:16, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation gap ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:16, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Demographics ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:07, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Z ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:06, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Y ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 16:05, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Jones ‎(revert to version which has survived many edits over long period, and reflects consensus of almost all editors; only Arthur Rubin and a couple of other editors disagree) ‎
    • 14:59, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Template:Cultural gens ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:57, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Baby boom ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:56, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation X ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:55, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:55, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Post-World War II baby boom ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:54, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Baby Boom Generation ‎(undid more Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:53, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Jones ‎(undid Arthur Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:52, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation gap ‎(undid Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:51, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Demographics ‎(undid Rubin vandalism)
    • 14:50, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Y ‎(Undid revision 317358505 by Arthur Rubin (talk))
    • 14:49, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Z ‎(Undid revision 317358454 by Arthur Rubin (talk))
    • 13:35, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Z ‎(returning to more accurate version)
    • 13:32, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Y ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 13:23, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Demographics ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 13:17, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation gap ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 13:13, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Baby boom ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 13:07, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Template:Cultural gens ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time, GenJones is certainly included in any credible list of generations in 2009, see talk page)
    • 12:54, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation X ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 12:48, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time, GenJones is certainly included in any credible list of generations in 2009)
    • 12:33, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Post-World War II baby boom ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 12:24, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Baby Boom Generation ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)
    • 12:16, October 1, 2009 (hist) (diff) Generation Jones ‎(returning to the more accurate version which was here for a long time)


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:19

    Comments:
    His first edits off a 3-month block for SPA sock puppeting was to continue the SPA actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Response:
    Please note that my following comments are about the edits of Arthur Rubin, and not about him personally. What actually is happening here is that user Arthur Rubin has repeatedly disregarded Wikipedia rules, and the consensus of other editors, in trying to push his personal agenda against the recent popularity of the Generation Jones concept. Adding insult to injury, he constantly starts edit wars over this, and then disengenuously accuses others of starting edit wars. He threatens others re. not breaking 3RR, but then breaks 3RR himself, often. Worse of all, this user somehow is an administator, who presumably is fully aware of the rules and policies he so often breaks.

    How do we deal with a rogue administrator like this? He has angered many editors; he has often been the recipient of bitter complaints by many unrelated editors over his problematic editing. I’ve tried to discuss with him--endlessly--the merits of my edits, but to no avail. He almost never will even acknowledge attempts at discussion on the talk pages. The consensus of editors who have weighed in on these generation pages overwhelmingly agree with my views. Arthur Rubin’s views are very much in the minority, yet he continually tries to bully others with tricks and dishonesty and ignoring Wiki rules to overcome the consensus.

    The edits I made yesterday were all reasonable, well-substantiated reverts back to the way those pages had been for a long time. There had been many discussions about these pages, and a consensus had emerged which survived many edits. Arthur Rubin, apparently without looking at the merits of any of my edits, blindly and immediately reverted all my edits. The reason he gave for all his reverts was that I was supposedly “vandalizing”. Yet, Rubin, as an administrator, knows fully well that edits aren’t vandalism if they are made in good faith, and he certainly knows that I passionately and truly believe in the edits I make--obviously in good faith-- on these topics.

    In fact, with all the reverts he made of me yesterday, he only once gave an actual reason (besides his knowingly false “vandalism” reason)…he reverted the following comment I added to the Baby Boom page by claiming that it was a “false statement“: Many analysts argue that two cultural generations were born during this demographic baby boom: Baby Boom Generation and Generation Jones. But I, and others, have repeatedly shown him unequivocal evidence that this statement is true. He has many times been shown articles and video of major analysts specifically arguing this specific point. These analysts include many very respected names (David Brooks, Clarence Page, Jonathan Alter, etc., etc.) from many top reliable sources (The New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, etc., etc.). He has been shown by me and others easily over 50 top analysts arguing this specific point, yet he claims that it is a “false statement” that “many analysts…” argue this point. It’s not that he provides evidence that my statement is false. He doesn’t question the reliability of these analysts, he doesn’t dispute whether they did argue this point, he doesn’t present opposing evidence. He, like he almost always does, simply reverts the edit, with no attempt to discuss or be collaborative.

    So how do we deal with someone like this? Personally, I hate these edit wars. I much prefer discussing issues and arriving at a consensus through reasoned and collaborative debate. But this has proved impossible with someone like Arthur Rubin. I’m certainly not OK with these relevant pages misrepresenting the truth to Wikipedia readers. But when I try to make the pages accurate, backed up by tons of supporting evidence which fills the talk pages for these articles, Arthur Rubin simply reverts my good faith attempts at accuracy. Without discussion. And then pushes edit wars endlessly. While accusing others of edit warring.

    I understand why there are so many editors on Wikipedia who have such bitter feelings toward Arthur Rubin. I understand why so many editors have angrily complained on talk pages and elsewhere on Wiki about Arthur Rubin’s bad faith editing. I understand why part of the ill feeling toward Arthur Rubin stems from his apparent belief that because he is an administrator that he is somehow above having to follow Wikipedia rules. What I don’t understand yet is how to stop him from continuing this bad behavior. I would appreciate any suggestions on how to get someone like this to stop creating edit wars and other disruptive editing, and to join the rest of us who want to arrive at accurate articles through a collaborative approach. Thanks.TreadingWater (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't fully understand that rant, but your edits on Template:cultural gens and Generation Jones are clearly against the views of all other than you and your sock puppets for the past 69 months (6 months previous to your block). They may be accurate (although I have doubts), but they are clearly against WP:CONSENSUS. Please make your point on the talk page before making massive reverts to a previous state of any article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, you understand what I wrote there, Arthur Rubin, and you know that it is all true. Instead of directly dealing with my specific claims, and refuting them if you can, you simply do your usual Arthur Rubin-game playing and act like you just don't understand what is being said. Why don't you let me know what you specifically don't understand and I'll be happy to clarify it for you. And speaking of the usual Arthur Rubin game playing, are you hoping that no one will actually read the archives on the relevant talk pages when you make your completely untrue claim that consensus was ever on your side on this? It's such a cynical ploy, Arthur Rubin. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to please read through those talk pages...going back 9 months...one year and further, and you'll see consensus has always been for GenJones inclusion, and against Arthur Rubin's minority view. If you have any arguments you can make refuting the well-established consensus against you, Arthur Rubin, then please make those comments on the talk pages. Otherwise, please stop creating edit wars with your mass unbased innaccurate reverts, which go against the consensus.TreadingWater (talk) 18:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Law Lord (Result: )

    Page: Generation Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [175]


    Comments:

    Just as much User:TreadingWater I guess. --Law Lord (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Probably. Except I'm reverting to the consensus of the past 3 months (less about a week), and TreadingWater is reverting to the consensus of his sock puppets. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    He has not used any sock puppets on Generation Y in recent history, and he does not have a history of blocks for edit warring – you do. I just reported it, others decide the consequences. --Law Lord (talk) 03:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not accurate. He had been using sock puppets on Generation Y (among others) just before his block, and had been using sock puppets to edit war in the past. Whether that was the reason for his block is difficult to determine. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify my "consensus" comment above, I'm reverting to the WP:CONSENSUS view of Generation Jones (in the relevant articles) for over 2 months ("coincidentally", concurrent with TW's 3 month block), while he's reverting to the view he (and possibly his sock puppets) took over the 6 months preceding, with little support from other editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Arthur Rubin continues to be frustrated that his views on this topic are in the minority, so he cynically tries to pretend that the consensus is actually on his side, hoping that no one will actually do the due dilligene to expose him. I urge anyone who is interested in determining the truth to please read through the relevant talk pages and you will see that the consensus is overwhelmingly against him. Over the last few months, these articles were basically abandoned, with no real discussion made either way. In grasping straws now, Arthur Rubin is trying to somehow translate that brief silence into some kind of consensus. Ridiculous. Read the many comments of the many Wiki editors who have actually weighed in on this topic and you will see there is unequivocal consensus against, not for, Arthur Rubin's views on this.TreadingWater (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I gather that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TreadingWater should be reviewed by any admin who closes this case. I hope Arthur will clarify to what extent he is 'involved' as a content editor on articles that mention Generation Jones. I notice that he took some admin actions relating to this case since he blocked some of the socks named in the TreadingWater case. The actions of Treading Water seem open to many objections, I'm just trying to sort out the cast of characters. I will ask User:Unitanode if he wants to comment here, since he filed the TreadingWater sock case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for pointing that conflict re. being an administrator which Arthur Rubin has so often disrespected. He has been very involved with trying to downplay GenJones, it is a very emotional issue for him for some reason, and he has gone to great lengths to try to prevent Wiki readers from being exposed to the GenJones concept. If you track back through his involvement, you'll find that emotion, not logic, has driven his behavior. Despite his extreme involvement in this, he nonetheless has often innapropriately inserted himself as an administrator in a case like this which he is not supposed to. This follows a pattern by Arthur Rubin of often disobeying a wide variety of Wiki rules. I am back on Wiki with an extremely strong desire to follow all Wiki rules. I thought administrators were supposed to follow Wiki rules like the rest of us. Am I wrong about that? If not, why has Arthur Rubin been allowed to get away with this?TreadingWater (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand your logic. That TreadingWater violates the 3RR rule does not mean that you are allowed to do so. You have both violated the 3RR rule, and your argument that he is a sock puppet (or has used sock puppets 3 months ago) does not mean that you are allowed to violate the 3RR rule. --Law Lord (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Typical game playing from Arthur Rubin, Law Lord; if you deal with him much, you'll find he often resorts to this kind of behavior. And just for the record, I have no history of violating 3RR, while Arthur Rubin regularly violates it.TreadingWater (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahem. Neither of us has violated 3RR (as of the last time I checked); as TW stopped after 3 attempts on each article, and I hadn't done any other reversions on any of them lately. The question of edit warring is still open, but, except for specific violations of 3RR, reversion to a long-standing consensus is usually adequate justification. As well consider WP:BRD; even if TW believes what he's doing is good, he hasn't opened discussion on any of his edits except in {{cultural gens}}, where his comments seem to lack verisimilitude. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I argued when TW was first blocked indefinitely, and the begged off-wiki to have it reduced, that Fred was wrong to have reduced it. TW is little more than a single-purpose account, who chases legitimate editors away from the generations articles with his battling and sockpuppetry. I was initially planning to make significant upgrades to this set of articles, but I don't even have them watchlisted anymore. TreadingWater should have the indefinite block reinstated, and no action should be taken against Arthur Rubin. UnitAnode 18:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sizzle Flambé reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: )

    Page: Template:Triple Goddess
    User being reported: Sizzle Flambé (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [179]

    The reverts are not all the same; the first three relate to the removal of criticism of Robert Graves (or perhaps more accurately moving it to a different article); the fourth is about the criticism of Graves and the removal of a section of the article; the fifth is over the addition of {{pov}} and Template:Tlaccuracy tags to the top of the article.

    There have been a lot of edits to the article recently, and whoever handles this report will want to look over the article history and the talk page carefully; looking at the period 23-24 September might also be in order.


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [189] (this is from 24 September); [190] today.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see talk page, there is mind-numbingly long discussion of every issue.

    Comments:


    --Akhilleus (talk) 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:66.99.50.71 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: )

    Page: Mishawaka, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 66.99.50.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [191]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [196]

    Comments:

    Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have attempted to also engage the anon, but he seems to not be slowing down at all. He only seems interested in this article. Temporary page protection is probably the best solution. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Verbal reported by User:Mitsube (Result: )

    Page: European Cases of the Reincarnation Type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [197]

    In this next diff he partially undoes his fourth revert (likely because it is just that), but leaves the redirect he reverted in with the fourth revert, so the fourth revert remains a revert on that account, and the effect is the same: [202].

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [203] This diff is actually a warning the user gave me yesterday, when I had reverted once at Reincarnation research to his three times.

    Comments:

    The user is deleting an article on the grounds that the Washington Post, the British Medical Journal, the American Journal of Psychiatry, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, and the Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease constitute "only fringe references/reviews". User:Johnfos has put in a lot of good work into this excellent article. Verbal has been edit-warring at Reincarnation research and Talk:Reincarnation research as well. Mitsube (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This was a technical violation by about 30 minutes, for which I apologise and have self reverted as soon as I realised (no warning issued i this case or notification, something I think is only polite and shows that you are not baiting the other user into unintentional violation). I dispute the description given by Mitsube above, a user who has been hounding me and is in dispute with me and several other editors in good standing on the Reincarnation research page. However, those disputes (this and the other) should be dealt with on the article talk page. I apologise for breaking 3RR inadvertently, and hope my self revert addresses the issue. Thanks, Verbal chat 19:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He self-reverted after I notified him of this report: [204], [205]. Mitsube (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is correct - as soon as became aware I reverted and apologised. Verbal chat 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I am "guilty" of a technical and inadvertent breach I also promise, on pain of a week block, to not edit the article in question for 72hrs at least from 1900 UTC today. Verbal chat 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would the responding admin also please look at the history for Talk:Reincarnation research? Verbal made certain allegations on his talk page and refused to let me respond there, instead saying that I should discuss his edits on the talk page of the article. So I copied the conversation there, and he removed it four times, saying I was being "silly" and "misrepresenting his views". I would like to know if I was in the wrong there, it is possible. The user has been quite destructive on a range of article, European Cases of the Reincarnation Type being only the most blatant. If a user cannot write a good article with excellent sources without it being deleted four times in 24 hours by an ideologue then what is the point of wikipedia? Moreover the user characterizes his violation as "unintentional", and blames me for not giving him a warning: "no warning issued i this case or notification, something I think is only polite and shows that you are not baiting the other user into unintentional violation". Every revert is intentional. The user seems to view himself as having a quota of reverts, and a problem only arises if it is exceeded. Mitsube (talk) 19:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:81.101.42.124 reported by User:Gu1dry (Result: )

    Page: Alexisonfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    User being reported: 81.101.42.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [206]


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [211]

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

    Comments:


    1. ^ Characters in Unicode are referenced in prose via the "U+" notation. The hexadecimal number after the "U+" is the character's Unicode code point. The decimal equivalent is shown in parentheses.
    2. ^ Specifically, the predefined character entity reference that can be used in an HTML document in place of a literal dash.
    3. ^ Specifically, the numeric character reference that can be used in an HTML or XML document in place of a literal dash.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=317519048"