Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Legolas2186 reported by User:GoldCoaster (Result: 1RR was agreed to)

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: [8] (applies to last four reverts)

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]
• 6th revert: [14]

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: [15]

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)

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)

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)

Can't you just try and talk to him a bit more? Off2riorob (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• 7th revert: [16]. Edit warring just continued by user. Discussion on article's talk page totally ignored. GoldCoaster (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Result - Per this discussion Legolas has agreed to abide by a 1RR per day restriction on music articles until the end of October. He has apologized for his misuse of rollback. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:82.29.16.209 reported by User:MassassiUK (Result: Watching for more BLP violations)

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: [17]

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]
• 6th revert: [23]
• 7th revert: [24]
• 8th revert: [25]
• 9th revert: [26]
• 10th revert: [27]
• 11th revert: [28]
• 12th revert: [29]
• 13th revert: [30]
• 14th revert: [31]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [33]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Why not log in and be uncivil? Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). 80.41.30.16 (talk) 22:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - No action. Another admin lifted the semiprotection on September 30. In his log message he advised that the IP responsible for the BLP stuff be blocked if he adds the material again. The offending IPs seem to come from the 80.41.* range. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people need to pay closer attention. The admin who lifted his own semi-protection of the page was referring to the IP user who had been reported in this very thread (82.29.16.209) as s/he had been removing sourced material without reason or discussion for some weeks now. Several editors have been restoring the details only for the 82.29.16.209 IP to remove it again. The debate about the material not being sourced well enough is another discussion for another board, but the fact is it met WP:V adequately and has now had further sources added anyway. Not that I think this will stop the guilty party from removing it again, and if that does happen, it means this whole exercise has been nothing more than a completely pointless debate. 80.41.41.30 (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

copied from my talk page I had added semiprotection but then removed it about a minute later, thinking my action to be a mistake; I saw that 82.29.* seemed to be the only vandal, rather than 80.41. (who was providing refs). I gave 82.29.* a final warning at the time, so he can be blocked upon further disruption. In retrospect, the article shouldn't have been protected at all by me because there was not enough vandalism to warrant such an action. —Ed (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

80.41, feel free to join the article talk page to persuade the other editors that your negative BLP material is well-sourced. You have yet to make an appearance on Talk. And every time you edit you have a different IP, which does not suggest you will be a reliable partner in any ongoing conversation. EdJohnston (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear God, what a storm in a teacup this has become. Edjohnson: there is already a section on the article's talk page about the inclusion of the material and its repeated removal without reason. It's only a small section because the user who kept deleting the material (82.26...) has not responded to it in any way, nor has anyone else - so it seems that no "persuasion" was necessary. It seems that several editors (including 80.41...) have restored the information each time it is deleted, as it was indeed adequately sourced, which is why I reported the matter here in the first place. At no point prior to this report was a BLP issue ever mentioned by the person removing the information (in fact, nothing was ever mentioned as they refused to talk). Although I would encourage editors to make an account and sign in to edit articles, I do not feel that user(s) 80.41... has done anything wrong in this matter, as Ed has confirmed above, and I think your tone and suggestion of unreliability towards him/her is perhaps misdirected when the true culprit is obviously 82.29.16.209. I suggest we wait and see if the article gets vandalised again. MassassiUK 09:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:81.70.102.204 reported by User:Piano non troppo (Result: 2 weeks)

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]

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

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: [39]

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)

Result - Two weeks for the IP. Relatively long block, but they've been peacocking this article against the advice of everyone else for six weeks now. (Feedback is making no impression whatever, and they have never left a comment on Talk). EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Yankees10 and User:Johnny Spasm reported by User:Killervogel5 (Result: 2 x 24h)

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: [40]

• 1st revert (JS): [41]
• 1st re-revert (Y10): [42]
• 2nd revert: [43]
• 2nd re-revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 3rd re-revert: [46]
• 4th revert: [47]
• 4th re-revert: [48]

Added

• 5th revert (is from an IP but gives no explanation, cannot determine whether this is the same user): [49]
• 5th re-revert: [50]

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)

There seems to be long-term edit warring by these two users. Ten of the last twelve edits on Pete Rose are reverts by these guys. I've notified them of the 3RR complaint, and invited both parties to promise to stop edit warring on Pete Rose. If there is no appropriate response, I think that blocking both editors would be logical. EdJohnston (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I dont plan on reverting anymore. We are currently envolved in a peaceful discussion so i'm hoping the reverting and edit warring can stop for good--Yankees10 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours to Yankees10 and Johnny Spasm. Here is the attempt at peaceful discussion -- "Why do you have such an ownership problem with player articles. This is getting absolutely ridiculous." Further discussion on both editors' Talk pages and at my own talk led to no progress. If either one will promise to stop edit warring on baseball articles, the block can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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: [51]

Revert history of Shrieekk: 30-september-2009

• 1st revert: [52]
• 2nd revert: [53]
• 3rd revert: [54]
• 4th revert: [55]
• 5th revert: [56]
• 6th revert: [57]
• 7th revert: [58]

01-october-2009

• 8th revert: [59]
• 9th revert: [60]
• 10th revert: [61]
• 11th revert: [62]

Revert history of Dewatchdog: 30-september-2009

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]
• 5th revert: [67]
• 6th revert: [68]

01-october-2009

• 8th revert: [69]
• 9th revert: [70]
• 10th revert: [71]
• 11th revert: [72]

02-october-2009

• 12th revert: [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (Shrieekk): [74]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (Dewatchdog): [75]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: [76] AND [77]

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: [78]). Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan ^{(Talk to me..)} 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected for a week. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• Three-revert rule violation on

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)

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)

• I was just informed of this report. I have already protected the article for three days to stop the edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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: [79]

• 1st revert: [80]
• 2nd revert: [81]
• 3rd revert: [82]
• 4th revert: [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [85]

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)

The user hasn't edited in several days, so I'll mark this as stale. However, given that the account is an SPA, any more reverts will lead to an immediate block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

No, I can't recall a time when consensus was in favor of including Generation Jones, except during the time your sock puppets were active. Perhaps you can point to a specific time and article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you several hours ago to show me where the consensus you keep claiming exists (in the last three months) is, and this is your answer? Gee, I wonder if your non-answer has anything to do with the fact that your invented consensus doesn't, and never, existed? And as far as the long-standing consensus agreeing with me which has existed for years, read the talk pages, Arthur Rubin...they are filled with editors agreeing with me. Why don't you start with the last ridiculous deletion nomination? Even if you remove alleged sock puppets, the editors were overwhelmingly supportive of GenJones, and you--Arthur Rubin--were one of the only editors against, as usual.TreadingWater (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Result - TreadingWater is blocked indef. This case puzzled me for a while. Neither side linked to TreadingWater's sock case. What I've now learned is that TreadingWater was indef blocked for sockpuppetry. This was commuted to three months due to a promise of good behavior. That block expired September 30. Now, on October 1, there is a huge list of 32 reverts by TreadingWater as listed by AR at the top of this report, wherein he promotes Generation Jones across a bunch of articles. The article on Generation Jones survived an AfD, after sock activity by Treading during the AfD itself. The aforementioned huge list of reverts by TreadingWater *cannot possibly* represent anyone's definition of good behavior, so I'm restoring TreadingWater's original indef block. Since Treading's misbehavior was so egregious, I did not closely study Arthur Rubin's role, but any admin who thinks that Arthur should be sanctioned as well may do so. EdJohnston (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Arthur Rubin reported by User:Law Lord (Result: No action)

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: [86]

• 1st revert: [87]
• 2nd revert: [88]
• 3rd revert: [89]

Comments:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You are fully aware that I have contributed, over an extended period of time, tons of detailed reasons and edits to the talk pages of each page which I made edits to yesterday, which specifically justify each of those edits made yesterday. You, by contrast, have made only very few contributions to these discussions, preferring to simply revert without explanantion, ignoring the views of a consensus of other editors. Now you have the nerve to say I didn't open discussion yesterday even though you know I have discussed all of this at great length already on these pages. Fine, because it is important to me to bend over backwards to make sure I don't do anything which can even be perceived as problematic on my Wiki edits, I will now repeat yet again, my well-documented and substantiated arguments for the accuracy of my edits, on the appropriate talk pages. And I will watch carefully to see whether you provide the same on these talk pages if you choose to revert any of my changes.TreadingWater (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I argued when TW was first blocked indefinitely, and then 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)
  • Would someone please re-indef this guy? He has exhausted the good-faith that Fred (for reasons I don't understand) displayed in shortening to 3 months. He has abusively sockpuppeted to give the impression of consensus, attempted to insert a fringey (at best) hypothesis into multiple generational articles, and has generally proven himself to be nothing more than a single-purpose account, intent on driving away from generational articles anyone who will not acquiesce to his fringe view of Generation Jones. I know I won't be going back to editing those articles until there is at least a complete topic ban on him and all his sockpuppets. I don't have the time nor the energy to sink into the battlegrounds which he turns these articles into. UnitAnode 22:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have had much experience with many Wiki editors; I've agreed with many, disgreed with many, but overall, I've found almost all Wiki editors to be reasonable people. There are two big exceptions to this: Arthur Rubin and Unitanode. These are the only two editors I've run into who truly, in my view, are disgraceful editors. Both regularly edit with such bad faith, edit so consistently against the interests of Wikipedia, so often put their own personal agendas ahead of what is best for Wikipedia, that I implore anyone who care about Wiki to keep a careful eye on their editing. Both have behaved so outrageously that they should have been banned indefintely a long time ago. Maybe the time has come once and for all to get these bad apples off of Wikipedia.

Unitanode's comments here reflect only a tiny bit of his often disgraceful behavior. He tries to argue here that I should be banned?! Based on what? I just suffered through a three month ban for the perceived "crimes" which he refers to. I just returned to Wiki yesterday, and have certainly not done anything wrong, let alone deserving of being banned. One of the reasons why Unitanode is such a terrible editor (and you'll find that quite a few other Wiki users share my very negative view of Unitanode's behavior) is that he edits tons of articles, often having only very little knowledge about a topic, yet pretending otherwise. His utterly uninformed views about generations, and the prevailing current opinions of experts about generations, can be found in virtually everything I've seen him edit re. generations. If you care about Wiki, please watch the way this guy edits; I'm not just saying that because he's been so abusive of me, I really genuinely believe Unitanode is absolutely terrible for Wikipedia.TreadingWater (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

They weren't "perceived" they were proven. You're a sockpuppeteer and a single purpose account. You converse with your sockpuppets as if they were different people, which doesn't count as good interactions. The only solution to your disruption is an indefinite block. UnitAnode 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Untrue and irrelevant. You are trying to retroactively change the three month ban I was given. I came back yesterday and have done nothing wrong.TreadingWater (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Both true and relevant. Do I really need to link the SPI that proved it? Do I really need to link the diff where you were indef-ed? Do I really need to link Fred saying that you had groveled on IRC to have it reduced to 3 months? I will if you keep insisting it's not true. UnitAnode 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator(s) reviewing this current situation: please look carefully at Unitanode's editing. As he has done so many times in the past, he simply reverts (like Arthur Rubin) without any attempt at collaboration. I am writing detailed explanations on the talk pages for my edits, and asking anyone who disagrees to please discuss on these talk pages, and to not start edit wars. Unitanode, like he always has in the past, completely ignores my attempts at collaboration, and instead starts edit wars, as he has so many times in the past. He knows he can't come up with specific reasons to revert so he just reverts. He has created so much bad feeling among so many other editors with this kind of disruptive behavior. What can be done to stop this edit warrior and otherwise bad faith editor?TreadingWater (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone examining our respective editing histories will not come out with a favorable view of yours. Both Rubin and myself have discussed this at LENGTH with you in the past. You're making no new arguments. UnitAnode 23:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What a joke. Your editing history is shameful, Unitanode, and you know it. Further, neither you nor Rubin were willing to discuss these issues in the past nor apparently now. Who is the edit warrior...he who keeps giving detailed reason for his edits and keeps asking to be joined in discussion, or he who just keeps reverting, refusing to discuss? Again, I ask you to please stop blindly reverting my edits and start being collaborative.TreadingWater (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Administrator(s): can someone please help me deal with two editors who are acting badly? I am trying to improve articles which are currently misrepresenting the prevailing expert opinion to Wiki readers. The talk pages for these articles are filled with my past detailed, sourced support for these edits. I am now again making detailed arguments on these talk pages for my edits, and asking that anyone considering reverting my edits to please discuss on talk pages, and to avoid starting edit wars. Two editors--Arthur Rubin and Unitanode--are instead choosing to edit with very bad faith. They keep claiming that their views are with a consensus, which is completely untrue. When I ask them to point out where this supposed consensus is, to show me where it is on the talk pages or elsewhere, they can't and won't. If there really was consensus on their side, why are they unwilling to discuss this supposed consensus on the talk pages? (The truth is that over the last 3 months, while I was banned for alleged sockpuppetry, there was virtually no discussion on the talk pages about any of this. Prior to that, there was long-standing consensus which was in agreement with me.) I have repeatedly asked them to discuss why they keep reverting my edits, but they refuse to discuss it at all, and just keep blindly reverting. I ask them to stop starting edit wars, and one of them has the nerve to say that I am starting edit wars, when in truth I'm the only one who is willing to discuss it and not edit war. How do I get articles to include content which I know is true, when I'm dealing with two editors who clearly don't know the subject matter, but who gang up on me, just keep reverting my accurate edits, and refuse to discuss it? Unitanode keeps talking about my alleged sockpuppetry from several months ago as if that is somehow relevant to now improving these articles. I am back on Wikipedia, wanting to improve these articles, following all the Wiki rules, yet being treated by these two editors this way without any help from administrators. What can I do to stop them and have a collaborative reasonable approach to editing these articles? Thanks for any advice or help you can give me.TreadingWater (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No action. See closure of the case just above, which is a complaint by Arthur Rubin against TreadingWater. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Sizzle Flambé reported by User:Akhilleus (Result: No vio)

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

Previous version reverted to: [90]

• 1st revert: [91] 16:19, 28 September 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
• 2nd revert: from [92] 16:31, 28 September 2009 by User:Davemon to [93] 00:57, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
• 3rd revert: from [94] 07:26, 1 October 2009 by User:Davemon to [95] 07:39, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
• 4th revert: from [96] 09:25, 1 October 2009 by User:Mangoe to [97] 10:25, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
• 5th revert: from [98] 17:46, 1 October 2009 by User:Pmanderson to [99] 19:23, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé

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 {{accuracy}} 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: [100] (this is from 24 September); [101] 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)

• {{AN3|novioexplain}}

The two edits on 28 September 2009, and the first edit on 1 October 2009 are simple reverts.

The second edit you cite on 1 October: [102] is not a simple revert, but an edit that continues to incorporate text that has been added by other contributors.

The third edit you cite on 1 October: [103] is a content dispute over flagging on the article, and also different from all the previous edits. I would however agree with Pmanderson that the article has severe POV and accuracy problems, and I do agree with flagging it for such.

I believe these are good faith edits on the part of Sizzle Flambé (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), with the intention of improving the article. However he does need to watch it on the reverting, as do the others in this content dispute.

Conclusion: This is not simple, or even drawn-out, revert-warring on the part of Sizzle Flambé, and 3RR has not been violated that I can see. This is an article with many problems, a troubled history, and lots of content disputes.

Davemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) in particular has been very WP:OWNy and WP:TENDentious in his work on this article since December 2008, and has driven away a number of contributors who tried to improve the article. Reverts 2 and 3 cited above, for instance:[104] [105], and these:[106][107] are all simple reverts/undos by Davemon, to this version:[108] All appear to be done with the "undo" button and were in the same timeframe as the above report: four identical reverts between Sep 28 and Oct 1. Davemon has a pattern of drawn-out edit-warring on this, and other articles. A look at his contribs will show other examples. I agree people should look over the edit histories here, and the relevant talk pages. There are a variety of problems. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• By all means look over Talk:Triple Goddess, not just at the bottom, but from the top (have coffee at hand): the same basic dispute keeps recurring — should the article cover antecedents to the present "Triple Goddess" concept from before the work of Robert Graves? Many editors have added content on that topic, and two editors (Davémon and Akhilleus) have kept removing it. I'm a relatively recent editor, and wasn't even around for the early disputes; I'm merely the latest target. The "Before Robert Graves" section is now thoroughly referenced, and every attempt has been made to remove any POV... though I'd welcome any notices of surviving (reasonably arguable) POV or inaccuracies there, and of course any helpful edits. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Please note that the content-flag removal followed the flagger's admission that his complaint concerned arguments on the talk page about claims on the talk page regarding translations being primary or secondary sources. As no such claim or dispute appeared in the article, it became clear that the flags on the article had been misplaced. No text in the article is tagged either for "pov" or for "fact". If there is such a problem, please tag the offending text, or at least discuss it, so that can be fixed. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Update: please see Talk:Triple Goddess#Improvements and Concerns and these edits for an example of what happens with Davémon that leads me to revert: NPOV changes were requested in talk, I made them, commenting in that talk section as I did so; Davémon undid them, and then added a POV change essentially the opposite of what was requested. So I reverted and pointed him to the talk section (which he knew about, having commented on another matter there, but had not discussed these changes). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 09:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result - No violation. I do not see four reverts in 24 hours. If this is a complaint of long-term edit warring, it is not spelled out far enough for me to evaluate. There seem to be many experienced editors working on this article and all should known how to use the article WP:RFC process. A well-focussed RfC would be a better way to address any remaining problems than the edict of a 3RR-closer who surely won't go through the edit history and the talk page to look at everyone's behavior for the last three weeks. (The talk page is now up to 339 Kb but it contains no RfCs) This report was also discussed over at User talk:Kathryn NicDhàna#WP:ANEW. I recommend that Sizzle not edit war over the placement of tags on the article EdJohnston (talk) 12:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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: [109]

• 1st revert: [110]
• 2nd revert: [111]
• 3rd revert: [112]
• 4th revert: [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [114]

Comments:

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

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)

Stale at this point, but I will keep an eye on it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by User:Mitsube (Result: No action)

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: [115]

• 1st revert: [116]
• 2nd revert: [117]
• 3rd revert: [118]
• 4th revert: [119]

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: [120].

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121] 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)

• 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)

• He self-reverted after I notified him of this report: [122], [123]. Mitsube (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That is correct - as soon as became aware I reverted and apologised. Verbal chat 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)

This seems to be degenerating into personal attacks. There has been no deletion - I'm not an admin. Adress the issues on the talk pages please, and remain civil. I can defend my other actions if an admin requests it, but for now I wont waste your time or clutter the page - this is the wrong venue for that. Verbal chat 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the right place to discuss both your edit warring, and a second 3rr vio in one day, please correct me if I am wrong. Mitsube (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No action necessary. User in question has admitted to their mistakes; any block at this point would be more punitive than preventative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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: [124]

• 1st revert: [125]
• 2nd revert: [126]
• 3rd revert: [127]
• 4th revert: [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129]

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

Comments:

• Anon keeps coming & changing the pronunciation of Alexisonfire from "Alexis On Fire" to "Alex is On Fire", which is not the correct pronunciation, which has been reverted by a couple different editors. 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  21:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Result IP blocked for 31 hours. — Jake Wartenberg 05:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the edit warring block there was no diff to show an attempt to resolve through a talk page, and the warning diff was a basic vandalism warning[130].

In addition to this the editor who made the 3RR report was quite likely responsible for editing the article using an IP [131] and therefore was just as responsible for edit warring as the IP user that you blocked.

Sorry, but in my opinion this was a bad block, considering the possibility of sock puppetry, the warning NOT being given, there being no attempt at discussion on the article talk page and the fact that the editor who made the report had recently been blocked for edit warring [132] and more recently warned about edit warring [133].

They should both have been warned or both blocked. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Reduced to "time served". — Jake Wartenberg 15:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

@ 119.173.81.176, Wikistalking, much? 「ɠu¹ɖяy」¤ • ¢  02:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:CSjoholm reported by User:Dayewalker (Result: Blocked )

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

Previous version reverted to: [134]

• 1st revert: [135]
• 2nd revert: [136]
• 3rd revert: [137]
• 4th revert: [138]
• 5th revert: [139]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141]

Comments:
At least three different editors have tried to discuss this matter with CSjoholm, but he continues to edit war. He claims the material is false, but refuses to provide a source. Dayewalker (talk) 04:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Result Blocked for 24 hours. — Jake Wartenberg 05:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:64.228.135.90 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Blocked for 24 hrs)

Page: Anne Applebaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 64.228.135.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [142]

• 1st revert: [143]
• 2nd revert: [144]
• 3rd revert: [145]
• 4th revert: [146]
• 5th revert: [147]

The third revert is different, removing (with an edit summary containing a false accusation of vandalism) a template noting the need to source claims in a BLP; the IP editor's disruptive intentions should be clear.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:64.228.135.90 (only comment, as of this writing, on IP talk page)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [148]

Comments:
There clearly is no consensus to add the disputed text, and discussion on the article's talk page and at BLP/N shows that a majority of editors, particularly established editors oppose inclusion of the disputed text. As my comments on the talk page, as well as imperfect references to WP:UNDUE by other editors, indicate, the disputed text raises substantial issues regarding compliance with WP:BLP, so that the BLP exemption to 3RR probably would apply. Also, given that the IP's first edit [149] demonstrates an awareness of both BLP and edit warring policies, it's probable that this is a sockpuppet/"bad hand" account (that first edit is mostly a personal attack on admin User:David Eppstein). Finally, the IP has also violated 3RR by repeatedly reinserting an uncivil personal attack on my own talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC) updated 05:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Majority of editors? No, that's false. Consensus, while not required, is trying to be reached. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz continues to revert despite the talk page and justifications. You've been accusing me of whatever comes to mind without discussion. You warn me, I warn you. Throughout, you refuse to leave a WP:BLP compliant section alone. You refuse to edit, just remove it. I guess I'll add more if I have to but I await some kind of discussion with you (not just links and warnings that apply equally to you, followed by yet another complete removal). You've also stated I'm an experienced editor (sock-puppet too, now?). If that were so, I'd create a nice entry like you've done and I'd be re-adding the well-sourced material with a click instead of fumbling around. Time for me to read the wiki notes (not all the wonderful links you've proided) so I can edit in style. 64.228.135.90 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• 6th revert (2nd after warning): [150] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Result: User has been blocked for 24 hours. No other participants in the edit war violated 3RR. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am responding to this because of a warning from David Eppstein. A section was created on the talk page to address these users' complaints. Rather than avail themselves in a meaningful fashion, they continued to revert edits. They, as a group, attacked one specific section of the article. All criticisms were addressed and other editors attempted to disuss. The above complaintants continued to remove the entry in its entirety. See the talk page: 02:43, 2 October 2009.

• Administrator David Eppstein particpated in the edit warring:

1. 03:54, 2 October 2009
2. 05:08, 2 October 2009
3. 19:54, 2 October 2009

• User Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has participated in the edit warring and violated 3RR. Also appears to have been edit warring to the same effect on their user talk page with the IP in question (continued to remove warnings).

1. 02:48, 3 October 2009
2. 03:18, 3 October 2009
3. 03:56, 3 October 2009
4. 03:58, 3 October 2009

• User Morbidthoughts chose a side soley to participate in the edit warring, nothing else:

1. 04:31, 3 October 2009
2. 05:47, 3 October 2009

Hired hand?

Additionally, Martin451 made no useful contributions to the talk page, only disingenious accusations between (some) reverts. What I'm saying is that this individual looked for a WP:something to toss out as a burdersome obstacle to faithful editors, then instantly reverted. He was asked not to yet continued. An editor would respond on the talk page and the user would move on to yet another accusation with little or no discussion. Some of the above editors would then repeat one or more of the accusations with no new material or thoughts added to the debate. This user seems to be schooled in overt 3RR avoidance:

1. 00:41, 2 October 2009
2. 01:21, 2 October 2009
3. 02:43, 2 October 2009
4. 04:52, 3 October 2009
5. 05:26, 3 October 2009

All of these users have avoided attempts at consensus building, repeatedly reject community input (see talk page and edit warring), and have collectively engaged in a campaign to drive away productive editors. All are guilty of skipping procedure to deal with disputes, choosing to, instead, meet a minimal threshold in an effort to silence opposing views. They are all WP:DIS. Essentially, they appear to be in strong opposition to one specific section and will stop at little to get their way - truth, NPOV, relevance and reality be damned.

You may want to discuss these actions and the single edit block you felt necessary with administrator Krakatoa. I found the attacks on this user's efforts and mine offensive. I have, however, learned a lesson or two in effective trolling on the Wiki. If you will all excuse me, it would seem that I must be off to collect links and templates for future defense and attack instead of contributing as I had hoped. How unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.54.1 (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has been protected, so I've unblocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Erebedhel reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: both users 24 hrs )

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

Previous version reverted to: [151]

• 1st revert: [152]
• 2nd revert: [153]
• 3rd revert: [154]
• 4th revert: [155]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [156]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [157]

Comments:

• This user keeps constantly reverting and/or deleting information from the article. Moreover, he has gone as far as to attempt to use Wikipedia policy in order to bully other Wikipedians. This can be seen in this edit summary: "WP:OWN violation, last possible revert for User:MarshalN20 if he doesn't want to break WP:3RR as well". This is obviously completely against the spirit of the Wikipedia project, and this user should get the punishment he deserves for bullying and purposely using sources incorrectly.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  

• The user continued to revert the article despite I asked him to stop. I also warned him about it prior to this next revert, but he didn't listen. However, he accused me of breaking the 3RR, but I told him that 4 was the number for a 3RR. Then he replied: "Thank you then I'll put back my edition now". Will an administrator do something about this?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Both users blocked 24 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Aberdour reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [158]

• 1st revert: [159]
• 2nd revert: [160]
• 3rd revert: [161]
• 4th revert: [162]

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

Comments:

This seems to be a new account of long time product promoter Jewelleryq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:J4V4 reported by User:MelicansMatkin (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Misty (Pokémon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: J4V4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [164]

• 1st revert: [165]
• 2nd revert: [166]
• 3rd revert: [167]
• 4th revert: [168]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [169]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [170]

Comments: User:J4V4 also appears to be engaged in edit wars on several other Pokémon articles, including May (Pokémon), Dawn (Pokémon), and Arceus. The user also appears to be abusing the use of WP:TWINKLE. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 19:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DarlieB reported by User:Grsz11 (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Road to the Multiverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: DarlieB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [171]

• 1st revert: [172]
• 2nd revert: [173]
• 3rd revert: [174]
• 4th revert: [175]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [176]

Discussion at talk page: [177]

Comments: The user has been asked to find reliable sources, but feels she doesn't need to because she allegedly drew the animations. Grsz¹¹ 21:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate report, so here are my comments: User claims to be part of the production team, so I guess that gives him/her the authority to revert to unsourced fan site as a reference: This shows a subtle attack, and unwillingness to be civil during discussion
CTJF83 chat 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --slakr^\ talk / 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jemesouviens32 reported by Andi 3ö (talk) (Result: page protected)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Modern Buddhism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jemesouviens32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 21:03, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317672673 by Andi 3ö (talk) Vandalism")
2. 21:21, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317714992 by Andi 3ö (talk) Vandalism part 3")
3. 21:31, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317715515 by Jemesouviens32 (talk) Find another contributor Andi3ö you ahve no credibility...")
4. 21:34, 3 October 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 317717287 by Jemesouviens32 (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

This is the third time that this user engages in an edit war on this article. From the beginning of the discussion, he has been the only one that opposes making the article a redirect/disambig and wants to keep it as a stand-alone (he is the creator of the article). We already went through extensive discussions on talk:Buddhism, an explicit deletion discussion that resulted in a clear consensus to make it a redirect/disambig AND an RfC with the same result on talk:Modern Buddhism

Although he has really done only two real reverts now (the last 2 where he reverted himself were accidens i guess) and as i do not want to be part of yet another edit war about this topic, please advise me on how to finally solve this problem and convince User:Jemesouviens32 to finally stop his childish behavior. Thank you very much, Andi 3ö (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Andi 3ö that Jemesouviens32 is now edit warring; clear consensus from RfC to change article, although J32 did not not agree with the consensus; now continues to revert article to his version even after warning. Singularity42 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Protected by NuclearWarfare. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster reported by Williamsburgland (Result: protected)

Page: Bowling for Columbine
User being reported: Dynablaster

Previous version reverted to: [178]

• 1st revert: [179]
• 2nd revert: [180]
• 3rd revert: [181]
• 4th revert: [182]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [We discussed on our user pages]

Comments:

<This appears to be a situation where the user is erasing my edits, initially doing so by reverting someone elses and erasing mine without mention. It seems to be a personal bias motive. This was discussed on each of our talk pages.--Williamsburgland (talk) 02:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC) -->

Protected for three days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Voyevoda reported by User:Hillock65 (Result: 48 hours protected )

Page: Battle of Konotop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User Voyevoda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just returned from a fresh block for edit warring merely 2 weeks ago and continues to revert pages without even making an effort to disscuss his actions at talk.--Hillock65 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 03:59, 4 October 2009
• 2nd revert: 05:30, 4 October 2009
• 3rd revert: 05:42, 4 October 2009
• 4th revert: 06:01, 4 October 2009
• 5th revert: 07:31, 4 October 2009
• 6th revert: 08:04, 4 October 2009
• 7th revert: 08:15, 4 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 4 October 2009

Comments:

• I made an attempt to start discussion at the talk page of the article as well placed a warning at his User talk page, which unfortunately produced no effect.[183]--Hillock65 (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• There was a vivid discussion on the discussion page of the article where I linkes several sources. It's not clear why he portrays me as the reason of the Edit War being just the analog part of it himself. Everything of my edits that he removes is sourced. While he tries to hide unpleasant facts by deleting them of placing them into footnotes I pursue the policy of equal presenting of different sources to the reader, even those I don't support. The user is also involved in a dubious anti-Russian mailing list scandal. --Voyevoda (talk) 06:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the record, the discussion is far from being vivid and only started after this report had been filed. As well, in his absence several editors collaborated on the article and more or less stable version has been established, yet his second edit after coming from a block for 3RR violation was restoring the contentious version which was fought over before. This is leading nowhere. --Hillock65 (talk) 06:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• I was blocked only for 24 hours about 3 weeks ago. And even this was not explained properly. Hillock lies when he says the discussion started only now. Just visit the discussion and make your own picture of its developping and his discussion "skills". --Voyevoda (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I was looking into this topic because having been on the receiving end of 3rrv decisions so far, i wanted to see what it is like to be an admin having to decide these kind of things. I realized that it is really not easy to get into this kind of discussions that you know nothing about content-wise. I have to say though that i would have decided differently in this case: i would have blocked both sides for edit-warring: User:Galassi and User:Hillock65 together did as many reverts as User:Voyevoda and therefore should be banned as well for tag-team edit-warring (see Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#Administrator_guidance). It is quite clear by the edit summarry of User:Galassis last revert that he is clearly trying to WP:GAME the system by formally sticking to the WP:3RR but not to the spirit of the rule, i.e solving problems by other means than plain reverting and avoiding edit-wars. Also: as i learned from my own experience as a party to edit wars, these kind of decisions here should not decide edit-wars, but stop/prevent them. Banning only one side looks like taking sides in the conflict. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence of tag-team editing? I didn't communicate with User:Galassi and chose to stop reverting in favour of disscussion at talk. The other user just chose to push on his version of the article, now with the different user and only started discussion when he was reported. You can see from the article history, that User:Galassi edited this article before, so his appearance here was not an accident. --Hillock65 (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

i didn't say you were commuicating about it. I just counted the reverts: three for you, then three for User:Galassi. I really don't dare to judge who's right in this conflict. Just looking at it from a technical/procedural POV. Andi 3ö (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

To Andi 3ö - I agree that there was too much reverting by all editors, though more from one than the others. My first instinct was just to protect the page, and that may be the right thing to do after all. I'll lift the block, protect the page, and warn all and sundry. Thanks for the advice.   Will Beback  talk  09:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:204.62.193.184 reported by User:Taivo (Result: )

Page: Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 204.62.193.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Taivo's version in this diff is accepted text

• 1st revert: [184], reverted back by Alanraywiki here
• 2nd revert: [185], reverted back by Bkonrad here
• 3rd revert: [186], reverted back by Storm Rider here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: A general warning was issued here, a formal warning here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here is the last comment. The issue was actually discussed several months ago and resolved by consensus among the active editors (which includes both LDS members and non-members) in favor of "sacred text".

Comments:

This is a single-purpose account set up to dispute content in LDS topics as shown in his/her contributions. IMHO, it should be permanently blocked. (Taivo (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

User:80.219.121.87 reported by User:BigDunc (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Dunmanway Massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 80.219.121.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [187]

• 1st revert: [188]
• 2nd revert: [189]
• 3rd revert: [190]
• 4th revert: [191]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [192]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [193]

Comments:
This IP is one of a list of IP's that are on that article the issue was raised at ANI here, but as it is a dynamic IP a range block is not appropriate. BigDunc 14:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected. User has probably moved onto another IP by now, so semi-ing article to keep the argument between registered users at this time. Black Kite 07:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner reported by User:J (Result: 1 week)

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

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

• initial insertion of preferred language: [194]
• first revert to preferred lede: [195]
• tagging article in retaliation: [196]
• first revert to restore tag: [197]
• second revert to restore tag: [198]
• third revert to restore tag: [199]
• further edit to add another wp:point tag: [200]
• fourth revert to restore tag(s): [201]
• fifth revert to restore tag(s): [202]
• sixth revert to restore tag(s): [203]
• seventh revert to restore tag(s): [204]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: article probation, warning and subsequent removal, additional warning, additional warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: discussion here

Comments:

User:Scribner is edit warring at the Sarah Palin article, first to revert to his preferred change to the lede (without any consensus), then to tag the article with {{pov}} after he was advised to build consensus for his change. He has since reverted twice more, against two other editors, to reinsert the tag (which also has no support on the talk page). He's indicated on the article's talk page that he believes those disagreeing with him have some sort of agenda, so I'm afraid any further appeals from anyone disagreeing with him are probably not going to get through. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I originally filed this report yesterday, but after it appeared User:Scribner was willing to halt his edit warring and discuss the matter, I withdrew the report. This morning, he has resumed reverting to reinsert his pointy {{pov}} tag. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply I've reverted the habitual removal of a POV tag. An administrator has already agreed with my actions on the article talk page. I've warned users against removing the tag on their user pages until the matter is resolved on the article talk page.

My previous reply to this complaint was removed without my knowledge. Scribner (talk) 18:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the admin note from the article talk page: "Tags are placed so that all editors, not those currently participating, may weigh in on a conflict. It shouldn't be removed until the conflict is resolved. AniMatedraw 18:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)" Scribner (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any administrator that would agree with your violation of wp:3rr, and I think you seriously misjudged User:AniMate's comment if that's how you interpreted it. That being said, there are six editors who have judged your tagging the article as "frivolous" or as a violation of wp:point and who have removed it as such. I should add that your original comment is not present here because I withdrew the original report (which was very much to your benefit), not because your comment specifically was targeted for removal. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I view habitual removal of tags placed in good faith as vandalism. Scribner (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the actual dispute, but weighing in on your last statement. Vandalism is clearly defined, not open to interpretation by each editor. Dayewalker (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Tags aren't particularly part of the article and someone could incorrectly assume the conflict is over, so leeway is assumed. In this case, the tags were repeatedly removed, even after comment by an administrator advising against removal. Scribner (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I was once told politely that if an editor has an issue and adds a template that it should not be arbitraily removed but the issues he has should be discussed first. Off2riorob (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. However, tags added in violation of wp:point, with at least six other editors agreeing that the tags are frivolous, aren't normally extended the same courtesy. To top it off, seven reverts to keep restoring the tags is a violation of wp:3rr, thrice over, which is a pretty bright line (with the only exception, in fact, being for wp:blp issues). He made his case, it was judged as baseless, now he's edit warring. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth I have left him a note on his talk suggesting he leave the tag off for now, this is a silly dispute and it seems a shame to take away an editors priviliges for. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe he got your note. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, yes I saw that..I can only suggest that to be the cool dudes that you guys just leave the tags there for a bit, to stop the reverting. Off2riorob (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Rob, but an administrator has already commented in my favor that the POV tag should not be removed until the issue is resolved. The unsourced tag is the same issue, material needs to be sourced per policy. If an administrator tells me otherwise, that's fine but I don't need to be blocked to get the point and at this point I will continue to revert the bad faith removal of tags on the Palin article. Scribner (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(←) I concur that there's no sense in removing the tag if User:Scribner is going to continue to revert to restore it regardless, and have shared (here and here) that opinion with the other editors on the article. I've also asked User:AniMate to consider clarifying his comments for User:Scribner, but I'm not sure he's around at the moment. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week As far as I can tell, Scribner was edit warring against numerous other editors about the tags in the lead. The duration represents an escalation from his last two edit warring blocks of 72 hours each.  Sandstein  19:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I left a note at Talk:Sarah_Palin#Edit_warring asking for a one-revert-rule on that article, and also asking for previous transgressions of 3RR to be forgiven in hopes of a clean start. Sandstein, would you be willing to change your block to allow for this? kmccoy (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at WP:ANI#Sarah Palin.  Sandstein  19:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Jk54 reported by User:Avaya1 (Result: )

• Quilliam Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jk54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over a period of about a year and a half now, this user has consistently re-inserted their large WP:OR into the article Quilliam Foundation, despite the efforts of numerous other editors over the history of the article. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&diff=316382567&oldid=315693400

This is what his/her original version of the article looked like before we managed to cut it down http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quilliam_Foundation&oldid=223641695

The user has continually reverted, with no argument, to greater or lesser extents the attempts to remove their Original Research essay, and apparently ignores the discussions against this. It would be helpful if an administrator could help out on this topic somehow, or at least look into the article and watch the article, because the process of reverting their original research has stubbornly continued for over a year. Avaya1 (talk) 17:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Tazer43

Resolved

This sockpuppet is currently edit warring on List of conflicts in Asia. Debresser (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Anybody care to explain to me how a user who's userpage says he is indefinitely blocked, can edit on WIkipedia? Debresser (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The account was blocked 3 minutes after its last edit to that page. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: blocked 24 hours by User:Aqwis)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=317852068&oldid=317705916

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=317897317&oldid=317878569 19:54, 4 October 2009
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=317920190&oldid=317899637 22:06, 5 October 2009
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=318007491&oldid=317947914 08:40, 5 October 2009
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=318078843&oldid=318053682 17:09, 5 October 2009
• 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tubefilter&diff=318081653&oldid=318080027 17:22, 5 October 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Otterathome&diff=318080369&oldid=318037525 17:16, 5 October 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tubefilter#Sources

Comments:

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:Fifelfoo (Result: page protected)

Page: War of the Pacific (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Keysanger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [205]

• 1st revert: [206]
• 2nd revert: [207]
• 3rd revert: [208]
• 4th revert: [209]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [210]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Extensive recent warnings of ownership.

Comments:

Has serious ownership issues, and bites other users, has a habit of refactoring talk (archiving it before an RFC, changing other's punctuation and capitalisation). Fifelfoo (talk) 18:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Keysanger has been a very naughty child.//Voice of Reason (165.91.172.194 (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

The users have to present precise claims. Somthing like: "It is POV" is not enough for a POV-tag --Keysanger (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I ask the administrator who judges this case to also take a look at the article's talk page and the history page. There you'll see that Keysanger has severely broken a series of Wikipedia laws.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protected. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Curtis23 reported by User:Avs5221 (Result: warned)

Page: Zack Ryder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Curtis23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [211]
• 2nd revert: [212]
• 3rd revert: [213]
• 4th revert: [214]
• 5th revert: [215]
• 6th revert: [216]
• 7th revert: [217]
• 8th revert: [218]
• 9th revert: [219]
• 10th revert: [220]
• 11th revert: [221]
• 12th revert: [222]
• 13th revert: [223]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACurtis23&diff=318131063&oldid=317862311

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_71#Zack_Ryder

Comments:

I've had no part in this warring, I've just been a spectator watching the entire thing unfold. As is made quite clear from the diffs above, Cutris23 has been adamant in maintaining a unique page for Zack Ryder rather than a merge with Curt Hawkins. The matter has been discussed ad nauseam on both project pro wrestling, the diff linked to above, and on the Zack Ryder talk page. Through my own reading of both pages, no clear consensus has been reached, which I'm sure has contributed to the frequent reverts back to a unique page. That said, a number of users have asked Curtis23 in the talk page and through edit summaries to desist. Instead of providing a meaningful argument for keeping the Zack Ryder page, he proceeded to revert a number of redirects by other editors (13 total beginning 8 September and continuing to today).

avs5221 (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit: Curtis23 has also contacted me at my user talk since I notified him of the 3rr report. [224]

avs5221 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not fair you can't use my every edit of the last 27 days!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Curtis23 (talk) 22:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't ever reverted that page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period so I haven't violated any rule.--Curtis23 (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is not permitted regardless of whether or not you violate the 3 revert rule. --Aqwis (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

But if I did violate a rule i'm sorry and I won't do it again.--Curtis23 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

No action taken, given the above ^ post. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nableezy reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: )

Page: Ma'ale Shomron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The point of contention at this article is where to place the term "Israeli settlement." User: Nableezy insists that words "Israeli Settlement" be the opening words of the article. Other editors don't have a problem with the term "Israel Settlement", but think that the words should be placed elsewhere in the article (like maybe at the end of the opening sentence). These other editors maintain that since "Israeli Settlement" can amount to anywhere between 5 and 55,000 people the term is not descriptave enough for the opening words. Despite the vagueness and semi-decisive nature of the term, User:Nableezy insists that "Israeli Settlement" open the article and is edit-warring in order to achieve this goal. Nableezy resorted to the article talk page after the 4th revert, but his attack mode comments about a J+S gang did not give any sort of impression that there was an intention for a resolution.

• 1st revert: [225]
• 2nd revert: [226]
• 3rd revert: [227]
• 4th revert: When Nableezy doesn't get his prefered version, he slaps the article with a NPOV tag:[228]

User: Nableezy is well aware of edit warring rules, having been blocked twice recently for edit warring. He has also spent considerable time bringing others to this noticeboard, resulting in the blocks of 6 different editors. (1 2 3 4 5 6).

There are times when Nableezy can edit colloberatively, but there are other times (as attested by his contribution history) when Nableezy will just revert and revert until other editors just get tired and go home. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)