Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive111

Moondial reported by E. Ripley (Result: 12h)

 * Three-revert rule violation on.

''Diffs are listed from newest to oldest.


 * 1)  00:48 Sept. 23]
 * 2)  00:22 Sept. 23]
 * 3)  00:10 Sept. 23]
 * 4)  20:11 Sept. 22]

This is just barely beyond the 24-hour threshold however a definite pattern has emerged and I have no doubt that if one of the three editors who have reverted this practice so far (myself included) were to revert him again right now, he would put his preferred version right back. He has repeatedly sought to scrub this reference to Uri Geller's practices being debunked, justifying it by either suggesting that an article by AP reposted by USA Today is a less reputable source than "UFO Digest," or saying he has information that "proves" that AP was wrong. This has been going on for days now, see this edit from Sept. 20:.


 * 3RR warning: . (20:38, August 27, 2009 )

&mdash; e. ripley\talk 02:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The time interval which includes the reverts is 4:37; not 24:37. I was just going to report it, also. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All the reverts include removing USA Today as a source (for the magnet), and adding UFO Digest as a source that he has psychic powers. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 12 hours as a first offender. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:84.109.74.77 reported by User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Aside from the 3RR violation, the insertion is a violation of WP:BLP since it contains an accusation that Zizek stole his work from an unknown Israeli. As well as the BLP issue, it is futher a failure of WP:RS and links to a non-English source. The anon is a SPA who's whole edit history consists of adding this link (also on the article Controvery, but mostly on Zizek. LotLE × talk  06:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 31 hours for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User: Werewaz reported by User: Stephan Schulz (Result: 24h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (and several similar ones)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

The user in question is mass-converting Republic of China to Taiwan over a range of articles. There are many more reverts and partial reverts on this page alone, see the article history.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
 * Friendly request for discussion
 * Formal 3RR warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
 * (discussion on the user page due to the large number of articles affected
 * Also see this ANI discussion.

Comments:

I could block myself, but think it is useful to bring a wider range of admins into play. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The total number of pages where 3RR has been broken (it's easier if I just post the articles rather than all the diffs)

Additionally, similar POV edits have been made here:

VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24h for edit warring, by User:EyeSerene. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Whatishere reported by User:Aunt Entropy (Result: 31 hrs)
Page:

User being reported: also logging out to edit war as

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Socking under an ip to keep a POV tag against consensus. Auntie E. 04:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 31 hours. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User:81.138.10.158 and user:68.9.22.155 reported by - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } (Result: semi)

 * Three-revert rule violation on . : Time reported: 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC User:81.138.10.158:
 * 1) 09:01,  8 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 312496516 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 2) 07:58,  9 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 312581560 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 3) 08:15, 10 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 312935640 by WBardwin (talk)")
 * 4) 13:15, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313182880 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 5) 13:27, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313184689 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 6) 13:35, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185362 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 7) 13:45, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186318 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 8) 13:48, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187862 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 9) 13:51, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188295 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 10) 13:54, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188701 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 11) 14:07, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313189058 by 68.9.22.155 (talk)")
 * 12) 14:23, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 13) 14:25, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313193379 by Simon Dodd (talk)")
 * 14) 14:28, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")
 * 15) 14:31, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "/* Distinctive Teachings */")

And user:68.9.22.155:
 * 1) 02:11,  7 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 312241174 by 82.2.31.240 (talk)")
 * 2) 02:17,  7 September 2009  (edit summary: "TRUTH WILL OUT!")
 * 3) 00:33,  8 September 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 4) 13:01,  8 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 312556481 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 5) 20:54,  9 September 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 6) 01:25, 10 September 2009  (edit summary: "input poems")
 * 7) 14:15, 10 September 2009  (edit summary: "seven trees")
 * 8) 15:16, 10 September 2009  (edit summary: "")
 * 9) 13:08, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Truth to the fore, again. Getting tired of this.")
 * 10) 13:24, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313183655 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 11) 13:29, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313185038 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 12) 13:36, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313186101 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 13) 13:47, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187600 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 14) 13:50, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313187985 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 15) 13:53, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188404 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")
 * 16) 13:55, 11 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 313188907 by 81.138.10.158 (talk)")

Aqwis (talk | contribs | block) m (3,987 bytes) (Protected Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse: Edit warring / Content dispute ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 14:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)))) should do you William M. Connolley (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your position seems to be that this is an unregistered SPA, and since the article has been semi-protected, further action would be WP:BUROcratic. That only holds only if we make some dubious assumptions. For instance: that the parties don't register an account to circumvent the protection (3RR applies per person not per account, as you know). That this really is an SPA, and 3RR violations trigger a topic-specific block (they don't, as you know). Or that 3RR confers discretion to block or not. Users can be blocked for edit warring at the discretion of an admin; once 3RR is violated, however, the response is defined in mandatory--not permissive--language.
 * More importantly, my understanding is that admins impose escalating consequences based on a user's block log. Short-circuiting 3RR here therefore has real bite, because behavior that should merit a block will not be in the record for a future admin to consider in determining how to respond to a future violation.
 * The appropriate response to the filing of a report here identifying a flagrant violation of 3RR is application of the consequences mandatated by 3RR. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocks are preventative not punitive. But I've met you half way and blocked one of them William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 12 h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1) 23 September, 12:53–13:08 (several consecutive edits, reinstating the same series of edits from 7 September )
 * 2) 24 September, 11:19–11:39 (same series of edits)
 * 3) 24 September, 11:43–12:27 (partially same series)
 * 4) 24 September, 13:35–13:42 (partially same series, reinstating non-standard POV naming of "FYROM" for the fourth time, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR)

Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Single-article user who refuses to discuss – no talk page activity, no edit summaries, just stubborn reverts.
 * 3RR violation as well as violation of Arbcom-imposed 1RR on Macedonia naming issue per ARBMAC2 and WP:NCMAC. (Note that my own reverts were exempt from the naming-related 1RR, because they restored the consensus version of WP:NCMAC. I made two reverts including other content, and a third that was restricted solely to enforcing the naming guideline.)
 * 1RR warning given before the 3rd and 4th revert, here:
 * 12 hours. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka reported by jersey_emt (Result: 1 week )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

After making a good-faith edit, Koalorka has reverted my edit a total of four times, in violation of 3RR. Koalorka did not make any attempt to resolve the issue before reverting. After repeatedly asking Koalorka to refrain from reverting a good-faith edit without first reaching consensus on the discussion page, threatening me, and calling me a vandal, I am reporting this negative behavior.

In fact, my edit was supported by an additional user -- anonymous, yes, so not as much weight, but still supported -- further indicating that Koalorka is reverting my edit out of spite.

I request that my edit be added, and the page be protected from being again reverted by Koalorka unless a consensus is reached against my edit on the page's discussion.

Jersey emt (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User being reported:
 * Looks like the disruptive editor beat me to it. I guess there is no point to starting a new section. I'll let the admins review the edit history of the affected page. I'll just state that the editor who has no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms on Wikipedia has decided that a shiny image of a new Glock appeals to the new user aesthetically, and therefore decided to engage me in an edit war, generating a wall of useless text on the discussion page and generally wasting everyone's time, because he didn't get what he wanted. I apologize for inciting the fire here, but I have no tolerance for degrading consistency or quality standards in well-developed articles to appease some random editor's tastes. Koalorka (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Even after one user agreed with my edit on the article's discussion page, and a different user re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it, Koalorka has, now for the 5th time, reverted my good-faith edit to improve the flow of the article . In addition, Koalorka has made the untrue (and irrelevant) claim that I have 'no knowledge of previous experience editing anything related to firearms', and has labeled me as another user's sock puppet (on top of labeling me as a vandal, and 'wasting his time').


 * Clearly, Koalorka is continuing to be disruptive and completely unable to handle anyone disagreeing with him. It seems to me that Koalorka believes that he 'owns' the article, and that anyone that disagrees with him is automatically wrong. Koalorka has a long history of blocks due to similar behavior in the past. He flips out when anyone makes edits that he disagrees with, making personal attacks and reverting changes without any discussion. The ability to successfully collaborate with others is a required skill on Wikipedia, and he has repeatedly proven himself unable to do so.


 * I have also further investigated Koalorka's claim that the issue of which 'generation' of Glock pistol should be the lead image had already been previously discussed and a consensus reached. I found no evidence of this; the change was made by him with no discussion (and therefore, no consensus) . Jersey emt (talk) 01:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A different user has re-applied my edit, also agreeing with it. Koalorka has yet again reverted the edit (and labeling that user as a sock -- but that user has no relation to me), now for the 6th time. . Finally, the page has been protected, unfortunately it was done so right after the 6th reversion of my edit that was supported by 4 users (myself included).


 * After 6 reversions by Koalorka of an edit supported by 4 different users, I think it is made quite clear that, (a) my edit was made in good faith one, (b) my edit is an improvement to the article, with a more logical layout, and (c) Koalorka's behavior is a personal attack and his reversions were made in bad faith. Jersey emt (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Koalorka for one week. Tom Harrison Talk 23:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Erik Ernst reported by User:Coolcaesar (Result: Blocked as a sock/meatpuppet)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 18:12, 22 September 2009


 * 1st revert: Revision as of 23:28, 24 September 2009.
 * 2nd revert: Revision as of 23:59, 24 September 2009
 * 3rd revert: Revision as of 00:19, 25 September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Revision as of 00:24, 25 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Revision as of 23:54, 24 September 2009

Comments:

We're having problems with User:Zephram Stark (banned four years by ArbCom for POV pushing and racist remarks and permanently banned by SlimVirgin after repeated violations), his sockpuppets, and various friends of his who have been vandalizing the Law of the United States article. See his blog entry urging his friends to join him in such vandalism. User:Fuhghettaboutit already imposed semi-protection, which brought the anon IPs and newer sockpuppets under control but we're having problems with friends of Zephram's like User:Erik Ernst who do not understand Wikipedia policies. I request a temporary block on User:Erik Ernst for a few days and full protection for Law of the United States for a few weeks. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked as a sock or meatpuppet. Black Kite 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Skipsievert reported by User:Granitethighs (Result: malformed report)
Page:

User being reported:

Comments:

For over a year now there has been a collaborative editing effort to bring the Sustainability article to GA or FA status. Throughout this period editor Skipsievert has refused to collaborate in editing, confronting each editor in turn. He has constantly accused the collaborative editing as being a team of people colluding against him despite constant invitations for additional editors from all concerned. He also has concerns about the article that he has expressed innumerable times and these, in turn, have been addressed many times by the editors who have reached consensus on the way to proceed, a consensus which has not been accepted by him. This has, in effect, constituted a pattern of tendentious editing for a long time. There have also been many accusations of current editors driving off potential new editors, being uncivil etc. when it it is not apparent to Skipsievert that he is in fact the incitor and perpetrator. The latest edits on the Sustainability page are, to my mind just not acceptable. The article is at present of a high standard, aiming for GA at least and possibly FA. Aden and Skip have been suspected of at least tandem editing and possibly sock puppetry (see enquiry). Both are editing the Lead which has been worked on by a team of editors extensively. This is provocative to say the least. The editing is not IMO constructive in any way. I understand that editing is “ongoing” and that “ownership” is always an issue but the review process of the article has taken over a year by a team working together, with the exception of Skip who has constantly created difficulties. Unfortunately, IMO the article can only deteriorate under this sort of editing. This might seem a relatively minor issue but in the context of over a year's conflict the matter just has to be resolved - reading the last 2-3 talk pages and most recent archive will illustrate the situation - but almost any archive will demonstrate the editing battles and pattern of behaviour.  Granitethighs  10:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Malformed report - please provide diffs etc. Black Kite 19:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jdorney reported by User:Domer48 (Result: nothing)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

As an established Editor they are aware of WP:3RR.

Diff were it was tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page.

Additional Comments:

This editor is also edit warring on: Page:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Adding information which is blatantly incorrect from even a cursory reading of the articles on the persons named in the edit. The most obvious being John Mitchel and Charles Gavan Duffy. The information which was added was copy and pasted by an IP from this web site.

Page:


 * 1st revert:

The exact same information was added to the Charles Gavan Duffy which even contradicts the additions they replaced.


 * No violstion - 3RR not exceeded in 24h period. Also, the creator of this report has reverted just as many times on Young Irelander Rebellion of 1848.  Articles will be protected if edit-warring continues, please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 19:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons.

The information was clearly unsourced and biased. Therefore I did not violate the the three-revert rule. Having pointed out that the information was unsourced and incorrect to again add it back is obvious vandalism. To point an editor to WP:PROVEIT and they still add it back is Edit warring is a behavior.

Edit warring is a behavior, typically explemified by the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute. No effort was made at all to check or support the information suggesting that it was correct when obviously it was not.

I'll accept the decision by Black Kite, but not their conclusions. -- Domer48 'fenian'  20:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob reported by User:Ninetyone (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: 2009-09-20T11:03:40 (UTC) (original edit)
 * Note by a third party:This edit by who created the disputed category on the same date is not the original edit. The filer misleads the previous edit.Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1st revert: 2009-09-20T11:12:36 (UTC)
 * 2nd revert: 2009-09-22T09:28:16 (UTC)
 * 3rd revert: 2009-09-22T19:06:58 (UTC)
 * 4th revert: 2009-09-22T19:14:45 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009-09-22T19:20:46

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Gordon_Brown

Comments:

User has been blocked for edit warring in the past: last unblock was advanced after he gave his word not to do so in the future...! ninety:one  19:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First edit is from Revision as of 12:12, 20 September 2009 which is over two days ago, there was plenty of discussion going on all of it instigated by me, the discussion is over a catagory that I have nominated for deletion. I had a warning left on my talkpage and have made no edits to the article since then and have left the disputed catagory in the article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the discussion for deletion regarding the catagory for deletion that I started Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether I should "assume good faith" or think "plain vandalism" if someone creates a category "half-blind people" and then five minutes later goes ahead and attaches it to the article on the British Prime Minister (even if the man has lost sight in one eye). This is what happened here.  JN 466  20:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like both Rrius and Off2riorob were edit warring. No opinion on whether blocks are necessary or useful right now (if they have stopped and are now discussing things, as Rrius claims), but they were both edit warring when this was filed. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 22:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * comment This seems to fall under WP:BLP exemption.-Caspian blue 21:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC) I formatted the report since the timeline is very important to judge whether Off2riorob violated 3RR or not. However, I see no 3RR violation because the first revert occurred on two days ago, and the alleged "original version" is incorrectly prsented since the disputed category was created and inserted by on Sep.20. I'm not sure as to why the filer did not add the timeline because without the timestamp, Off2riorob seemingly violated 3RR (edit warred though for removing potentially BLP material). If  believed Off2riorob violated 3RR, then why the 3RR warning was given after the last revert? Bad faith filing.--Caspian blue 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * One more disturbing thing to me is that also clearly reverted 3 times just like Off2riorob, but why Ninetyone did not report Rrius to here or give him 3RR warning? Ninetyone reverted one time which shares the view of Rrius.--Caspian blue 21:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave Rrius a 3RR waring for the fairness.--Caspian blue 21:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For "the fairness"? Ridiculous. Off2riorob was reverting to protect his version. He directed people to the talk page, but did not actually address the points raised there, which is his modus operandi. He has a history of asserting that edits he wants to get rid of violate BLP, which after the number of times I have seen it from him suggests he is gaming the system. What's more, his history of blocks for edit warring suggest the warning was needed. I have no such history. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You were also edit warring to keep your favorite version which currently remains. I don't know how rich his history may be, however, he did not violate 3RR, but reverted 3 times so did you. If somebody exploits his block history to win a content dispute, then he/she is the one "gaming the system".--Caspian blue 22:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be concluded with no action. The edit is the inclusion of a category, and a discussion is happening at the talk page including Off2riorob, Ninetyone, and me. As far as I can tell, the impetus for this report was Ninetyone's false belief that Off2riorob had violated 3RR, which he had not because the first revert happened more than 24 hours before the last. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't anybody start accusing me of anything. I thought better of "filing a report", but then I checked Rob's form and saw the assurance given in the last unblock, and though this was worth raising. I don't give a toss about who did what, or when when, it's the fact that Rob gave an explicit assurance not to edit war, which he seems to have gone back on, that caused me to bring this here. Now to address the smokescreen that's been laid: the wording "In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to." is very confusing; what I linked to was the version from before all the reverting took place - and I don't have a clue what the second part is supposed to mean. And here's a hint: straight out accusing someone of a "bad faith filing" shows just as much bad faith on the accusers part. And you don't give out warnings "for the fairness" either... ninety:one  22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. you have had a plenty of time to sharply say like that not only at CfD but here, but no time for checking the timestamp of the report? :-P That is a requirement for 3RR report of which you might be aware of. Your attitude unfortunately does not change my judgment on your filing. Caspian blue 22:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No action - The parties were edit-warring but neither one exceeded three reverts in 24 hours. Last revert was over 18 hours ago. I suggest that the issue be closed here unless the parties start reverting again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If Off2riorob has been edit-warring, they have broken the promise on the grounds of which they were unblocked. I have been involved in an editing dispute with the editor at Jimmy Wales, but I suggest a second look at this editor's recent history. Skomorokh  22:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Keysanger reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * I was trying to post a Neutrality Warning in the page, but Keysanger reverted that twice.
 * I also tried to include the fact that Chile declared war on Bolivia first, which official documents demonstrate, but he reverted that also (once).
 * Lastly, I tried to mix sources and create a more neutral and less aggressive statement in the "Peru" section of the consequences of the war subtopic. Of course, Keysanger reverted that as well and claimed it to be "Vandalism."


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * We, as in me, User:Likeminas, User:Dentren, attempted to mediate a peaceful solution to the edit war by creating a chart of what we saw as problems. We did not even get half-way through the list, and Keysanger began to massively edit the article based on his own POV. This 29 August 2009 version was the one that was being worked on by me, Likeminas, Dentren, and Keysanger prior to this last user taking wwnership of the article. If an administrator could please revert the article back to this version, it would be greatly appreciated. The information in this previous article is more neutral, and much more factual. The current version by Keysanger is pro-Chilean, anti-Peruvian, non-neutral, and contains erroneous information.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, here is a proof of the discontent of some editors with the actions of Keysanger: .--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Another Comment: Keysanger has been warned about the 3RR, but he has deleted the warning: . I'm notifying this in order to demonstrate that the user knows what he has done.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 17:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:AnnaFabiano (Result: Both parties warned)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: diff
 * 2nd revert: diff
 * 3rd revert: diff
 * 4th revert: diff
 * 5th revert: diff
 * Addition: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link and link

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

Comments:

This user was trying to make changes without a discussion on matters that are more complex. The references used were from a biased source and from forums. Other sources added today cannot be verified, and the user did not quote any part from the text as it is standard in such discussed issues. Furthermore the user did not discuss constructively in the discussion page before making the changes. Anna Comnena (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Both parties warned. You have both gone well past the point that you should have taken this to a wider forum. See WP:Dispute resolution, and be aware that WP:Third opinion is easy to use. The Serbian reference that Tadija insists upon seems to go to a non-working URL, and the cited book shares an ISBN with an unrelated one. This suggests a problem with the reference. If either party continues to revert without getting support from at least one other person, they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

multiple users at Bulbasaur (Result: deleted (per GFDL concerns), redirected and protected)
Page:

User being reported: multiple

No one has broken 3RR. On the other hand, all editors involved have been here for some time, and should know better than to edit war.

On the one camp, undoing the redirect, we have
 * 06:10, 12 September 2009
 * 06:41, 24 September 2009
 * 14:36, 25 September 2009
 * 14:36, 25 September 2009


 * 15:09, 24 September 2009
 * 02:54, 25 September 2009
 * There's an earlier pass at this by Peregrine Fisher, but it is blocked by an intervening delete. It happened sometime shortly before 23:49, 11 September 2009
 * There's an earlier pass at this by Peregrine Fisher, but it is blocked by an intervening delete. It happened sometime shortly before 23:49, 11 September 2009


 * 16:16, 25 September 2009
 * 17:25, 25 September 2009
 * 17:25, 25 September 2009

In the other camp, installing the redirect we have
 * 01:08, 12 September 2009
 * 01:08, 12 September 2009


 * 18:12, 24 September 2009
 * 18:12, 24 September 2009


 * 13:00, 12 September 2009
 * 13:00, 12 September 2009
 * 00:36, 24 September 2009
 * 09:36, 24 September 2009
 * 03:17, 25 September 2009
 * 15:33, 25 September 2009
 * 17:00, 25 September 2009
 * 17:00, 25 September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 24
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon/Archive 24

Comments:

This is a slow edit war, without a specific 3RR violation.

I'm well known for disliking the article in question, so one needs to take that into account when reading my take. I think that Kung Fu Man, Artichoker, and Bws2cool are being quite reasonable in pointing at the consensus with WikiProject Pokemon that having the article in project space to be repaired, and think that's a reasonable strategy. In spite of that, the number of redirects that Kung Fu Man has performed disturbs me. Peregrine Fisher at least recognizes the existence of the consensus at WikiProject Pokemon, and has discussed it at the project talk space. He seems to feel comfortable proceeding anyway.

DreamFocus and Colonel Warden, on the other hand, are not discussing at all: they simply are undoing the redirect. Colonel Warden also cut and pasted the contents of the project space article without attribution, causing GFDL problems.

Since the content of the article is safe and sound at WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur, which is the only copy with a valid attribution history, my recommendation is to delete the article in mainspace, install the redirect, protect the redirect, and only undo it when a consensus to restore the article to mainspace can be demonstrated. Whether blocks or warnings need to be issued, and to whom, I leave to people who are a bit more detached.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup - attribution history is wrong, so deleted. If the article returns from projectspace at some point, then someone can do a history merge if the editors concerned here really want to have a rather WP:LAME edit-war preserved for ever. In the meantime, consensus at the relevant Project was clear, and so I have recreated the article as a redirect to preserve the links, and protected it so that people can't continue embarrassing themselves. Black Kite 18:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What nonsense is this? I discussed it on the talk page of the article, where it should be discussed.  What you have are some aggressive people determined to destroy an article, without proper consensus.  And now Black Kite has deleted the article, history and all, without a proper AFD, and then locked a redirect there.  On the talk page Peregrine Fisher found a notable media mention of the character, a biography of the fictional character, at IGN!  That would clearly establish notability.  If you disagree, take it to the AFD and do things properly.   D r e a m Focus  22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Deletion of the mainspace article is quite improper as there have been two AFDs for it already and it was Kept on both occasions.  And it has been a Featured Article and so does not merit peremptory deletion.  As for other details, a proper attribution was made in the edit summary to the fork created by the Pokemon project.  As the article has been developed further with additional sourced material, it would be best to merge the forked versions and allow development to continue.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Black Kite has responded to these concerns with further steps. See the RfC: "Bulbasaur - to redirect or not". Please take any continuing discussion to the RfC. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:gu1dry reported by User:119.173.81.176 (Result: Both parties warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3AGu1dry

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This stemmed from a content dispute, when I realised that we were both in danger of violating the 3RR, I put a message on the user's talk page suggesting that we both back off and leave the topic alone, so we could avoid edit warring.

I did not try to argue that my edit was correct on his talk page as this could be seen as trying to provoke the user into another revert, my priority was for us to both calm down and prevent an edit war from happening.

The user must be very aware of the potential of a block being given for edit warring, as they were blocked ten days ago for edit warring.

119.173.81.176 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Result - Both parties warned. I do not see four reverts in 24 hours, but repeated back-and-forth on the same point (automatic transmission) over an extended period could easily draw a block for edit warring. The sources appear to differ on whether an automatic transmission can be ordered, and the matter needs to be worked out on Talk before any more reverts happen. Citing both of the conflicting sources is an option for the editors to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kelly A. Siebecke reported by User:JoyDiamond (Result: No violation )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Although not of her stature, would Cher's name be replaced with Sarkisian?? Charles Karel Bouley is commonly know as "Karel" and only uses his full name when writing i.e. Advocate and Huffington Post. Repeating "Fired" NINE times ,including sources is redundant and unnecessary. Bill O'Reilly himself said that this was the second time Karel had been a pinhead. Will find source. More later...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] After extensive searching on Wiki sites I cannot find how to post a warning. Please help! I don't know how speak in symbols, am willing to learn. I attempted to read filing dispute pages and became even MORE dyslexic!I need a real personn to assist me.

Yes I have sincerely tried to resolve this edit war My talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoyDiamond. Kelly Riebecke's talkpage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelly_A._Siebecke Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]. 

Comments:

As you will see on my talk page I have been warned, I don't believe these warning were justified as I have stated on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. I am NOT going to change anything, however incorrect, until an intervention with a real person. Are you that person? JoyDiamond (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those edits all seem to have been made without any other edits inbetween, I don't think that is classed as edit warring. 119.173.81.176 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No action That's correct, no violation of 3RR here, sequential edits count as one revert ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) However I have protected the page fo a short time to force discussion. One side's edits (using the obituary as the source) don't actually back up the statement, whilst the other side (JoyDiamond) is using an unreliable source to back up their version.  Neither is particularly useful. Please discuss on talkpage. Black Kite 09:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:99.255.196.199 reported by User:Shoemaker's Holiday (Result: 36h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert: (the result of these two diffs is the version he reverts to here out)
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: (I warned him about 3RR at  this point.
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:99.255.196.199 (among others)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Acupuncture Comments:

Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 06:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do something. The IP is continuing to edit war. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 36h by User:Orderinchaos. Black Kite</b> 09:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

86.162.69.86 reported by Clovis Sangrail (Result: 1 week)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nil, they're both irrational [diff]

There's two users that are reverting everything the other does (Multiple articles). The other is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Elockid I think they both need a rest. They've even just started arguing on my talk page. Both claim the other is a sockpuppet. Apologies if I've messed the formatting up here


 * It might be worth trying to sort this one quickly, they're making a bit of a mess..

Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Please read up on Nangparbat. Please also my talk page. User: AdjustShift agrees that I was indeed reverting edits by a banned user which 3RR is not included in.

Please also note that has been blocked for being a sock of Nangparbat. Block Log. <b style="font-family:papyrus; color:darkred;">Elockid</b> ( Talk·Contribs ) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already blocked 86.162.69.86 for 1 week. 86.162.69.86 is a sock of Nangparbat. Elockid was reverting the edits of a banned user, so there is no need to take any action against Elockid. AdjustShift (talk) 14:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:118.93.41.107 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: 31 hours)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: 11 minutes after being warned

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:


 * AdjustShift (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:79.78.6.136 and User:79.78.7.164 reported by User:Eaglestorm (Result: 48 hours)
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

For: 79.78.6.136
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert: [diff]
 * 4th revert: [diff]

For: 79.78.7.164
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user has already used foul language in his edit summaries and - as 79.78.6.136 - claims I am a sockpuppet of banned user GMAFan per | this diff. User has yet to explain his edits and even continued | the harassment at the Tambayan Philippines talk page and at my personal talk page per |this recent history.

I recommend rangeblocks on edits from this 79.78.XXX.XXX range if such vandalism persists. Thank you. -Eaglestorm (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AdjustShift (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ephestion reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:


 * previous version: 14:33
 * 1) 14:52
 * 2) 15:38
 * 3) 15:46
 * Revert-warring about "Macedonia" naming, against Arbcom-imposed 1RR as per WP:ARBMAC2
 * Warning and explanation: User talk:Ephestion

Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 31h by J.delanoy. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:70.126.138.78 reported by User:Crotchety Old Man (Result: 31h)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:

Crotchety Old Man (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 31 hours for edit warring and incivility. The IP undid his last revert here, but he has been warring on other film articles and leaving edit summaries such as "State a good reason to revert something you idiot". Elsewhere, edit summaries like 'Asshole' and 'The fuck'. If this keeps up, there may be a longer block in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sposer reported by User:Nableezy (Result: No action)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert: of this removal
 * 5th revert: again

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy

Comments:

Started as an issue with al-Ahram being used as a source. This has been discussed at both the article talk page and the RS/N with uninvolved editors agreeing that the source is a reliable source as a major news organization. Repeatedly removing the source then trying to poison the well using synthesis by adding criticism of the paper that nobody has related to the topic of the article. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 21:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I misunderstood that my first edit was a revert. The last two edits were not a revert, but adding a clarification. I was about to self revert the second revert anyway, but somebody already did. I put multiple notices on the talk page, but all people did was revert. I am no longer watching that page. Sposer (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Sposer went over 3RR but has declared that he will no longer edit the article. Unless he changes his mind, no admin action is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Persian Empire edit warring reported by User:Ottava Rima (Result: Page Protected )
Page:

User being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: by User:Alefbe
 * 2nd revert: by User:Alefbe
 * 3rd revert: by User:Akhilleus

Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring. Page use to exist. It has, since August, been edited out of existence. Three polls have taken place with one an official RfC. Each time, the vast majority have stated that they oppose a reduction in size of the page to either a disambiguation or a redirect. Each time, the consensus was ignored and the page redirected. Alefbe and Akhilleus are constantly edit warring it out of existence without any consensus to make such a change. The page is a top priority page and a high priority page in two different WikiProjects. Akhilleus, an admin, knows not to edit war and knows that there has been edit warring on the page. Alefbe has also been told. This is part of an on going request for Arbitration in which allegations of admin abuse including Akhilleus on this very page. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, that was my first ever edit to Persian Empire, so I'm surprised to see that I'm "constantly edit warring". And this post doesn't make any sense unless Ottava is alleging that Alefbe and I are sockpuppets. If that's what he's saying, I hope he will open a case at WP:SPI! --Akhilleus (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The history of the page makes it clear that there has been constant edit warring. One revert in such a position is contributing to edit warring. Akhilleus's close talk page relationship with Folantin, Dbachmann, and Alefbe show that they are part of a reverting group that avoids the definition of 3RR by taking turns. This is unacceptable behavior for an admin. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

@Ottava Rima: I have done 2 reverts on Sep. 25 and Sep. 27. So what? Those 2 reverts are backed by the discussion in the talk page. The relevant discussion shows that my 2 recent edits are backed by most of the users who have recently commented on that talk page. Alefbe (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a 3RR, this is an edit warring report. Edit warring does not have a limit and can be once a day if necessary. You have been edit warring without any consensus or justification for a very long time. The talk page also makes it clear that you have fabricated consensus - the majority of people do not support your claims, recent or old. There have been two straw polls and an RfC which all say that your actions are inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima appears to be forum-shopping in an effort to take ownership of the article in question. In the last couple of days he's been all over WP:ANI and Arbitration/Requests/Case, and now this, which appears to be a frivolous report. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, the definition of "ownership" means being a participant in an RfC and Straw polls in which over 10 people have stated so far that they want the page to exist and only 5 people saying that they don't? And then there is clear edit warring on the page? Bugs, at least look before you speak. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly a long term content dispute, everyone needs to calm down and form consensus on the talk page one more time. Baseball Bugs, your comment is not helpful, please refrain from making such comments. Page protected. Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  03:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Page protection was the right move. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Focak reported by User:Inter-man (Result: Warned)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Comments:

He removes the information based on official data (the number of inhabitants of city) from official page of city and Statistical Offices, he on the basis of colloquial data about metropolitan area. Exist are many sources about metropolitan area representing different of numbers (from 4 to 5 million). The number of inhabitants of city is one, official data. Officialy in city of Barcelona lives 1,615,908 peoples. He believes that (colloquial term) "the metropolitan area" shows that the city is great, official figures (about the number of inhabitants of city) do not interest him. He four times he delete information from article. It is 4RR. Inter-man (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf. (Second report, Result: 1 wk)
Page:

User being reported:

Persistent slow edit warring and breach of Arbcom-imposed 1RR:
 * 1) 26 Septemer 12:15
 * 2) 27 September 12:04
 * Continuing a slow revert-war over several days. Was already blocked for both a 3RR violation and simultaneous breach of Arbcom-imposed Macedonia naming 1RR three days ago (see above, still on this page). Has now repeated the same reverts twice. Single-purpose account, obvious nationalist POV motivation, refuses any discussion, gives no reasons even in edit summaries, just slowly repeats the same series of edits over and over again. Repeated warning given here: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 1 week for a violation of the 1RR restriction on Macedonian naming issues. MessiniaGreece has never left a comment on a Talk page; his sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be doing nationalist reverts. The following language is found in WP:NCMAC:


 * "Editors are reminded that all contentious edits touching upon Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction. In cases covered by this guideline, editors reinstating the version conforming to it are not subject to this restriction."
 * EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa for third time (Result: 1 month)
Page:

User being reported:


 * 1st revert: 02:35, 13 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, that's a pretty poor-quality version, very unscholarly, not like the present one.
 * 2nd revert: 22:22, 13 September 2009 rv to the sourced version - Lisa, you need to be less emotional about this and more constructive.
 * 3rd revert: 01:02, 14 September 2009 Lisa, there's obviously no consensus,, since I don't agree with you.
 * 4th revert: 05:53, 14 September 2009 Consensus is when everyone agrees, and we don't - so let's stick with the version that has reliable sources.
 * 3RR warning: 13:30, 14 September 2009
 * Report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:35, 14 September 2009
 * 31 hour block: 05:59, 15 September 2009
 * 31 hours later: 12:59, 16 September 2009
 * 5th revert: 10:02, 17 September 2009 rv to the version with reliable sources.
 * 6th revert: 23:53, 17 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, but I hope someday you'll understand how necessary this is to me :)
 * Report to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:12, 18 September 2009
 * 31 hour block: 00:20, 19 September 2009
 * 7th revert: 11:54, 26 September 2009 Since there's a consensus for this version (me, Cush, dab) we'll take it as the default, ok?

PiCo's rationale:
 * 09:59, 17 September 2009
 * 11:29, 17 September 2009

Comments:

Can PiCo be blocked from this article? This is the seventh time he's reverted it to the version that he created, unilaterally, after deleting the entire article. The very first edit on the article after he was banned a second time for edit warring on it, and it's a complete revert. Again. -Lisa (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have to side with Lisa on this. There are suffient editors involved to constitute a true content dispute, but PiCo's methodology of wholesale deletion of notable and verifiable information is wreaking havoc.  I've taken great pains to invite PiCo to ADD notable and verifiable information without DELETING notable and verifiable contributions from other editors -- to no avail.  This shouldn't even be an edit war, since "our side" is welcoming of collaborative additions from "his side."  We value what he can add, but deleting the work of others is pure and simple edit warring.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm now discussing with PiCo what to do, on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - PiCo has been given a semi-voluntary block for one month, as a condition of the 3RR complaint being closed. (Without his agreement to this result, some kind of topic ban might have been enacted). See User talk:PiCo for details. We don't usually do voluntary blocks. Any admin may substitute another close if you prefer, but then you own the problem :-). EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.216.192.29 reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: 15h)

 * Page:
 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Đakovica Prizren
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pagliaccioknows reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: Warned)

 * Page:
 * User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:I Pakapshem (Result: )
Page:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Consecutive 3rrs on two days, uncivil and uncompromising behavior in talk page, masked by false statements of compromise being reached in order to do reverts. Refuses to acknowledge me and other editors when discussing, deeming us not contributors. This can be seen in the talk page of the article.

--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Reporter is blocked and I'm looking at fixing things anyway. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the 3 last 'reverts' had nothing to do with reverts [], [], [], moreover the edits were made from 24 to 26 Sept. (3 days). The specific User:I_Pakapshem, was blocked due to numerous wp:npa, wp:incivility especially in Souliotes talk page [] as a result of a wp:ani case against him, apart from having a block recort in his history log []. The report is really bad faith, while his history log is just nationalist advocating, fruitless reporting and endless reverting []. Moreover he never seems to understand the reason he is blocked []. Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No wonder, after I_Pakapshem's last block things had somewhat settled, and a degree of conscensus has been reach, especially due to Moreshi's vital help.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Eduardo Sellan III reported by Ophois (talk) (Result:Warning)
. : Time reported: 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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


 * 1) 05:32, 24 September 2009  (edit summary: "This is even necessary?")
 * 2) 21:13, 24 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 315888979 by Ophois (talk)")
 * 3) 05:49, 26 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 316003493 by Ophois (talk)")
 * 4) 22:31, 26 September 2009  (edit summary: "But why would you want to put unnecessary things in the article? Why do we need bracketing the number again?")
 * 5) 20:55, 27 September 2009  (edit summary: "I know, but again the numbers of the first season is idiotic.")
 * 6) 21:02, 27 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 316560907 by Ophois (talk)")
 * 7) 22:49, 27 September 2009  (edit summary: "Undid revision 316564534 by Fetchfan88 (talk)")
 * 8) 01:54, 28 September 2009  (edit summary: "Already explained in the discussion for a long time. You by chance encounter?]])")


 * Diff of warning: here

— Ophois (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Giving the user a final warning. I don't think English is his first language, so I feel it better if I ensure communication before dealing out blocks. Master of Puppets  - <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bibliolover reported by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (Result: 24h to submitter)
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:, plus I attempted using history comments for guidance.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:, and here I added a huge section to explain why the edit should stay included: , and here I summarize why the quote is needed: , and here I try to explain what is consensus: and , but it was of no avail.

Comments:

Bibliolover simply will not work with the community. Further evidence of this can be found in a complaint he filed against me here. It was his 32rd edit, and he's already acting against the community. For me, this may be my first 3RR filing, or perhaps any filing, and I've been here for years. I have to come here because his disruptive editing needs attention. He needs to work with the community, not in spite of it. I and others have provided gentle guidance but it was been of no avail. Also, he makes frequent personal attacks against me.

Let me admit I made in the past an edit or two over the 3RR line, but I admitted I lost track and apologized, and I believed the edits to be vandalism since they were by a newbie totally ignoring guidance. And now, I am not myself reverting a third time, so the article stands with the encyclopedic material removed, material that I brought to the community's attention precisely to obtain consensus as a result of the newbie's disruptive editing.

Please help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is, himself, guilty of edit warring. He began by adding a quote that had been disputed and removed previously, and reverting edits to retain it in the article despite objections raised by myself and a second Wikipedia editor, Stephan Schulz (See here.)


 * My filing of a legitimate COI inquiry on the COI noticeboard is not edit warring, or an attack on the Wikipedia community, but a good-faith attempt to use the community's tools to raise a serious question about LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's obvious conflict of interest (so acknowledged by Atama [here] and [here].) It is uncivil for LAEC to characterize my legitimate inquiry as such.


 * Nor are my edits vandalism; they were done as good faith attempts to improve the article, add substantive material, and provide a balance to try and maintain NPOV. (Frankly, it appears that LAEC characterizes any edits by a "dumb newbie" that contradict his opinions as "vandalism.") Again, it is uncivil for LAEC to characterize my edits as such. -- Bibliolover (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 24 hours to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. When an editor who is in a conflict-of-interest situation is edit warring to keep certain links out of the article, it is hard to justify under our policies. He is welcome to express his concern on the talk page. To keep on reverting during a Talk discussion loses all credit. I suggest that Bibliolover should avoid reverting during a Talk discussion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: 31 h )
Page: Adem Jashari

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This kind of editing is just plain Personal Point of View without any kind of reason. Note "gang of fascist terrorists" he is trying to add. Combined with nationalist messages warning about the "future" and vandalizing in my userpage and talkpage ,, I think my report really belongs here. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 31 hours. Moreschi (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kreshnik25 is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive editor. - Tadija (talk)

User:Otto4711 and User:WölffReik reported by User:Alansohn (Result: both blocked )
Page:

Users being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * By User:Otto4711
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * By User:WölffReik
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Otto4711 for WölffReik

Edit war is based on whether article is independently notable. WölffReik has been trying to add sources to establish notability, while Otto4711 has been reverting back to a redirect. Otto4711 has two prior blocks for 3RR violations. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 week for Otto and 48 hours for Wolff. Moreschi (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: and


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first revert is a revert of this edit I made. As I had the article watchlisted after editing it, I noticed Kildruf make inappropriate additions regarding the Lockerbie bombing with language such as "heinous crime" or largely duplicate information, and attempted to discuss things politely on their talk page without resorting to the use of warning templates, and this was met with a claim of vandalism and threats to get an administrator. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:, , , etc.

Comments:

Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring without any discussion. User:Bosonic dressing, the craetor of the article, possesses it like its owner and is edit warring. User:Earl of China, and others are also edit warring. Admins should protect the article and block some users.
 * Protected for 1 week since too many users are involved to justify blocking. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of object to being included here. I made an edit then resorted to discussion on the talk page. Bosonic Dressing, however, is practicing WP:OWN, and is reverting at least four other editors (myself, Earl of China, Readin, Wikilaurent) on the Taiwan presentation, and one or two others on some Turkish territory. I do not believe he has surpassed 3RR, but the WP:OWN issue is pretty clear - he wrote it and it is going to stay his way. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if any further disruption occurs, I can hand out specific warnings. I generally agree with your assessment, and I'll leave a note on Turkish Flame's talk page asking him to revisit his report in light of your comments. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am simply trying to maintain a semblance of order to an article that, yes, I created and has been subject to POV editing from the beginning and other commentators above. The report has little merit (at least as directed at me), and reporter even less so: Turkish_Flame has been blocked multiple times for edit warring regarding Turkey's placement in this article and others: the report is out of spite for being called to account.  And, correction: SchmuckytheCat made an edit, I reverted it, he then nominated the article for deletion presumably out of similar spite (a report on which Turkish_Flame also commented, curiously), has reverted since, then initiates discussion days later on the talk page (amidst a troll who has been doing little else but reverting recently), and now proceeds to weigh in further on how the article is structured?  Rather hypocritical, if not disingenuous -- so much so, that any assumption of good faith there may have been with this editor has been lost, and this editor's comments no longer register with me; in the least, this editor's commentary should not be taken at face value.  Anyhow, it seems moot to lock down an article that will likely be merged with the list of passports, which is fine with me.  So, Jc, you may want to reevaluate your assessment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit tennis on Infinity Bridge (Result: Stale)


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


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

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

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316376576
 * 2nd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316402721
 * 3rd revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316752524
 * 4th revert: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316807244

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

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

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


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

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

User will not discuss their changes after repeated attempts at contact on their talk page...see, and

Comments:

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


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

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:
 * Additional content added, but the list is the same.


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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


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

Actually, no - It was remade from scratch, with sources added. That's not a revert. You're the one at fault here. I've given you sources. You find whatever fault you can in them. Everyman21 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Result blocked as a checkuser ✅ sock. Consider taking this kind of thing to SPI in the future.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps removing a speedy tag from an article, with a hangon and an active discussion in progress, which was wrongly moved to an inappropriate title.  R ad io pa th y  •talk•  07:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It has already been explained to you that that template is not to be misused. You were misusing it, labeling good-faith edits as vandalism when they were clearly not, and using it to try and move a page under discussion.  As it is under discussion, it is a controversial move, and therefore the template doesn't apply.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated any policies, I've only made 3 reverts, if I had made four, there would be a problem, but I haven't.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The page was not under discussion when I first speedied it. It clearly needs to be moved back to its original title, since the m dash in the phone number is not what WP:MOS calls for; the proper symbol was already in place, and the person who moved the article has a history of misguided edits: .   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   07:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point? It's under discussion now, and therefore the move is controversial, therefore the template cannot be used.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's under discussion because the editor who made the bad move put a tag under the speedy tag, which is proper procedure - and the tag stays til the discussion is over.  It's not a controversial move since the editor took it upon himself to move to a bad title and his move needs to be reverted. so your reverts were entirely inappropriate.   R ad io pa th y  •talk•   07:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, its under discussion because you don't like the move, and because it is under discussion, it would be controversial to move when consensus is in the process of being developed, therefore the template cannot be used. It doesn't work like you say.  I've been here longer than you, I know what I'm talking about.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you know, the speedy was declined as it was not 'uncontroversial'.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  10:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And you are misguided as well. There is no m dash in the phonenumber.  Here is a comparison chart to assist you:

The one used is the first one, the figure dash, used in phone numbers. It is not the m dash as you incorrectly think.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note to anyone reviewing this, I have self-reverted.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  08:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


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

User:Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)
. : Time reported: 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on


 * Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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


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


 * Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:


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

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

User being reported:

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


 * Criticism of YouTube: ,,,,,,,,,,,
 * Northern Ireland Friends of Israel: ,,,,
 * Benjamin H. Freedman.,,,

Comments:

User:Vexorg has, for the past few days, done little besides revert three articles. In the case of Criticism of YouTube, he has reverted 12 times in 9 days, fighting 3 editors, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. In the case of Northern Ireland Friends of Israel he has reverted 5 times in 9 days, fighting what appear to be the same editors, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. In the case of Benjamin H. Freedman, he reverted a couple of times, then went away for a month, then came back to the article to resume the edit war, again, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. He's well aware that edit-warring like this is inappropriate; he's been blocked 6 times for edit-warring, and has even told one of his opponents to stop edit-warring. His new strategy appears to be revert two or three times, then go away for a period, then return to do the same again. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks like a long-term pattern of edit-warring to me, and the five previous blocks for edit warring do nothing to dispel that impression. I suggest to Vexorg that he agree to a 1RR per week restriction in lieu of a block. His last block was for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd recent.;ly noted the edit warring by this user too. If he doesn't respond soon one remedy or the other should be imposed.   Will Beback    talk    01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello. The user User:Jayjg who has reported me here has had a long term agenda against me. All my edits are in good faith and much of it is with sourced material. It's also worth noting that the user User:Jayjg who made this complaint didn't even bother to notify me so I could have a right of reply. Jayjg made this complaint 26 hours ago. It took ANOTHER editor EdJohnston to notify me . Thankyou Ed.  I've made nearly 3,000 edits on wikipedia and yes I have been got caught up in edit warring in the past, I don't deny it, but it has been insignificant compared to my total amount of edits. But it's only with a passion to improve Wikipedia. But remember it takes two to edit war. Anyway as an ordinary editor I cannot compete with Admistrators like User:Jayjg who have agendas against other editors. Therefore I shall take a break from editing for a while, especially those articles included in this complaint. I think anyone looking at this complaint should note the deliberate disadvantage against me by the lack of notification to myself regarding this complaint. Hopefully a non biased administrator will attend. Vexorg (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Editor has agreed to stop edit warring and to stay away from those articles for a while -- no further action required.SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:


 * I have not exceeded the three revert rule and I am not engaged in an edit war. The last edit I made to Blaylock's article was to change the word "believes" to "states" as neither sources states that this is his belief, merely that, in the Free Lance-Star source it says "Dr. Russell Blaylock in his book, "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills," stated that the ingredients" [emphasis added] and in the accessmylibrary.com source recording E Magaine it says "causing damage of varying degrees," argues neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock" [emphasis added]. Making an argument can said to be a statement, but not a belief, and the first souces uses "stated", I changed the word. It is hardly edit-warring. On reflection though, maybe the words we should use are "has stated".86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Wiki alf/IP socks has clearly made at least four separate groups of edits in ten hours, all of them involving some form of reversion. This, in addition to apparently asking a previously uninvolved friend (with a rather similar name) to make a meatpuppet-type reversion. The rationale for these edits doesn't matter; they were done, they were done using different accounts/IPs to avoid scrutiny, and they continued after a 3RR warning. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The fourth did not include some kind of reversion as adequately, if not eloquently stated above. I made no on- or off wiki- communication with Wiki libs who is on a different continent and is most definitely a distinctly different being than I. I replied to Buba hotep's and Libsy's comments on my absence on my talk page as I logged in for "!voting" at an AfD that Carryonandkeepcalm created for the Russell Blaylock article. If Libsy checked my edits and thought that the removal of information pertinent to the AfD was not a good idea and changed it back, that is his affair, go ask him, I made no contact with him except on my logged-in account's talk page, which you can see has no such requests for any action by him regarding this matter. I am now at my home, so until I get up this will be the computer in front of me, which rule makes me log in to make a simple, non-controversial, change of one word, which in no way hid anything, the least of which is any form of reversion.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Over at this editor's talk page I have proposed that he agree to voluntarily restrict his use of multiple accounts, so as to clearly satisfy the policy at WP:SOCK. I suggest that any closing admin wait to see if he will respond to this idea. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Until I logged in to "!vote" at an AfD on 09:00, 30 September 2009, I had not logged into my account since 21:55, 16 July 2009 when I added two items to the See also section of the article about the Logan Act. During the daytime I am (supposed to be) working and during the night I am at home, none of the changes between the two ips are due to anything other than having to change from one place to another as a regular pattern of daily living. Is there a problem with me not wishing to use my account for a while and editing from the two places I happen to be in due to my normal daily existence? I logged in to make sure that my "!vote" was counted. I said I was editing when needed but anonymously and intended only to have to deal with essentials when logged in.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Venomspider has stopped reverting after the warning but he doesn't seem to be listening, perhaps a final warning or a short sharp shock. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll have to wait and see. He's waited this long before and then reverted again. Bobisbob2 (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - 48h. This account's only mission in life seems to be long-term revert-warring about the date of first appearance of certain comic book characters. Discussing things on Talk pages does not interest him. If he can't find anything to do on Wikipedia except revert others' edits, I think an indef block might be on the horizon. EdJohnston (talk) 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st set of reverts:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * -- unreferences, and in conflict with old and current consensus.
 * -- edit history Claim of initial removal edit note is untrue (relevant sec on talk)
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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


 * Comment: user:Scientus has made more that 50 removals of fully cited information on organizations supporting Office open XML agianst several editors and agianst consensus on the talk page of this article. He has a history of WP:disruptive editing on this article including fact-tagging, tendentious removals of information, refusal to engage in discussion on the talk page and attacking other editors. To try and solve issues I have made a request for comments, request for mediation and have requested help on the wikiproject computing. This has not led to outside comment or expertise on the Office Open XML article. I would like invite any administrators to come and help out on the messy situation surrouding this article. hAl (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Recent examples of user:Scientus incredible list of removal edits here Talk:Office_Open_XML hAl (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Result - Blocked 10 days, after seeing the current 3RR violation and a long record of previous reverts on this article. I count four reverts by User:HAl on September 30. They occurred at 12:03, 13:27, 13:37 and 16:55 UTC. His last edit-warring block was for one week, on July 1. Other admins are welcome to study the situation to see if anyone else should be blocked, but I didn't see a recent 3RR violation by anyone else. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case I suggest blocking User:Scientus as well, as he is obviously a huge hypocrite when posting this on the admin notice board. He has been blocked for edit warring and disruptive editing on this article before as well and everything he is accusing User:HAl of doing can easily applied to him as well.
 * Here is a list of his recent edits: Edit warring of User:Scientus.
 * Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't see a recent 3RR violation by anyone else. If HAl would agree to abide by consensus on this article, and stop edit-warring, he might be unblocked. That would probably require a 1RR per week voluntary restriction. If he would agree to that, attention would then shift to others to see if they were also behaving well. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Scientus is a long term edit warrior as can easily be recognized looking at the provided diffs of his long list of disruptive behavior. He generally does not engage in discussions and consensus-building on the talk page, unlike User:HAl who already tried a request for mediation and also tried to get help from the Wikiproject computing (,, , etc.). Ghettoblaster (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Scientus does not appear to have been the locus of the repeated edit warring on this article over the last few months. If it so happens that Scientus proceeds to edit war with users other than this one, that's a separate issue as far as I'm concerned. This user has most certainly not restricted his edit warring to reverting Scientus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox reported by User:Ronhjones (Result:72 hrs )
Page:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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:

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.  Ron h jones (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,, 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:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: (applies to last four reverts)


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

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:

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  ( talk 2 me ) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 7th revert: . 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:81.70.102.204 reported by User:Piano non troppo (Result: 2 weeks)
Page:

User being reported:

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


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit warring warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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:

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

Users being reported: and

Previous version reverted to:

Revert history of Shrieekk:

30-september-2009 01-october-2009
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:

Revert history of Dewatchdog:

30-september-2009 01-october-2009 02-october-2009
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 8th revert:
 * 9th revert:
 * 10th revert:
 * 11th revert:
 * 12th revert:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page: AND 

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: ). Cheers, -- Rajith Mohan (Talk to me..) 12:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Protected for a week. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:69.148.51.53 reported by Postoak (talk) (Result: protected)
. : Time reported: 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Three-revert rule violation on

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:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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!  TheWeak Willed   (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  &#124; Talk 14:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TreadingWater reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Indef)
Page: (multiple, see below) User being reported:

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 6 9 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:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:

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 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. Unit  Anode  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. Unit  Anode  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. Unit  Anode  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. Unit  Anode  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. Unit  Anode  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:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert: 16:19, 28 September 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
 * 2nd revert: from 16:31, 28 September 2009 by User:Davemon to  00:57, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
 * 3rd revert: from 07:26, 1 October 2009 by User:Davemon to  07:39, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
 * 4th revert: from 09:25, 1 October 2009 by User:Mangoe to  10:25, 1 October 2009 by User:Sizzle Flambé
 * 5th revert: from 17:46, 1 October 2009 by User:Pmanderson to  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: (this is from 24 September);  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)



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: 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: 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, 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.

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:, and these: are all simple reverts/undos by Davemon, to this version: 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 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. 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:

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 18:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stale at this point, but I will keep an eye on it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

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:.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 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, <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:10, 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. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He self-reverted after I notified him of this report:, . Mitsube (talk) 19:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is correct - as soon as became aware I reverted and apologised. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> 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. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> 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 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  &#124; Talk 14:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:


 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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.

In addition to this the editor who made the 3RR report was quite likely responsible for editing the article using an IP 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 and more recently warned about edit warring.

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)