Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
Shortcuts WP:AN/3 WP:AN3 WP:AN/EW WP:ANEW WP:AN/3RR Update this page This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report. If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page. You must notify any user you have reported. You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. Additional notes When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first. The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from. Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection. Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed. Definition of edit warring Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157
1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Users involved:

• 139.164.160.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 94.203.97.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

The above users are engaged in edit warring related to articles on persecution of or terrorism by Muslims or Zionists. The activity involves repeated addition or removal of category tags from a large number of articles. Some users are leaving highly charged or disparaging comments towards the others in edit summaries. Please refer to contributions.

The matter was previous brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken.

Comments:

Page: Gun politics in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sue Rangell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:01, 23 January 2014 reverts [1]
2. 13:06, 23 January 2014 reverts [2]
3. 13:08, 23 January 2014 reverts [3]
4. 18:20 23 January 2014 reverts [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

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

Comments: I think this editor is Wikihounding me. I am not an experienced enough WP editor to know how to show that, but most recently she followed me to the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) BLP and caused me (and the subject) a great deal of grief. See Robert Spitzer (political scientist) on WP:BLP/N, and SPA on Admin Newyorkbrad's talk page. She has been trying to get me banned or blocked for months, and it nearly "boomeranged" on her in November. I just want to be able to edit in good faith.

--Lightbreather (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute nonsense. I have a 1RR rule that I have held to for seven years. If you take a look at the diffs supplied by the complaintant, you will see that they are just regular edits. One is a revert, and that is all I will do for 48 hours. This is a classic SPA account (editing Gun Control articles exclusively) that has narrowly escaped a topic ban on several occassions, for example it was heavily involved with the edit war that resulted in Saltyboatr's block:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#SaltyBoatr.2C_Talk:Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Soon after that, this account attempted to get several long standing editors topic banned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive813#Ownership_issue_on_Federal_assault_weapons_ban_page.3F

This last one is a "Must Read" to get an understanding of this account's activities. The result boomeranged on her, and narrowly resulted in a topic ban for the second time: "There is no consensus for a topic ban. There is, however, clear concern among editors about Lightbreather's contributions, and many who oppose a topic ban do state that Lightbreather's edits are disruptive. Word to the wise: that no topic ban is agreed on does not, of course, mean that individual administrators cannot cite this discussion as a warning of sorts if they feel a block on Lightbreather for disruption is warranted. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)"

Politically, I am on the same side as this SPA (I am Pro Gun Control), but these activities are so disruptive, and along with the ownership issues, I continually find myself siding with the pro-gun editors due to this WP:CRUSH behavior.

There is no edit war going on, the complaintant's own diffs show that. I have simply made some edits however that the complaintant doesn't happen to like, and now we are all wasting our time because of it. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 05:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely absurd. Lightbreather has been the disruptive editor pushing an agenda and waving a POV flag from Day One. She pretends not to understand what is going on and rehashes the same tired points again and again, hoping that other editors will throw up their hands and give up. I believe Sue Rangell was originally mentoring her or trying to help her, before Sue saw her for the basket case that she is.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 07:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting ready to leave my desk for a few hours, but I would like to say, re: Sue's saying she has a 1RR rule that she had held to for seven years. 1. She also says right on her user page that she "click[s] the revert button a lot" (emphasis mine) 2. Recently (17 JAN 2014) another editor warned her about 3RR. To which she replied: "I'm not going to argue about it. I have a 1RR rule, so if you think I've slipped-up and done three reverts in 24 hours feel free to report it, I'll deserve it." And she called it "nonsense," just as she's done here. After she reported me as an "SPA" on the talk page of the admin overseeing that page, he told her "the article looks to me to be in pretty decent shape" (same link as SPA link I cited in my notice).

I will be happy to drop this if she'll just promise to stop following me around from article to article, "fixing" my edits. Lightbreather (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing other editors isn't going to help, especially because this noticeboard isn't a "weight of opinions" thing. Your comment here does nothing to show that there is any edit-warring taking place, which is the entire point of this noticeboard. I think now's a good time to drop the stick. A series of consecutive edits that revert material counts as a single revert as far as what defines "edit warring". - Aoidh (talk) 14:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Are you the admin who is reviewing this? I've never done one before. I read the related pages a few times and proceeded as best I could. I thought it would be me, Sue, and an admin. I only "canvassed" as you say because I saw a comment by another editor. Also, I guessed we're supposed to comment freely, as Sue and Mike have done. I have to leave my desk now, but I will check in later. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No violation. I see one revert at 01:20 and a series of edits, including one explicit revert, from 20:01-20:25. Consecutive edits only count as one, so I get two reverts. I don't see a 3RR, and the "1RR" seems to be self-imposed. Kuru (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: I see 9 reverts. Let's look closer: 172.129.246.164 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. 20:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (Undid revision 592065894 by Lightbreather The word Argument is too inflammatory)

   Actual: Also restored unsourced POV paragraph contrary to WP:BURDEN

   (1) Reverted revision 592065894 by User:Lightbreather

2. 20:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (Fixed Multiple issues)

   Actual: Removed 2 dated {{CN}} tags and one {{FV}} tag without addressing problems

   (2) Reverted revision 591951993 by Lightbreather

   (3) Reverted revision 591958764 by AnomieBOT

3. 20:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC) (for clarification)

   (4) Reverted revision 590722228 by Gaijin42

4. 01:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC) (Reverted Lightbreather's revert, restoring POV and consensus. Repaired "Violence reduction debate" section)

   Actual: It was a rollback "restoring POV" version 592092475 by Sue Rangell [23:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)], which manually added back in a 3rd party editor's "Violence reduction debate" header name change.[reply]

   Comparison showing rollback which reverted these edits:

   (5) Reverted revision 592087780 by Lightbreather

   (6) Reverted revision 592089857 by Lightbreather

   (7) Reverted revision 592091239 by Lightbreather

   (8) Reverted revision 592099584 by Lightbreather

   (9) Reverted revision 592103613 by Lightbreather

• Comment Those are all "whole" not "in part" reverts. FYI. 172.129.246.164 (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, consecutive edits only count as one. And while I applaud your creativity, your proposed counting by the number of edits that were undone by the revert is silly. I'm sorry if you're confused, you may want to the read the core policy related to edit warring before commenting further. Kuru (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: This is already closed. Please do not add new information to a closed report. If edit-warring has re-commenced, file a new report with new evidence. Even if there was edit-warring 2 days ago (which I'm not investigating), we don't do punishment - this noticeboard is to prevent current disruption due to edit-warring ES&L 14:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23 January 2014
2. 23 January 2014
3. 22 January 2014
4. 20 January 2014

I and other users have tried to warn and discuss Irishfrisian about its edit warring at Largest Organisms, but, the user has rebuffed all attempts, at several times, even lying about how consensus either did not exist or was allegedly in favor of its actions. [8], and at one point, even enlisted a sockpuppet in helping it attack another user, User:Op47talk, who made edits that Irishfrisian vehemently disapproved of [9] [10] [11]

All attempts at reasoning with Irishfrisian have been fruitless, as the user was either too busy attacking Op47 for making edits Irishfrisian disapproved of, or of it ignoring consensus: [12] [13]

Comments:

I'm requesting help in dealing with Irishfrisian, as the user is exhausting mine and other users' patience in its edit warring and steadfast refusal to do anything beyond revert back to its favorite version of Largest Organisms, and accuse other editors of "destructive edits"--Mr Fink (talk) 03:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. I've protected the page for a week; please rejoin the discussion on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I fear that this will not solve the problem. Irishfrisian seems to wreak a bit of havock and then disapear for months on end. Thankyou anyway. Op47 (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but there edits were destructive and have made it exponentially harder to use that page I've tried to reason with them no if you saw the talk page you could tell that the only reason given for splitting that page was "it would be nice" while i gave many reasons for keeping it intact most of which ware practical or involved ease of use now that page is a bigger mess than it ever was but they refuse to listen Irishfrisian (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems: 1) your definition of "reasoning with (the other editors)" revolve around edit warring and accusing them of vandalism, 2) you haven't given any reason for retaining your favorite version of the page beyond vague accusations of poor navigation and how terrible terrible it makes you feel, and 3) you keep mis-defining the term "destructive edits" as being edits that you personally disagree with and find offensive to your very soul. And it's extremely difficult to understand what you're trying to say when the only forms of communications you ever bother to do are edit-warring and personal attacks.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and you know thats not true and also your refusal to even consider anothers point of view and simply disgard it and your constntly belittling of me and my concerns makes you a rather frustrating and how were my acusations vague in any way if you look at the importance raitings of the daughter articles is lower than the original and also it takes two to edit war Irishfrisian (talk) 15:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't falsely accuse us of what you're doing, Irishfrisian. You're the one who belittles and attacks people by falsely accusing them of making "destructive edits" and threatening to have them blocked, you're the one who ignores everyone else's viewpoints by edit-warring and refusing to acknowledge other people's concerns beyond claiming you know what's best for the page.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Irishfrisian, do you honestly think that, if I "knew (my) accusations" toward you weren't true, do you honestly think I would be this sadomasochistically inclined to waste everyone's time by filing a report on the edit war noticeboard out of spite? No. I filed this report here in the vain hopes that we can get you to come to your senses and stop edit warring and get you to help collaborate in improving the page.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of X-Men members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Doop (comics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) X-Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cebr1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26]

Comments:The issue itself of Doop being a full member of the X-Men is still rather foggy, as in the comics themselves, it has never been fully stated in the text of the comic stories themselves that he's a full member, but rather left open to interpretation of the reader to assume that he's taken the membership, including the issue that the reported user is using as his source, or that he could just be working at the school, and only hinted at in solicitations and previews. I've been told in the past by other admins and users on this site that we cannot use such things as justification in edits. I've told this user such during the course of this whole thing in his talk and in edit summaries, but he has still reverted my edits right back, saying he has valid info and I'm am the one in the wrong.

The other issue here is the user has been rather uncivil and not assumed good faith in regards to my edits, rather choosing to accuse me of only using my opinion in regards to my edits, not reading the issues at all, and making things up to justify my edits, which you can see in the various edit summaries and in my talk page, the latter of which you can view here. I have also asked him to take this dispute to the talk pages, but he demanded that I do it instead, which I did, and he has yet to comment on it as of the time I am writing this report. I have tried to keep my tone civil over the course of this, not putting my opinion in any of my edit summaries and such when I first reverted the edits. I did get a little heated in his talk when asking him to keep things civil, and am close to breaking the 3RR rule myself, so I am coming here to get this resolved as talking does not seem to be working. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 05:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. Your list of diffs is misleading. You included diffs of an IP - are you accusing the named account and the IP of being the same person? Also, you listed consecutive edits separately, even though consecutive edits count only as one revert. Finally, you failed to notify the user; I've done that. I suggest you use dispute resolution if you can't resolve the issue on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The user admitted as much that he was the IP address in his attacks on me when he said that I should not have undid "his" edits when I first undid those IP's edits. Is there not a way for admins to check and see if the IP address matches that of the user as well? Forgive me, but I am also confused in where I listed consecutive edits? I went through all the difs I listed, and they are all some form of him adding the Doop character onto the list after someone else's edit and not his own. Is it the edits from when he first added him that you are considering to be the consecutive edits? I'm just wondering so that I don't make this same mistake again in the future if need be. Thank you for your time, I'll try the dispute resolution this time. I hope I won't have to come back here again for this. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you please provide a diff where the user admitted they and the IP were the same person? There are two articles, and perhaps I'm missing what you're referring to. For consecutive edits (multiple edits without interruption by another editor), please read WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I should have specified, he admitted to it in my talk page actually, not on the actual articles. Going through the edit histories, you can see that I first undid the edits of the IP at 2:10 ([27]), and the user undid those edits at 3:30 ([28]), and then proceeded to send me the comment at 3:32 that I should not have undid the edit due to an issue listed "as I indicated in my edit".[29] Thank you. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You pieced that together very well, thanks. I've left a request on the named user's talk page and asked them to respond.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wolverine and the X-Men #1 & 17 both clearly state that Doop has joined the X-Men. I noted that in my edits, but this other just went ahead and undid them without saying any reason as to why, and then accused me of removing other info I never removed. If he or she feels the issue is "foggy" that's fine, he is entitled to his opinion, and I can see that he puts a lot of work into those pages and perhaps feels like he is their moderator but, he is not. To undo my edits when I listed where the info is from because of his personal interpretations is wrong. If you would like scans that prove my edits are valid, I would happy to provide them.

I also rarely make edits and did not know that wikipedia logs you out after so many days.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that this other user's undoing of my valid edits without explanation and then making false accusations about me removing other info which I did not do would have been the beginning of the war (not notifying me beforehand being something you specifically mentioned to him above). There seems to be some "ownership" of the pages going on on his or her part, and that's not fair to other users (like myself) when wikipedia is a collaborative project. As I said, if you would like scans, I can provide them.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebr1979 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As my defense to the points raised, I'm going to start off pointing out that in my very first revert of anything you did, I quite clearly stated in my edit summary why we've kept Doop in the Allies section instead of being a full member.[30] On the various re-undoings of the edits I asked you to please take it to a talk page before continuing the edit war [31][32], which you then refused to do and demanded that I take it there instead, [33], which I did, [34], and you have yet to comment on it while at least one other person has come in to agree with me. As for me accusing of removal of info, this is likely in reference to the Doop page itself. When I looked at that page's edit history, I noticed another user in the past had removed the entire power section without explanation[35], so in the process of removing the X-Men listing by Cebr, I also restored that section and noted as such in my edit summary, never claiming that cebr had removed it himself.[36] When the user came back and continually reverted that edit, he was removing the powers section once again, [37][38], while accusing me of making it up,[39][40][41]. And as far as the "ownership" accusation, up above I did say "we kept Doop there" because there are others than just myself who have talked about this and similar issues in the past. Also as stated before, I have started a talk section on this issue, and already had one agreement with me, and I have asked another member here who has probably been just as active as I have with keeping these pages up to date.[42] I have never claimed ownership of these pages, I just don't go to alot of them outside of X-Men related articles because there is just too much out there, so I've wanted to make this niche as good as I can because I am a fan. I have discussed many more issues on the talk page as well which can be seen throughout it's history and archives. If I was taking ownership, I wouldn't even bother with it. I have lost as many issues as I have probably won. But the fact at the end of the day with this one is, there was never a definitive yes from Doop, and it was left open to interpretation to the reader, which I have been told by many an admin and longtime user that we don't base edits on those kinds of things. This is not my opinion, this is what I've been told by those who run things around here.68.33.142.75 (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was too long. You did say that I removed the info from the Doop page. You said it more than once, you even said that I was continuously removing it and when I told you it was still there and I was looking it at right then and there, you even insinuated that I was wrong and looking at the wrong thing. You now claiming you noticed another user had done it previously and you were merely fixing that user's mistake is, quite literally, a lie. This is the first time you have ever mentioned any other user. As I said, I can provide scans of Doop joining the team... Can you provide scans of him declining?

Lastly, who are these "other admins" that have told you what classifies as valid documents? How come they were never mentioned before? How come your policies of previews not being allowed aren't mentioned anywhere in wikipedia's guidelines? Are you positive you were told this by admins or are you simply looking for justification now because, again, this is the first time you've mentioned this information. Information, I might add, that can't be verified.

In regards to "good faith" and whathaveyou, was claiming I deleted info I did not delete (more than once) and then backtracking a day later and claiming you were fixing someone else's mistake (which is not what you said yesterday), a display of good faith? I would think not.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In the process of removing the X-Men listing..." I originally made three edits yesterday. I explained why I made those edits. You reverted all three edits WITHOUT explanation or acknowledgement that you had even seen my explanation. You simply reverted. Again. And again. And again. This talk page of yours was only mentioned AFTER you had reverted my edits without explanation. I told you to take it there yourself 'cause, quite frankly, I think you're the one that needs to talk about it. I would have discussed it with you but, was never given that respect. Instead, I simply got three e-mails saying my edits had been "reverted." You reverted my edits first and you did so more than three times. At least I tried talking to you. You just did it. And added in false accusations for good measure.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebr1979 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would now like everyone involved to go check-out the Doop (comics) page edit history (where this started). User:68.33.142.75 violated the 3-edit revert rule before I did. The very rule that he's saying I violated and is the reason for his complaint which led to an edit war... He broke. First. Do I need to file a separate complaint against him or can we put this to rest now? Him breaking a rule and then getting all upset about it is pretty juvenile.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And now you're twisting things around. I never said Doop declined, I said it was never clear that he accepted. I gave you an explanation on the very first revert about it which I showed above. It's not "my policy", it's what I've been told by other users over my years around here. I can't go back and pull up every single one because it's been a long time. Don't tell me I never gave you a chance to talk about it, I asked you several times to start a talk section because it was YOUR edit that was the issue here, and I explained things about the Doop page at length on your talk page [43], while you only addressed me with accusations of bias and making things up [44]. And lastly, the 3RR is when someone reverts stuff on a page MORE than three times, which I have not done because I could see that this was going nowhere with you, so I came here. I'm done explaining my side of this stuff here. I've done so several times now, with links to back up why it was done and showing it in what I hope is a clear manner. I'll let the admins handle this now. 68.33.142.75 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You DID do it three times! Go check the Doop page! I (as 216.13.187.114 because I didn't realise I wasn't logged in) added X-Men as a team he had joined.

You REVERTED IT (and did some other stuff).

I (now going as Cebr1979) re-added it.

You REVERTED IT again.

I re-added it.

YOU REVERTED IT a THIRD TIME!

Just because your first revert was masked behind an edit you did to some other section of the page, still makes it a revert!

Like I said, go check! It's all right there!

Cebr1979 (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Okay, we've now straightened out that Cebr1979 was editing as 216.13.187.114. Please don't edit again without logging in first. There's no rule against it, but it looks bad, especially when you're in the middle of a dispute because it looks like you're trying to escape detection. As for WP:3RR, 68.33.142.75 is correct. It requires four reverts in a 24-hour window, not three. As far as I can tell, neither of you violated 3RR, although you came close. However, not violating WP:3RR doesn't mean you can't be sanctioned for edit warring. So, consider yourselves warned. No more battling in the articles, and Cebr1979, stop screaming so much in your posts; it's not helpful. If you can't resolve your content disputes, then use the methods described in WP:DR to reach a consensus. If I see either of you resuming the battles on the article pages, you may be blocked without notice, even if you don't violate 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bbb23. Cebr1979 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

I Knew You Were Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

184.58.24.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 13:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "restored SOURCED and NOTABLE information"
3. 13:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592475900 by Lukeno94 (talk) Reverted vandalism as this is notable as it is not a mistake as sources clearly point out that is on every copy of releases and should be noted as such."
4. 13:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592474477 by Lukeno94 (talk) restored sourced information and reverted vandalism."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[45]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also is showing a tremendous lack of WP:COMPETENCE at User talk:Amire80, by claiming things are personal attacks based on their location, and that somehow a "Copy, paste and repost" method is not reverting. User is not new, and has a previous block for disruptive editing at this IP address. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note the edit-warring of inaccurate and inappropriate messages/templates on my own talk page as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote "There were only three reverts not four Sorry. Copy paste and repost does not count as a revert you just do not like that I am winning as you are now throwing insults here as well asking if I a competence and I am, you just do not like that I will not bow to your will or play your game. Sorry but just keep piling on yourself as I said on my talk page all I did was "I did not revert anything or delete any summery all I did was copy the information post hit the edit button on the top of the page pasted it and hit Save page. That is not a revert." Also I removed the fourth as there is no fourth. Sorry." Lukeno did personally attack me in an edit summary where the statement he made is not allowed to be posted so yes I reported him to an admin and his continuing to insist that he has not personally attacked me when he has cause he did not like that I would not submit to what he wanted and I should not be blocked for edit-warring when I did not nor did I revert four times and I have removed the false fourth claim when there is no fourth revert. Just cause he does not like what I posted does not mean I have to suffer for his lake of WP:COMPETENCE. Thanks 184.58.24.163 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And that is my entire case made in one edit. Thank you very much. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel good about yourself picking on 10 year old? 184.58.24.163 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week. I can't figure out what the IP's 10-year-old daughter has to do with anything. She supposedly cried because ??--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: I Knew You Were Trouble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 184.58.24.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51] Warning in edit summary, & also discussed on various user talk pages

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see below

Comments:

An argument that has apparently been going on for years, including by 184.58.3.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a Swifty sock, who promised to come back with a new IP to continue socking. I won't venture an opinion on the content dispute, but it doesn't excuse edit-warring. David Biddulph (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Aha, that explains a lot! There's an AN3 request filed by me as well right above this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[52] User also refactored a comment in above mentioned talk page dispute. 212.139.247.133 (talk) 15:00, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And they tried removing one of the diffs from my AN3 request, so wait for them to try the same in this thread. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week (see report above). I didn't even see this one until after processing the first one.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [54]
2. [55]
3. [56]
4. [57]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]

Comments:

85.202.40.145 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're doing the right thing here, Mr/Mrs IP? It's you who are violating the naming conventions requirements on the English Wikipedia, and you who are edit-warring to keep those improper edits on the page? WP:BOOMERANGS are not confortable ES&L 15:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I have made some mistakes as I am new here but this user should be familiar with the Wikipedia's policy that clearly forbids making more than 3 reverts in such a case. 85.202.40.145 (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once you were personally told to stop, why didn't you stop? Are you aware that this is the English Wikipedia? Did you take 30 seconds to review previous discussions about the topic before making your change even the first time? Are you aware that being "new" does not absolve you from being blocked? ES&L 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I made a mistake and I should take all responsibility for that, no matter how 'new' I am. However, you are not fair criticizing only me while this report is not against me, but other user. Can you please stick to the headline? Just because I am anon you assumed I have to be wrong and Pichpich's (whose username is offensive to me but I don't care since I don't know what policy on usernames the Wikipedia has) mistakes are not important to you. 85.202.40.145 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to miss the point: any time you file a report against another user, YOUR behavior will also be investigated. That's not optional - you are 100% to blame for this issue, and it appears that you've been aware that you should not make those changes for some time now - so it's a good time to drop the WP:STICK and back away with the repeat notice that any similar behavior will lead to an immediate block, no questions asked DP 16:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was reverted because it goes against a long standing consensus on the title of the page. These edits are clearly disruptive and the anon user refuses to engage in discussion on the talk page. Pichpich (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you ask for page protection or follow other WP:DR - it does not give you the authority to edit-war either ES&L 15:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

True. Blatant disruption is not outright vandalism and I should have followed a different path to resolving the issue. Pichpich (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I am not content with the result. Pity. I will conform to the decision though. 85.202.40.145 (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. Further similar edits in the future by the IP will lead to a block. Although WP:CONSENSUS can change, it's a requirement of our Manual of Style to use the English names in infoboxes and image captions DP 15:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. 85.202.40.145 is fully aware of the name dispute as they have edited the article using a different IP and contributed to the name discussion back in August 2013. See 85.202.44.245 (talk · contribs).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti: Unification of Hispaniola into Haiti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IslandMan89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [60]
2. [61]
3. [62]
4. [63]

I warned the user in the comments of the edits that this should be discussed in the talk page. CrazyAces489 (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64][reply]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

Comments:

• Page protected for 4 days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Here's an overview of the actions of all three editirs involved, including me. I can count

• 5 reverts by Devanampriya between 14:12, 22 January 2014 and 07:07, 23 January 2014
• 8 reverts by Devanampriya between 12:30, 21 January 2014 and 07:07, 23 January 2014

• 03:52, 14 January 2014‎ - 1st insertion of Yan - 1st insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 21:52, 20 January 2014 - 1st removal of Yan- 1st removal by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 12:30, 21 January 2014 - 2nd insertion of Yan - 2nd insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 12:51, 21 January 2014 - 2nd removal of Yan - 2nd removal by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 12:56, 21 January 2014 - 3rd insertion of Yan - 3rd indertion by Devanampriya [67]
• 14:58, 21 January 2014 - 3rd removal of Yan - 1st removal by Bladesmulti diff
• 16:02, 21 January 2014 - 4th insertion of Yan - 4th insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 18:42, 21 January 2014 - 4th removal of Yan - 2nd removal by Bladesmulti diff
• 21:13, 21 January 2014 - 5th insertion of Yan - 1st insertion by Joshua Jonathan (!) diff
• 10:01, 22 January 2014 - 1st addition of {{dubious}}-tag by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 14:12, 22 January 2014 - 1st removal of {{dubious}}-tag by Devanampriya (without mentioning in edit-summary) diff
• 17:29, 22 January 2014 - re-addition of {{dubious}}-tag by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 19:23, 22 January 2014 - 2nd removal of {{dubious}}-tag by Devanampriya (without mentioning in edit-summary) diff
• 19:43, 22 January 2014 - nuance to Yan by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 19:47, 22 January 2014 - 5th removal of Yan (+ nuance) - 3rd removal by Bladesmulti diff
• 19:55, 22 January 2014 - 6th insertion of Yan (without nuance) - 5th insertion by Devanampriya (with {{dubious}}-tag ) diff
• 20:59, 22 January 2014 - 6th removal of Yan - 3rd removal by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 05:51, 23 January 2014 - 7th insertion of Yan (without nuance) - 6th insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 07:05, 23 January 2014 - 7th removal of Yan - 4rd by Joshua Jonathan diff
• 07:07, 23 January 2014 - 8th insertion of Yan (without nuance) - 7th insertion by Devanampriya diff
• 17:03, 23 January 2014 - self-revert by Joshua Jonathan, in response to Bladesmulti diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Dharmacakra#Hindu origins
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Proposal for History-section
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Multiple disputes
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Vedic/Indo-European origins

Comments:
The "discussion" got far out of hand, resulting in a SPI by Devanampriya against me, Joshua Jonathan:

• Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Dharmachakra
• Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Dharmachakra
• Talk:Dharmacakra#Proposal for History-section
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Devanampriya keeps reverting at Yoga Page

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REBUTTAL OF BAD FAITH REPORT FILED BY JOSHUA JONATHAN AGAINST DEVANAMPRIYA

This is nothing but a bad faith report and forum shopping effort based on vindictiveness.As the reporting editor joshua jonathan himself concedes, I already filed an ongoing SP/I against JJ due to evidence of his sockpuppeting. The SP/I can be found here. Via what seems to be a sockpuppet (HY), he already opened an ANI on me here (HY was rebuked by the admin for it).

There was a DRN that I filed in order to reach a civilized resolution here. Due to the apparent sock/meat-puppetry by Joshua, I filed an SP/I and followed the protocol. Because the sockpuppetry evidence is rather damning against Joshua Jonathan, he is filing this last ditch attempt (now) to avoid being banned or block for his abuse of wikipedia protocol and standards. I haven't made an edit on dharmachakra in days and have been focused on the SPI.

The irony is, Joshua Jonathan himself edit warred (as my edit summary comments here shows and diffs below) and already violated 3RR here--making his claim here laughable (pot calling kettle) and this entire report a waste of admin time. Regards, Devanampriya (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 1st Time

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 2nd Time

Joshua Jonathan Bad Faith Poison Pill Edit

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 3rd Time

Joshua Jonathan's Removal of "Hindu Origin" 4th Time

• Both editors blocked. I blocked Devanampriya for 48 hours because they've been blocked before for edit warring. I blocked Joshua for 24 hours as a first-time block.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The four reverts made by Joshua happened in the span of 55 hours. I don't think WP:3RR applies here. --Rahul (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you're not counting some of Joshua's edits as reverts. You should read the definition of a revert. Joshua's last revert occurred on January 23 at 16:03. That means that any reverts that occurred after January 22 at 16:03 count. I believe there are five of those, making the total six. I didn't even look at Devanampriya's list above. I reviewed the history independently.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Bbb. I'm kind of sorry I told Joshua to file; I didn't realize they'd both been warring and that this would bite him on the ass. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I thought the block was on the basis of the diffs provided above. --Rahul (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:03, 25 January 2014
2. 19:45, 25 January 2014
3. 03:57, 25 January 2014
4. 03:48, 25 January 2014
5. 03:03, 25 January 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:STATicVapor

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [70], [[71]], Talk:Jimmy_Henchman#WP:BLP_issues

Comments:

User:TheRedPenOfDoom removed some information from the Jimmy Henchman article as he believed it to be a WP:BLP issue. He followed BLP policy in removing the material he believed questionable and then started discussions on the material at both: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Jimmy_Henchman and Talk:Jimmy_Henchman#WP:BLP_issues. User:STATicVapor reinserted the questioned material before any consensus in the discussions, and then reported RedPen for 3RR violations as he removed it again. The 3RR was of course dismissed against RedPen (see: [[72]]) as he had followed policy and removal of potential BLP issues are covered by WP:NOT3RR.
The discussion on the talk page about whether the information was not the most productive, with Static repeatedly asserting bad faith, using the word "vandalism", there has been no proper discussion and thus nothing approaching consensus. I made a comment asking those involved in the discussions (I myself am not, having never heard of the person the article is about) to please bring the discussion back round to the material and sources in question, and avoid the bad-faith attacks against each other. Thankfully discussion seems to now be taking place, however, before that proper discussion kicked off, Static reverted and re-included that material two more times, making up to the 5 reverts within 5 occasions we see above.
I have tried to assume good faith and always hope things can be kept away from these administration noticeboards, but as seen on the talk page and on the RedPen edit warring report, Static seems unable to get beyond his view that RedPen is in the wrong. But at the end of the day, if you agree that the material was a BLP breach or not, it's removal was within policy; avoiding the discussion and ignoring policy by just re-inserting it, is not. As RedPen had made it clear it was a removal because he believed it a BLP breach, and it has been mentioned in the various discussions he had concerns, I find it very hard to see Static's reversions as anything other than edit-warring. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

given that there has been no edit warring in 24 hours, any actions taken at this time, other than a strong admonishment to abide by BLP, would seem like they will be punitive rather than preventative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: The Jimmy Henchman article is fully protected one week. Use this time to sort out the claimed BLP violations. If agreement is reached, any admin can lift the protection. There was a previous 3RR report about this article a few days ago, and a large ANI discussion back in 2012. Even though the article subject is serving a life term he seems to have ardent defenders of his reputation. BLPN would be good but there don't seem to be any comments there. EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of metropolitan areas of Peru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johan92 (talk · talk history · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · (permalink) · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

after the user was reported

1. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same edits from ip 190.235.102.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

same edits from another ip 190.239.45.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

1. [86]. New ip seems to be Johan92 (talk · talk history · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · (permalink) · block log) avoiding his blockade. --Mastpolo (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Johan92

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[87]

Comments:
I explained to Johan92 in many ways that his editions are wrong but the user tendentiously don't want to understand to keep in his edit warring see and keeps making wrong editions in the article. First he added the wrong data that corresponds to provinces and in his last edition he added wrong data correspond to cities and not to metropolitan areas of Peru. I request protection of the article because Johan92 keeps making his wrong editions. --Mastpolo (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The data that the user Mastpolo puts in article have no reference, however if I put that, I rely on figures extracted pages as INEI^[1] and UN ^[2], should be noted that there is no exact figure of the metropolitan population but we rely on the existing population in the city. Johan92 (talk) 05:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this article Arequipa metropolitan area and tell us if some data is incorrect in it.--Mastpolo (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Item that you have created just now, perhaps you want to make fun of us Johan92 (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No matter when it has been created neither who has created the article. Just tell us if some data in that article is incorrect. Why don't you want to answer that? don't avoid the question.--Mastpolo (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In references placed on the article in mention does not define the metropolitan population only indicates the population of the department of the provinces and districts, in addition to their references are old, however the references I put in my edits are July 2013 that is more accurate and current data Johan92 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't tell that some data in the article is incorrect, and it is because all data in the article is correct. And once again understand that the data you want to add correspond to cities not to metropolitan areas.--Mastpolo (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You also understand that the information you provide correspond to cities, not to metropolitan areas. Then tell me what is the difference between their data and my data?. Both we rely on the population of the city, the difference is that my references are more recent and are given by the National Institute of Statistics and Informatics Johan92 (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You understand the population that is in the article Arequipa metropolitan area is correct and correspond to Arequipa metropolitan area the data you want to add correspond to the article of the city Arequipa there put your data and source for 2013 not in List of metropolitan areas of Peru. The article has information with sources for year 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 07:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and I understand that the information is correct just because you say so? Please sustaint your responses, and in your sources the metropolitan population no is indicated. Johan92 (talk) 07:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understand it is correct not because I say but you have to understand because the references that have support the article.--Mastpolo (talk) 08:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stop spinning the issue and indicate the references to which it refers, that apparently no exist. Here is the link of the page from which I'm extracting my data: INEI^[3] p36 Johan92 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You stop adding incorrect information that belongs to citie articles, don't add it to article List of metropolitan areas of Peru. You can add your data and source in the article List of cities in Peru. Understand the article is of metropolitan areas not of cities.--Mastpolo (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 24 hours. When a brand-new editor like User:Johan92 (created on 26 January) immediately gets into a big edit war it does not give us much optimism for the future. Johan92, it looks like you've continued to edit as an IP in the middle of this edit war. Mastpolo, you've been around a while so you should know how to use WP:dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Efkan Ala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alien sojourner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original version before removal of content by Alien sojourner: [88] (a look at previous history also shows his reverts to other users' restoration of information)
His new version consistently reverted to: [89]

Diffs of the user's reverts of my restoration of deleted content:

1. [90]
2. [91]
3. [92]
4. [93]
5. [94]
6. [95]

Some diffs of the user's reverts and edit-warring with other users' restoration of deleted content and POV edits before my own attempts to restore from reverts (note occasional addition of POV terms like "fascist" and removal of sources):

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning (all within the last 2 days):

1. [99] (by another user for edit warring in the same article)
2. [100] (by me for edit warring in the same article)
3. [101] (by yet another user for adding his "own personal analysis" to the same article)
4. [102] (by another user for POV edits to another article)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [103]

Comments:

The user seems to be bent on adding POV edits to this article, as well as removing sourced content and not engaging in trying to reach consensus on talk page (saying, quote, "I seek no consensus but the truth") and has been repeatedly warned by others for the behavior. Every edit the user has ever made has been engaging in behavior like this, mostly on this page and others. I apologize for engaging in his edit war; I will do so no longer after finding this noticeboard.

Furthermore, the user's idea of discussion on the talk page seems to be personal attack edits such as these: [104]

Ithinkicahn (talk) 08:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse this report. As mentioned by himself, Ithinkicahn also came to violate 3RR, but he was defending a stable version that seems to have consensus and I don't think it would benefit Wikipedia to block him for this, even though he ideally should have handled the sitation differently, as he also states himself. Alien Sojourner has in addition to edit warring also made very serious personal attacks at Ithinkicahn as this diff shows. Iselilja (talk) 08:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Given the number of reverts on both sides both users have come out with 24 hour blocks and would do well to learn what to do in disputes. Primarily, ask for the editor who broke 3RR to be blocked or the page protected WITHOUT reverting for a 4th time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

La donna è mobile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Alexrybak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592593867 by Michael Bednarek (talk)"
2. 13:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592633884 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
3. 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592640492 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
4. 15:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592644810 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on La donna è mobile. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Persistent edit-warring and ignored a (cautionary) warning- to the extent of deleting it from his TP. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user can delete a notice from their talk page once they have read it. --Inayity (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The significance of the comment was the user's ignoring of the notice rather than the deleting of it._Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To the extent of deleting it" is the part that is irrelevant, as removing the notice is taken as acknowledgement of seeing the notice. You're also right at 3 reversions; stopping just short of breaking 3RR just to ensure that the other editor breaks it so that you can report him here can be seen as WP:GAMING, especially when the other editor has started a talk page discussion, which you have ignored. Given the time difference between you posting the warning to their talk page, when they next reverted, and when they removed it from their talk page, it's also entirely possible that they didn't see the notice until after they had already reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a shame if you showed as little faith as that, surely. The one undeniable fact is that the user has had plenty of opportunity to discuss the issue and stop warring, and done neither. As for my edits, do you suggest I edit a fourth time? And having watched someone (an editor of over two years standing I believe) breach 3RR, do you suggest I ignore it? It's also worth pointing that- as you say- they have probably by now read the notice, yet they have not commented here. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

However, it takes 2 to edit-war. Whenever you see one brewing, you're supposed to stop your actions, and follow WP:DR - if you allow yourself to edit-war (whether or not you cross the 3RR threshold) you risk being blocked ES&L 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DeclinedAt this point, the user has no excuse for not communicating as reasonable attempts at discussion have been initiated. Further edit warring will result in a block. There is, however, no need for admin intervention at this time -- John Reaves 17:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John, can I just point out that the "reasonable attempts at discussion" were indeed initiated... two days ago, which he never responded to! I agree it "take[s] two to edit war;" it also takes two to communicate! He- not me- has now warred with three' other editors, and although of course I hate to say "I told you so"... he's now on his FIFTH revert of the day on that page. Six in fact, if you count the self-rv. See what I mean. Cheers. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:EDITWAR: a self-revert is in no way a sixth revert, and self-reverting in the way he did doesn't really make that a fifth revert at all since they reverted their own edit and ceased edit-warring, so not only was that comment unnecessary, the duplicate report your filed below (really?) this one was as well. You were both edit warring, you both need to stop and use the talk page, and yes that includes you. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [105]
2. [106]
3. [107]
4. [108]

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

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

Comments:Over 3 reverts in the past 24 hours by Inayity and anytime I edit the lead of the article, he freaks out and reverts. He'll claim it's a 'radical change' or 'disruptive editing' even though my editorial has changed and some of my edits have been accepted. His reason for reversion is generally one not advised by Wikipedia and is usually: 'no consensus has been made on the talk page so revert', like on #2 and #3. He has awful punctuation and grammar, it can be hard to understand him at times. ShawntheGod (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In your example you have demonstrated an edit war between you and me, the content is not identical and the issues are also not identical [109]rmv of spanish-web as a RS. rmv a POV discussed by all editors as not helpful, I could go on.--Inayity (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware who this person reporting is For Months you being pushing this POV, first under the WP:SPA Ip 70.126.19.148 and 70.126.13.113 and now under the new name ShawntheGod, Shawn or 70.126 has been told by numerous editors that his contributions are a problem.[110] He insist on inserting one line over and over again. This is not the first time he has reported me. As for Grammar maybe his is referring to the talk page, as for horrible sentence construction the prize goes to him. just one example. Mixing controversial edits with minor edits is an old trick, so apologies for wasting one minor picture update in the process.--Inayity (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also Shawn you forgot to fill in the section where you attempted to resolve the issue. B/c his approach is to disregard the talk page and go ahead anyway. [111] Editors have told him this is not a good edit, yet he comes back and reinsert it. dec 2013 and for the New Year the POV edit. BTW, the source says nothing of the sort. --Inayity (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason Inayity keeps linking diffs to edits I supposedly made weeks ago, not any new editorial from thyself. We're discussing edits in late January of 2014, not ones from supposedly I made that far back. I already discussed my edit plans on the talk page and he even acknowledged that himself. Here: [112] and I let him know my changes here: [113] he also mentioned "pushing this POV" but what is my POV? Is it to make it seem like the Moors were a group of dolphins from the Pacific Ocean? I'm not understanding this supposed "POV" of mine. Perhaps he can enlighten me? ShawntheGod (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what's with taking the discussion else where? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just responding to him, that's all. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant the other user as it happens _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At Fortuna WP:3RRNO try and be specific. you are throwing comments around and I dont follow the rationale. --Inayity (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I expect not. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Inayity to take a look at the issue. From the editing history, both users appear to have past 3RR, so I don't think any unilateral action is warranted. It's better instead to issue a simple warning/slap on the wrist to both parties, and allow the discussion to continue on the talk page in a civil manner. Middayexpress (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both parties in the dispute have agreed to cease any edit warring and work it out on Talk Page first.--Inayity (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have agreed to discuss the article in a civil manner and start clean, no more edit warring and all edits get discussed thoroughly or at least decently on the talk page. I don't think our views differ that much, but when we get into the moment it feels like we're completely on a different level. ShawntheGod (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined*The users involved have expressed their intention to cease edit warring and discuss on the talk page. -- John Reaves 17:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greyshark09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Hi, I'm not here because of 1RR (this article falls under ARBPIA) but instead to ask for advice to break a slow-burn edit war - following the guidance at the top of the page referring to "the use of confrontational edits to win a content dispute." I don't even think the editors involved have fully reviewed the edits they are reverting in their bulk multi-edit reverts, so this is really about behavior rather than content.

I have previously worked cordially and successfully on other articles with the other primary editor here (Greyshark). However I have been unable to make progress on this article for almost two months, as the other editor repeatedly insists on reverting back to an earlier version without commenting on my carefully considered individual edits. I have stopped editing the page for days or weeks at a time in order to allow adequate time for explanations of the continued bulk multiple-edit single reversions, but sadly this does not appear to have had the desired effect. What baffles me is that the article edits themselves are not particularly sensitive - the only really sensitive area has been permanently left on the talk page ([114]) until this roadblock is resolved. All I want to do is improve the article, taking into account the thoughts of all other editors. I feel the behavior of Greyshark, supported by Plotspolier, has in effect placed a brick wall in front of progress on the article. I have tried and tried to assume good faith, so I put it down to laziness on the part of Greyshark, particularly as the edits themselves are really not particularly contentious. It would be great if experienced editors here could help break the deadlock.

In the box below is the timeline of the interactions / roadblocking so far from my perspective:

Oncenawhile (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've warned the three users about discretionary sanctions. If it continues please let me know and I'll take further action, either on the article (such as 0RR) or on individual editors. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2013 Egyptian coup d'état (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hans Franssen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:38, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,367 bytes) (-18,620)‎ . . (Undid revision 592713275
2. 23:23, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,035 bytes) (-18,952)‎ . . (Undid revision 592711351
3. 23:16, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,035 bytes) (-18,952)‎ . . (Undid revision 592710628
4. 23:13, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,035 bytes) (-18,952)‎ . . (Undid revision 592709301
5. 23:01, 27 January 2014‎ Hans Franssen (talk | contribs)‎ . . (117,069 bytes) (-18,674)‎ . . (undo | thank)

Not exactly dif links, but I hope it will do. (half hour span)

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

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

No as far as I seen, but the user Amrtarek requested him to "Stop reverting, discuss first" in edit summary.

Comments:

• I did not see that the user was warned. They've stopped reverting, at least for now. I issued the standard warning with a note in there and recommend no immediate action, unless they revert again. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Drmies said, it's stale now anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Manchester Mark 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eric Corbett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I apologize for my ignorance: I do not know how to link to a version before all the reverting took place. Please examine:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

or

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Eric_Corbett>

for clear evidence of repeat reversion without attempt at discussion by Eric Corbett, on 28th Jan 2014.

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

I do not know how to provide what is requested. Examination of

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

shows ten reverts without discussion by Eric Corbett on on 28th Jan 2014. It was only after nine reverts that I read up on what constitutes edit warring and what to do about it. I apologize for my misbehaviour: in mitigation, I tried to persuade Eric Corbett to engage in discussion on the talk page and was unaware of WP:3RR.

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

I do not understand what this means.

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

I do not know how to provide what is asked for. Please examine:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manchester_Mark_1#Main_and_backing_store_description>.

and

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Manchester_Mark_1#What.27s_wrong_with_this_description_of_storage.3F_.28attempting_to_resolve_disagreement.29>

for my attempts to resolve the issue on the talk page.

Comments:

I am not a technically savvy Wikipedia user, so I cannot provide all the information requested, nor do I understand exactly what is expected of me before lodging this report. However, it seems clear to me that Eric Corbett has violated WP:3RR and the evidence is clear to see on 28 Jan 2014 at:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

I too have violated WP:3RR. However, I was not aware of the rule, did try to engage Eric Corbett in discussion on the talk page, and desisted from further reversion as soon as I'd read up on the the three-revert rule.

86.141.217.115 (talk) 03:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale Though both User:Eric Corbett and User:86.141.217.115 should remember seek dispute resolution and discuss rather than revert each other. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Greek Orthodox Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gabby Merger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "learn how to count...I did NOT pass "3RR", you hypocrite....because YOU are going beyond "3RR"... You started the damned edit-warring and reverts, not I. I'm SICK of you...I'm warning you now...your POV pushing will not stand on this article...." Comment: Please note blanking and changing of quotes in the reliable sources. This is a clear competence issue. Now she mangled the in-reference quotes and they do not correspond to the actual text of the books. She also blanked one reference, removing it completely: <ref name="Doniger1999">{{cite book|author=Wendy Doniger|title=Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP_f9icf2roC&pg=PA309|accessdate=2 September 2013|date=January 1999|publisher=Merriam-Webster|isbn=978-0-87779-044-0|page=309|quote= EASTERN ORTHODOXY, one of the major branches of CHRISTIANITY, characterized by its continuity with the apostolic church, its liturgy, and its territorial churches.}}</ref>
2. 05:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 592748499 by Dr.K. (talk) it was already discussed in Talk months ago, you were wrong then, and now, and YOU are the edit-warrior...you go against WP policy of NPOV wording....tired of it." Comment: Please note blanking of quotes in the reliable sources.
3. 05:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "nothing was "refuted"......POV pushing is against WP policy. Not all agree that the Greek Orthodox Church stems directly from the Apostles...in that sense...and there's nothing wrong with NPOV wording....the edit-warring is YOURS...not mine..." Comment: Please note blanking of quotes in the reliable sources.
4. 04:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "NPOV.....been over this months ago.... This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a Greek Orthodox blog piece...."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Greek Orthodox Church. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC) "/* Longterm edit-warring and personal attacks */ new section"

Comments:

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Please continue discussing the issue on the talk page, but please ensure you do so civilly. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

 Page-multi error: no page detected.

User being reported

Kum01049 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Keeps adding this unreliable source (http://www.winentrance.com/general_knowledge/mg-ramachandran.html) to M. G. Ramachandran. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for spamming. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Julian Casablancas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JULIANFCASABLANCAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (maybe also as 72.67.179.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log))

Previous version reverted to: [124]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [125] (as an IP, my guessing)
2. [126] (as an IP, my guessing)
3. [127]
4. [128]
5. [129]

Comments:

I am not the one reverting the reverts of User:JULIANFCASABLANCAS, I just noticed the case because I had all these reverts on my watchlist. Also, I did not warn User:JULIANFCASABLANCAS because I think that after 5 reverts, all without commenting, nobody can say that he didn't know he is acting inappropriately. |FDMS 11:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned both users. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rosen Method Bodywork (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Etolpygo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [131]
2. [132]
3. [133]
4. [134]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136]

Comments:

User is removing criticism of health-based claim. vzaak 12:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not blocked User hasn't reverted since being warned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:59, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Arsenic and Old Lace (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [137]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [138]
2. [139]
3. [140]
4. [141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [142]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Collapsing_film_director_navboxes.

Comments:
User is collapsing templates and edit warring the hell out of them at other locations too with no justification for overriding the default other than that they can and there is no policy against it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using my contribution list to follow my edits around Wikipedia to undo perfectly legitimate edits. There is no policy or guideline which forbids single navboxes from being collapsed, and yet Rob Sinden has reverted my collapses, without citing any reason for dong so, except his perception of "common practice". (And, I suppose, his personal dislike.) I made User:Writ Keeper cognizant of Sinden's behavior about 5 days ago. As a user who has been Wikihounded in the past, I do not take the possibility of harassment on Wikipedia lightly. I have advised Sinden that he should stop his behavior before it passed into the arena of harassment, but he continued nonetheless.

I ask that User:Robsinden be strongly warned for his harassing behavior, and told not to follow my edits any more. BMK (talk) 13:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the incivil edit summary and the follow-up summary when this was pointed out to him by another user. BMK was also blocked only six days ago for this same sort of edit warring. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the continued personal attacks too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that you consider a description of your behavior to be a personal attack. Best look in a mirror, friend. BMK (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to look at your recent uncivil edits and ask why your conduct has been brought into question. Again. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "introspection"? Do it all the time, old man. Too bad you and your friends don't do the same. BMK (talk) 14:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I don't recognize The Rambling Man as an admin with any credibility regarding civil behavior, considering his behavior with Baseball Bug & Medeis and in the topic ban discussion. He's a disgrace to the Wikipedia admin community -- and I don't say that lightly, I have high regard for many Wikipedia administrators.

The question here comes down to this: is all behavior forbidden that is not explicitly allowed, or, as I believe, is all behavior allowed unless it is explicitly forbidden. The latter is a direct follow from WP:IAR, one of our pillars, and it means if Ronsinden and Lugnuts and other benighted editors wish to forbid me from making a certain kind of edit they must present a specific policy or guideline which forbids it. I have asked for this over and over again, and they cannot provide such a policy or guideline, because it does not exist. Therefore, the fault here is entirely on the other side - they are edit warring to prevent a policy-compliant edit, without discussion or concern for the arguments against them. They are intransigent, and are using every possible weapon to win their "battle" other than citing Wikipedia policy or guidelines. 13:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

BMK, you are overriding the default settings of navboxes without justification or giving a good reason why. This has been discussed at the film project, yet you still seem to be making these edits against consensus. Where's the policy that navboxes should be changed to your personal preference? --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond My Ken, what you do and do not recognise and what you do and do not say lightly is not pertinent to your edit warring and personal attacks. And I have nothing to do with this other than to warn you to stop edit warring and attacking other editors or you'll be blocked. Again. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TRM: I have nothing to say to you, and nothing you can say to me is pertinent. You are nobody to me. BMK (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sob. Now please stop edit warring and using phrases like ASSHOLE in edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, when you turn in the bit, jerk. BMK (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, to be clear, you intend to keep edit warring and using phrases like "ASSHOLE" and now "jerk" until I "turn in the bit"? Good luck with that! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I intend to keep considering you as something less than an authority on civil behavior. Of course, as an admin, you can hlock me anytime you want -- you are armed, and I am not. In that regard, there may well be occasions where I pull on my forelock and bow reverntly while backing away, hoping not to be smitten by your staff of authority. But you can block me until the cows come home, and it won't do anything to earn my respect for you. You've lost that for the time being. Were I you, I'd be soul-stricken at my own behavior, and would have offered to turn in the bit voluntarily - but, obviously, you are not me, and you clearly feel just ducky about wielding your power after shaming yourself. So be it. BMK (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Robsinden, you misspeak. I have given very good reasons why, in a discussion with you, which can be found here. (Why do you misrepresent the truth when it can be so easily shown to be untrue? That's not very smart of you.) And, as I said in the discussion on the Film Project talk page, the Project has no jurisdtiction to forbid the collapsing of solo navboxes, that can only be done through a community-wide RfC. As we say in the recent Kafziel ArbCom case, WikiProjects have a limited scope of authority, and this does not fall within it. The casual discussion of a handful of WP Film members does not determine community consensus. If you feel strongly about this, your option is to open an RfC, which you have been advised to do, and have not done, relying, instead, on the strong arm method of reversion, and, now, reporting to EWN. BMK (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All you demonstrate there is that nothing prohibits you from doing it. That doesn't mean you should make a unilateral decision to collapse any navbox you see. Have you considered why navboxes default to autocollapse, and are not pre-set to collapsed? I'd say that this was probably because autocollapse was chosen as default by consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so if there is nothing that prohibits me from collapsing solo navboxes, and I have given valid reasons in the discussion you conveniently forgot as to why they should be collapsed, then you have absolutely no leg to stand on in reverting them continously. If you disagree with the collapsing, you take it to the talk page and discuss, but you DO NOT REVERT because there is no valid policy or guideline which allows you to revert.

Considering Robsinden's admission above, I repeat my reqiesy for the closing admin to issue a strong warning to this editor (1) Not to Wikihound other editors by follow their contributions when there is no vandalism or disruption involved, and (2) Not to revert collapses on solo navboxes. BMK (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BRD, along with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Collapsing film director navboxes. You were making bold changes against the default settings, I disagreed and reverted, so you should have discussed. After you'd reverted a couple of times, I started a discussion at the film project, and it seems we have additional consensus, which you seem to want to ignore, override with your personal preference, and then ban any user that disagrees with you. If anything, you should be banned from collapsing navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, do I really need to speak to you like a child? The navboxes you reverted were collapsed by me, either a very long time ago, or when I expanded the article, so that is the status quo. (In this case of the articles I expanded, there was, no article in any practical sense until I expanded them 2 or 5 or 10 times what they were as sub-stubs.) -- OK? Now you come along and change that. That is the Bold edit. I Revert it, and the next step - your step, is to start a Discussion. The article remains in the status quop while discussion is ongoing.' Please take a moment to actually read WP:BRD. and you'll see exactly that language.

Next, as I've said repeatedly, and as you seem not to understand, a WikiProject does not have the jurisdiction to make the sort of determination we're talking about. Only a Wikipedia-wide community RfC can create the consensus needed to create the de facto guideline that solo navboxes are not to be collapsed.

I realize that you and Lugnuts and Clarityfiend and your cohorts would like to pretend that film articles are a thing unto themselves, but they are not. They are a part of the Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia, and you cannot create rules within the Film Project's purview when they are encyclopedia-wide issues. It just cannot be the case. BMK (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the history of Arsenic and Old Lace. It seems you tried to collapse the navbox with this diff, which was quickly reverted with this diff. It had remained stable with uncollapsed navbox until this diff, so I'm not sure how you think WP:BRD doesn't apply to you, when the status quo is a non-collapsed navbox. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at the history of {{Preston Sturges}}, back when that was a monster of a navbox (and included all the inappropriate actor links), it seems you were edit warring from the opposite side that you are now. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Rob, you are incorrect. I created the Preston Sturgest template from scratch. I put in the state control that allowed it to be collapsed, and User:Aspects took it out (where is Aspects, anyway?), I put it back in later, and you took it out. You told me disparigongly that all I had to do was use the "state=collapsed" switch and it would collapse, but I told you that was not right, and you reverted me again. Then you discovered that I was right, and put the state control in (in a slightly different form), without ever acknowledging that I was correct, that the template wouldn't collapsed on command with a state control statement. So, the template I created was wrested from my influence first by Aspects and then by you, who called it a "mess" and changed its design significantly. Thanks for that. (How many templates have you created, BTW, and how many articles?)

As for "Arsenic and Old Lace", I collapsed the template in August, and was reverted by (once again) Aspects, who was following me around and reverting my film edits (sound familiar, Rob Sinden? Where, and who, is Aspects anyway? Why hasn't he taken part in this discussion?). So there was no "consensus" revert of my edit, just the work of a single, mono-maniacal editor. BMK (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aspects:. Why not ask them? However, as this is about your conduct, and you seem to have tried the same stunt with them before, maybe you don't want their input. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BMK - please read WP:CONSENSUS and how it over-rides IAR. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if there was a consensus, which there ain't. A handful of your buddies in the Film Project are irrelevant, when the issue is a community-wide one. BMK (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The template layout is the consensus. You're the only one who has a problem with it. You need to raise a RfC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's total bullshit, and I think you know it. A template is adjustable to the situation, it's starting state isn't something sacred, it's just the place to begin. Where the fuck do you get these ideas? BMK (talk) 14:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From consensus, Kenneth. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that Beyond My Ken is modifying the default behaviour without consensus to do so. If you could engage in the discussion and explain why and gain a consensus to do so, that would be ideal. If you just wish to insult everyone by swearing at them, you probably won't get much longer to explain why. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, are you an admin here, or an editor? BMK (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, but I want an answer nonetheless. Are you here as an editor, expressing your personal opinions, or are you an admin, armed with a block button? Are you involved or not? No further re ponses to you until I know precisely your role here. BMK (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for your threats. This discussion is about your personal attacks and edit warring. Good luck with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I don't give a rat's ass what you "care for". (2) How can I, an unarmed civilian, "threaten" you? You got the freakin' tools. (3) Any Wikipedia admin is responsible for explaining his actions when asked If you think otherwise, perhaps an email to Kafziel might be worthwhile to set you straight. In this case it's a pretty goddamned easy question: Are you here acting as an admin or an editor? Are you "involved" are are you not? What could possibly be so hard about answering that? BMK (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TRM may have "the tools" but he, and every other admin, is bound by WP:ADMINACCT. The evidence above would support any action. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want to hear what TRM has to say, not you. I understand what you are, I want to understand what his role is here. BMK (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe when you can be civil, you'll get your answer. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe if you shut up he might answer, but I doubt it. He's realized that he was involved, but doesn't want to admit it, so he's left the premises. Not unexpected, given his history. BMK (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it makes zero difference to this discussion, unless I intend to close which clearly I will not. It would be helpful if someone hatted this sideshow as it detracts from the obvious edit warring and personal attacks this user has continually engaged in today. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that you cannot be honest and straightforward and say "I'm here as an editor"? Is there some reason you feel you need to keep the tools "at the ready"? Are you planning to involve yourself with me in the same disgraceful manner you did with Baseball Bugs and Medeis, keeping the hidden threat of using the admin tools as an "ace in the hole" to browbeat me as you browbeat them? BMK (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your lure will have no effect on me, such trickery to play. And I've never held any tools "at the ready". Prove it, or pipe down. And do it somewhere relevant, which, incidentally, is not here. It would be helpful if this discussion got back on track, i.e. the edit warring and personal attacks of this user. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any good reason why BMK is playing "suicide by admin" right now? FFS BMK, cut it out. ES&L 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BMK.

I'm far from being a fan of Robsinden, I frequently find him to petty and irritating admittedly, but Ken there really is no need to collapse the Capra template, he didn't direct that many films, and there's certainly no need to raise this sort of level of conflict over it. I really think you need to step away and chill out for a bit. Many of his Capra's films are certainly among my favourites! Arsenic and Old Lace is certainly one of best, and one I've long been meaning to expand, after Bringing up Baby of course, but this approach to editing and nonsense here attacking each other isn't helping anybody. It'll probably be me ending up doing the proper work on it anyway. I suggest that everybody simply steps away and gets on with something constructive..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. BMK.

That's a bit harsh - the only time we've crossed swords that I can recall was regarding the masses of redlinks left in the {{William Beaudine}} template. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that BMK has broken 3RR at Arsenic and Old Lace (film) and so far nobody else has. He is reverting on the collapse state of a template. He recently did a similar thing at The Great American Beauty Contest and got up to four reverts, though not within 24 hours. He was blocked for 3RR a few days ago. In my opinion User:Beyond My Ken can avoid sanctions by agreeing not to change the collapse state of any templates (for the next two weeks) without getting a talk page consensus first. If BMK makes this agreement then User:Robsinden may not have any reason to keep checking his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston - I agree to your conditions, and apologize to everyone on this page for my incivility and general behavior. BMK (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]