Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chrisarnesen (talk | contribs) at 17:03, 29 January 2014 (→User:PirateButtercup reported by User:Mmeijeri (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

Muslim/Zionist category tag warring reported by User:Psychonaut (Result: )

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings? though no action was taken.

Comments:

User:STATicVapor reported by User:Rushton2010 (Result: Protected)

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:

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: , ], 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: Misplaced Pages: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: ]) 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)

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)

• 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)

User:Johan92 reported by User:Mastpolo (Result: 24 hours)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

after the user was reported

6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastpolo (talk • contribs) 06:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

1. . 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)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)

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 and UN , 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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 p36 Johan92 (talk) 13:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

User:Alien sojourner reported by User:Ithinkicahn (Result: Both blocked)

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: (a look at previous history also shows his reverts to other users' restoration of information)
His new version consistently reverted to:

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

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):

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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:

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

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)

User:Alexrybak reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:No action )

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 15:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Irrelevant. The significance of the comment was the user's ignoring of the notice rather than the deleting of it._Fortuna 16:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

"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)

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 16:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 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 18:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

User:Inayity reported by User:ShawntheGod (Result:Withdrawn )

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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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)

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. 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)

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. 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)

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: and I let him know my changes here: 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)

And what's with taking the discussion else where? _Fortuna 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Sorry, meant the other user as it happens _Fortuna 17:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

No, I expect not. _Fortuna 17:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

User:Greyshark09 and User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Oncenawhile (Result: Warned)

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 () 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)

• 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)

User:Hans Franssen reported by User:PLNR (Result: Stale)

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:

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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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)
  • What Drmies said, it's stale now anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett reported by User:86.141.217.115 (Result: Stale)

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/search/?title=Manchester_Mark_1&action=history>

or

<http://en.wikipedia.org/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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

<http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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:

I do not understand what this means.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

and

<http://en.wikipedia.org/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 Misplaced Pages 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/search/?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)

• 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)

User:Gabby Merger reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Page protected)

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)

User:Kum01049 reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Blocked)

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)

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

User:JULIANFCASABLANCAS reported by User:FDMS4 (Result: Warned)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (as an IP, my guessing)
2. (as an IP, my guessing)

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)

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

User:Etolpygo reported by User:Vzaak (Result: Not blocked)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Robsinden (Result: Voluntary restriction)

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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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)

Actually, Robsinden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is using my contribution list to follow my edits around Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 13:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And the continued personal attacks too. Lugnuts 13:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

You need to look at your recent uncivil edits and ask why your conduct has been brought into question. Again. Lugnuts 14:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages admin community -- and I don't say that lightly, I have high regard for many Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

Please read WP:BRD, along with the discussion at Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

BMK - please read WP:CONSENSUS and how it over-rides IAR. Lugnuts 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

The template layout is the consensus. You're the only one who has a problem with it. You need to raise a RfC. Lugnuts 14:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

From consensus, Kenneth. Lugnuts 14:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

(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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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)

Well maybe when you can be civil, you'll get your answer. Lugnuts 15:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring