Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

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 {{ 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)
344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353
354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363
Incidents (archives, search)
1140	1141	1142	1143	1144	1145	1146	1147	1148	1149
1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158	1159
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
465	466	467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
315	316	317	318	319	320	321	322	323	324
325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page

TNA Genesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DavidTParchem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
71.90.71.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)
75.135.78.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (appears to be same user)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016785 by 24.185.202.112"
2. 05:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682016770 by 24.185.202.112"
3. 23:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 682816419 by Wrestlinglover"
4. 05:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 683103313 by Wrestlinglover"
5. 06:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684790608 by Wrestlinglover "
6. 23:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686230160 by Wrestlinglover"
7. 01:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 686575115 by Wrestlinglover"
8. 02:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 687513683 by MONGO "
9. 03:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 689196366 by Wrestlinglover"
10. 01:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 691519652 by Wrestlinglover"
11. 17:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692503716 by Wrestlinglover"
12. 05:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 696241216 by Wrestlinglover"
13. 05:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 697395751 by Wrestlinglover"
14. 05:23, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by AngeloPerante to last revision by 71.90.71.141"
15. 08:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699104255 by AngeloPerante"
16. 03:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699116822 by World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User repeatedly has reverted the article to include information on a non-existent 2015/2016 Genesis event without explanation or sources. When 2015 ended without such an event taking place, the user continued to revert the article to reflect an also non-existent 2016 Genesis event. The entire added "2015"/"2016" section had/has no sources because none exist. The user refuses to respond to several prompts to cite any of the unsourced additions [2]. Both of the IPs that had been adding the section for the non-existent event can also be traced to Saulk County, Wisconsin, likely the same user. After one IP stopped, the second began making the same revisions, followed by the second IP stopping and DavidTParchem continuing the revisions. The second IP user was also warned on its talk page [3]. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Warned on User talk:DavidTParchem, for constantly posting about an upcoming Genesis wrestling event for which no sources exist. If the behavior resumes, let us know. EdJohnston (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Duke University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 77.57.145.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

Comments:
Yes, I know there are only three reverts listed above but the trajectory of these events is clear with the editor in question not engaging in any Talk discussions and edit warring with multiple (two) editors despite warnings, pleas, and a Talk page discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editor in question recently reverted for the 4th time (which I added to the list above). Contributor321 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After returning from the block, he or she has continued the edit war with the edit summary "You'll get tired before me." Can someone please block this editor for a much, much longer time since it's clear that he or she plans to persist? ElKevbo (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours I doubt he'll get tired before me. :-) Katie^talk 16:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Lab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) to 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring information that is related to the topic of the page and therefore is properly sourced."
   2. 02:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "grammar"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Parapsychological experiments with random event generators */"
   2. 02:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Restoring information related to the topic that is properly sourced and backed by rigorous scientific studies"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Repeated edits to three separate articles, in each case introducing poorly-sourced fringe material with multiple editors reverting. DS notice has been issued. At this point the choices are block or arbitration enforcement. Guy (Help!) 19:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Swarm ♠ 02:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Ethnic pornography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15] [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17], see also the discussions at ANI and on Rebecca1990's talk page

Comments:Rebecca1990 altered the contents of the Ethnic pornography article in an attempt to gain an advantage in related content disputes involving BLPs. When I reversed her change, pointing out its contradiction of widely accepted usage, use in the specific context of pornography, and the plain meaning of the term "interracial", she blindly reverted multiple times without any substantive discussion. This violates BRD principles, and general guidelines and practice concerning controversial and sensitive matters. Put simply, Rebecca1990 wants Wikipedia's editorial voice to endorse a marketers' misuse of a term with a plain and otherwise uncontroversial meaning, a misusage that has been characterized by her own sources as dishonest and racist, and which has LGBT-phobic elements. I've raised extensive contrary evidence at ANI, but they have continued to blindly revert without substantively addressing the issues. This dispute involves the meaning of statements in various BLPs, and I think my reverts should be protected as BLP enforcement, but that may be controversial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Imperatrix Mundi 19:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment. I posted this report because, after I posted to ANI, Rebecca began this series of blind reverts rather than participating in discussion at any appropriate forum. YMMV, but I view this as related to, but separate from, the ANI complaint. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism is not edit warring. Removal of reliably sourced material is vandalism and that is exactly what you did. Here is what you removed from the article: "Interracial pornography refers to sex scenes featuring a white woman and a black man. Sex scenes featuring performers of different races, none of them being a black male, aren't referred to as interracial. Scenes featuring a black man with a woman who is neither black nor white are also labeled as interracial if the woman has light skin. Pornography featuring black women is categorized as "ebony" instead of interracial." Here are quotes from the cited sources: "If interracial means black guy and white girl in the world of porn, what about scenes between Asians, Latinas, and the rest of the racial rainbow? “In porn, they don’t count it as interracial unless a black man is in it,” says Asian porn star Cindy Starfall. “So, even though for me everyone I work with is interracial because I’ve never had an Asian co-star, it’s not labeled as interracial.”" and "Just as “Creampie” and “MILF” mean something very definite, so too does “IR” porn: it’s invariably a black man and a white woman—or a white enough woman.“When it comes to shooting women performers of color, it depends on what color you are. How racist is that?” Griffith asks. “It doesn’t matter if you’re Asian, or Latina, or Native American, or indigenous to anywhere as long as you’re not dark,” Griffith says, suggesting that porn makes whiteness a capacious term. While Latina, Asian or meso-Caribbean women may be performing in a scene, “inter-racial” never refers to anything but black men and “white” women. Black women, dark skinned or light skinned, as always relegated to the “ebony” category. As elastic as it is toward whiteness, the adult industry can only see one shade of IR." Rebecca1990 (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your bad faith is evident, Rebecca. Those sources are opinion pieces, and they do not represent the prevailing view in either general or scholarly discussions. Claiming that people who disagree with you in bona fide content disputes is dishonest. And you know, from the responses at ANI, that your position is hardly generally accepted. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The one that needs to be blocked here is you, for edit warring and vandalism ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]). You can't just go around removing information/sources you just don't like from articles. I've justified all my edits in detail at User talk:Rebecca1990#January 2016. Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously two people are editwarring here. But Rebecca1990 needs to read up on the

definition of what is and isn't vandalism and when that can be used to justify editwarring.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

"Vandalism is any addition, REMOVAL, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, ILLEGITIMATELY BLANKING PAGES, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page." I know what the definition of what is and isn't vandalism. Rebecca1990 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You very clearly do not. "In a deliberate attempt to damage wikipedia", "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. ... "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism." IN fact wrongfully accusing someone of vandalism is considered a personal attack and is a sanctionable offense, so stop doing that right now.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Incidents like

WP:Civil throughout all of our disputes. He, on the other hand, has told me to "Shut up and go away" and accused me of being a publicist, which I've said a billion times that I'm not. Who you should be scolding for making personal attacks is him, not me. Rebecca1990 (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This is just another example of the flagrant dishonesty that Rebecca1990 has been allowed to engage in. For example, there is no "CNBC list of the year's top 12 porn stars". There is a nonemployee of CNBC (named Chris Morris, who explicitly says he is a freelance writer, not a CNBC employee[24]) whose posts are hosted (likely as clickbait) on CNBC, but it is grossly inaccurate at best to ascribe those opinions to CNBC. In no other case does Wikipedia say that the opinions of a blogger, stringer, columnist, or even employee belong to their publisher unless the publisher expressly adopts them. The New York Times movie critics publish individual ten best lists each year, we neither Wikipedia nor any honest observer credits those lists to the Times itself. As for Rebecca's self-proclaimed civility, she has been cited by more than one admin for "appalling" bad faith in making groundless accusations of racism in deletion discussions and repeated accusations of dishonesty, without evidence, in other discussions. I believe "Rebecca" is a dishonest editor, but when I make that statement I back it up with credible evidence. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WHether or not he is treating you with good faith is irrelevant. As long as he is not deliberately trying to damage wikipedia it is not vandalism. And a disagreement over content is never vandalism. Accusing someone of vandalism who is acting with the encyclopedias best interest in mind is not civil. Clearly you are both at fault and are both editwarring, and hence protecting the page was the right choice by the administrator.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected for one week. Regards, Swarm ♠ 02:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's going to start up all over again on

Imperatrix Mundi 14:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Page

List of awards and nominations received by Brie Larson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 22:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Partial revert of unexplained major removal of sourced content. Find consensus on talk page (
   WP:BLP
   )"
3. 17:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "restoring all removed referenced content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 04:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (
   TW
   )"
3. 18:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Final warning notice. (
   TW
   )"
4. 18:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* January 2016 */ Heed the warning"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I have tried to reason and work with this editor, but have not received any response or cooperation. Musdan77 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason why I should discuss about adding references to the content and sorting out the tables. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected Katie^talk 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Tweek x Craig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
2. 01:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "(As before, "written by Stephin Merritt" and "performed by Peter Gabriel" - this is an unassailable, proven fact. A user's personal formatting preferences do not trump factual accuracy on Wikipedia. Under no definition is this vandalism.)"
3. 22:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Per other user's edit, song credit goes to Stephin Merritt, performance goes to Peter Gabriel. Expurgating Merritt is misattribution."
4. 23:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC) ""
5. 16:08, 29 December 2015. (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC) "December 2015 (
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP only user insists on continuously adding writer to a song credit into an infobox, which is not per style. Multiple warnings have been given as well as other reverts without warnings. SanAnMan (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned Warning for vandalism (and this isn't
  vandalism by a long shot) is not the same as warning for 3RR, particularly for a dynamic IP address. Katie^talk 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Page

subject | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700053336 by Beyond My Ken (talk)"
2. 02:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700040807 by Beyond My Ken (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 03:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700053872 by 192.121.113.96 (talk) edit warring"

Comments:

Dozens of edit warring violations; discrimination; bullying; multiple violations of Wikipedia; etc. EnigmaLord515 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is the Best known for IP LTA, and has been blocked by Ohnoitsjamie for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 12:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 12:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 12:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Flag controversy */"
   3. 12:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Flag controversy */"
   4. 12:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   5. 12:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 12:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   7. 12:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   8. 12:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "controversy"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Ban in China */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "music video appearance"
   2. 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 13:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Ban in China */"
5. 13:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Flag controversy */"
6. 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Ban in China */"
7. 13:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
8. Consecutive edits made from 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Music"
   2. 13:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   4. 13:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   5. 13:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
   6. 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
9. Consecutive edits made from 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   2. 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   3. 13:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Reality/Variety Shows */"
   4. 13:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Music videos */"
   5. 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Music Video Appearances */"
   6. 13:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Music Video Appearances */"
10. 13:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
11. 13:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""
12. 13:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Think the number of edits probably speak for themselves. But the editwarring has continued even after TP advice, and has turned into outright vandalism now (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chou_Tzu-yu&diff=prev&oldid=700110795).

As one of the editors who edited against the IP (I noticed this report while seeing if other articles linked to the page in question), I would like to defend the IP. The article was being heavily edited by multiple editors at the same time so there were many edit conflicts. Hence, I do not believe any perceived editwarring was done out of malice, rather, the IP was probably trying to press his/her changes through the edit conflicts. _dk (talk) 15:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying then, is that actually, everyone involved in the article at that time should be dragged here, because of course you should all know that that's not the way to resolve editing disputes, is it...? :D

Imperatrix Mundi 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, with all due respect, as I said, the fact that this particular editor almost went into a meltdown over it, had vandalizing consequences. Which is a shame.

Imperatrix Mundi 15:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

I mean edit conflict as in what happens when two or more editors try to edit the page at the same time. _dk (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Article semiprotected two months. The 218.* IP who is the target of this complaint has changed the
  Chou Tzu-Yu article over 40 times and has never used a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Page

Partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 19:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ rm
      WP:POV
      ."
   2. 19:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ RM
      WP:POV
      "
   3. 19:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ attribution to source"
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 08:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 08:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ again removing POV. Follow
      WP:BRD
      , Your all contribution to this article need to be verified."
   2. 08:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ rv pov"
3. 13:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 700083164 by
   TW
   )"
4. 15:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )"
5. 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */ removed recently added unverified info, seems POV."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• I accept that I broke 3RR. But I tried to resolve matter on talk page. Talk page discussion was started by me. I also gave talkback message on involved editor's talk page if in case he did not get ping. Anyway, I will not do any revert to that article anymore. Rather I will not edit that article at least for next 15 days. Today is 16th January, I will not edit that article for rest of this month. But I will edit talk page of that article if necessary. Thats all I have to say. Thank you. --Human3015 ^{I just called to say I love you}  15:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Self-regulation is to be welcomed. However
  WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

First lets see I get blocked or not, then I will reply on talk page. If I reply on talk page now and then if I get blocked then discussion will remain incomplete. So let this edit warring matter resolves. As far as removing 3rr notice from my talk page is concerned then as per

WikiCup. My several DYKs are pending, working for one GA and I am close to get my first GA after some more work on article. My block will hamper all this process, thats why I said I will not edit that article for 15 days or more period to avoid my block, I will only focus on my DYKs and GAs for Wikicup, I will not do any edit war anywhere.--Human3015 ^{I just called to say I love you}  17:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

We (the community) have no interest in seeing you blocked. Rather, we are interested to see whether you have learnt from the experience and are willing to alter your behaviour from now onwards. I believe that my revert requires you to look at your own revert critically and discuss the issues on the talk page. The 3RR notice doubly requires you to do that. You seem to be still denying that you have an obligation to do so. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not denying any discussion, you can see talk page discussion was started by me. I myself invited other editor to discuss his edits. You should have taken part in discussion instead of reverting me. But anyway, as of now I am removing that page from my watchlist. I will be busy next month so I can't tell if I will edit that page next month also. You can discuss those changes with that editor. I believe in your neutrality, I think you can handle those edits. --Human3015 ^{It will rain}  18:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined, same as the request below Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

1. Consecutive edits made from 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   2. 02:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* India */"
   3. 02:54, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Resettlement of refugees in Pakistan: 1947–1957 */"
   4. 03:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Missing Persons */"
   5. 03:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Missing Persons */"
   6. 03:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"
   7. 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"
   8. 03:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 12:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC) to 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 12:56, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   2. 13:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   3. 13:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* India */"
   4. 13:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Pakistan */"
   5. 13:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Independence, population transfer, and violence */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment - I think this user reverted once (at least in one round of edits), not serious enough to warrant sanctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Declined, clearly a content dispute which involves several users. The talk page discussion is underway, the user seems to have stopped reverting Ymblanter (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Taurino Araujo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ... ... ... 189.40.66.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(cur | prev) 10:25, 16 January 2016‎ 189.40.65.135 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700087709 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 09:29, 16 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700036484 by 189.40.67.109 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:10, 16 January 2016‎ 189.40.67.109 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700036064 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:06, 16 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700011822 by 179.215.244.23 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:56, 15 January 2016‎ 179.215.244.23 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 700008265 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:30, 15 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699883324 by 191.138.82.238 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:46, 15 January 2016‎ 191.138.82.238 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699879208 by HombreDHojalata (talk) WHat you do in pt.wiki is entirely your job, it doent concern other languages wikipdias. As can read in the article, he is honoured) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:12, 15 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699836626 by 189.40.66.202 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:42, 14 January 2016‎ 189.40.66.202 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699833004 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:19, 14 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699781371 by 189.40.64.56 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:32, 14 January 2016‎ 189.40.64.56 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699780361 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:20, 14 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699775699 by 189.40.66.106 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 11:35, 14 January 2016‎ 189.40.66.106 (talk)‎ . . (7,650 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (Undid revision 699693469 by HombreDHojalata (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:58, 13 January 2016‎ HombreDHojalata (talk | contribs)‎ . . (7,875 bytes) (+225)‎ . . (undo)

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

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

Comments:

• Result: Warring about this note isn't covered by any 3RR exception, so both HombreDHoilata and the IPs could have been blocked. I've put a week of protection on the article. Anyone who thinks this article is spam and shouldn't be on the English Wikipedia can follow the steps of
  WP:AFD. The Portuguese deletion per pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Taurino Araújo isn't binding here. EdJohnston (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Page

Riley Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC) to 16:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "consensus and guideline-compliant version"
   2. 16:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "remove purposely inserted falsehood from BLP"
2. 22:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "as before, BLP violation, contradicted by other sources, overriding majority of users who expressed view on image"
3. 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "as before, and IP opinions are no less valid that likely paid editors; Undid revision 700028379 by Rebecca1990 (talk)"
4. 14:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "BLP violation, deliberate insertion of false statement, expressly contradicted by prior reference; Undid revision 700033178 by Rebecca1990 (talk)"
5. 19:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "It's still false and contracted by multiple sources, even if we accept your Bill Clintonesque definitions"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Riley Reid */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Lead images */ new section"

Comments:

• It's bizarre that they continue to change the photo while edit warring over other matters that may be covered by BLP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1)I've explicitly claimed this is a BLP violation (purposeful insertion of false/promotional content into a BLP) and therefore claim exemption from 3RR limits; and

2)I did not breach 3RR, but halted after my third revert within 24 hours, even though the fourth revert would have fallen within the exemption No, I screwed up. I simply miscounted. I did not intend to formally breach 3RR, despite claiming the BLP exemption, and apologize for my good faith error. I've been editing regularly since since 2008 and haven't made that mistake before.(more to follow) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot hide behind a BLP exemption with the photo edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hiding behind anything. You've been an admin for years; you know perfectly well that there's no rule that, when reverting a complex edit involving a clear BLP violation, a simple revert isn't OK. I've been involved in disputes over that exact point before, and the consensus has been that, as long as the BLP claim wasn't a pretext, the exemption is legit. If we change that rule, the change shouldn't be retroactive. I've never seen a case where an otherwise legitimate BLP exemption claim was disallowed on this basis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're an experienced editor. It's not that complex to separate the two issues and remove the BLP problem rather than hit the undo button to revert. You two have been edit warring over the image since at least November 7.[28]. That's enough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have fully-protected the article for 24 hours, per a request at
  WP:RFPP. That was just to stop the warring; I had not seen this report and I have no opinion on any other action that might be taken here. I pinged both editors to the talk page, since I saw that there has so far been no attempt to discuss the issues. --MelanieN (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why the statement is false: Because the article subject, under her original stage name, Paige Riley, had been performing in porn videos for six months to a year before she performed in "Brand New Faces". Riley said so, both in a source remaining in the article [29] and the source Rebecca1990 removed from the article in September [30] (a page on the subject's official website). (Warning: these links, like most of those I need to mention in this discussion, are very, very NSFW and often quite sexually explicit.) Because of what are usually referred to as 2257 regulations, it is often possible to identify the exact date of production in each scene in a pornographic release. Riley Reid's scene in "Brand New Faces" was recorded/produced on August 8, 2011.([31], extremely NSFW) Based on Riley's account of her career, it is rather easy to find earlier performances. Two examples will suffice. These links go to online trailers for porn videos, and are extremely sexually explicit. Good Golly Molly, placed online April 12, 2011; production date February 8, 2011. Perfect Mix!, placed online March 22, 2011; production date March 19, 2011. There's also a release called "Real Slut Party" released June 14, 2011; while I don't have a production date, it was obviously produced before it was released. Reid said her first appearance in a lead role was in a web series called "College Rules" which doesn't seem to be online right now, but which showed up on a porn message board in March 2011, so it was obviously released by then. There are nearly 20 2011 releases listed for Riley at IAFD, which doesn't provide production dates, but some of those are also likely to predate her faux "debut". (more info coming) The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent article history. As of September 1, 2015[32], the article incorrectly stated that Reid's first video was "Brand New Faces". On September 7, an IP made a series of edits which 1) stated that Riley's initial stage name was in fact her birth name, as widely reported on the Internet, but not verified by any reliable source; and 2) accurately identified Riley's first scene as occurring in "College Rules", with reliable sourcing (although it did confuse the (related) web and film series). Five minutes later, without any explanation, edit summary, or talk page comment, Rebecca1990 removed both the accurate statements about Riley's first scene and the unverified statement about her real name. And, since then, Rebecca, having removed the relevant sourcing, has vigorously opposed/reverted efforts to correct the article's inaccurate claims. (yet more coming)

Why this is a significant matter. Because the validity of industry PR sources, under

WP:RS

, especially in the BLP context, is seriously doubted by a significant number of experienced users. This case presents a paradigmatic example of why AVN.com sourcing is unreliable: the source is predominantly based on PR material, it contains objectively false statements, and it undermines the essential claim that AVN.com satisfies the requirement that sources have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (Note that AVN.com is substantially different from the print magazine: the great majority of its "editorial"/"news" content amounts to press releases and PR copy posted on behalf of the site's advertisers/clients, or transparently retouched PR copy dressed up as articles without even minimal factchecking. That is not journalism.

And, therefore, this is a substantial BLP issue. While the most common BLP issues involve poorly sourced, unfavorable content, the WMF resolution which our BLP policy implements cites first in its lists of problematic editing practices "articles that are overly promotional". What was going on here was the use of Wikipedia to further dishonest marketing of a porn performer. "Paige Riley" was a not-overly-successful performer in low-rent, low-prestige web pornography. She got a new agent, who changed her stage name and fictionalized her biography in order to obscure the fact her early performances were widely available, making her more marketable. Who created the "Riley Reid" article? Rebecca 1990 [33]. Who added the false claim to this BLP? Rebecca1990.[34] Who has edit warred extensively to remove accurate content and preserve false, promotional statements. As shown below, Rebecca1990. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How BLP has operated, and should operate.

WP:BLP, which is, of course, policy, states that "Contentious material about living persons . . . that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (emphasis in original). The content involved was clearly contentious; it had been reasonably challenged in good faith by two different editors, and it contradicted statements by the article subject herself in sources that were (or had been) included in the article. It was poorly sourced, based only on a source that was clearly promotional in tone and incorporated PR copy; the use of similar sources from adult industry trade publicationss has been challenged repeatedly for failing RS/BLP standards, and even WP:Wikiproject Pornography

cautions that AVN.com "does not indicate when an article is a press release".

BLP policy (specifically linked at

WP:BRD

essay's approach, BLP policy remains unchanged, and its principles, particularly those cited above, remain in effect and govern disputes like this.

I have made comprehensive, reasonable, good faith efforts to comply with and to enforce applicable BLP policy. In contrast, Rebecca1990 simply defies it. She has repeatedly restored contentious content to BLPs, both in this and in other cases, without even the pretense of an attempt to achieve consensus. Their final edit summary before this report was filed, "Show me where it says . . ." rejects the policy requirement that the burden of proof rests on the editor(s) wishing to retain disputed material. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected; I'm fine with this solution and according to a previously uninvolved, third party editor, this was a misunderstanding over sources. If you are still contesting this information, please resort to discussion as you cannot simply disrupt an article while shouting "BLP". The information was sourced and apparently added in good faith therefore the BLP defense is not a given, if you're contesting the reliability of the sources you need to make your case in the proper dispute resolution forums, not here. This is still fundamentally a collaborative project and you're responsible for communicating with people you're in disputes with. Ping me if there are further issues. Swarm ♠ 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Riley Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699974888 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) photo is guideline-compliant"
2. 22:59, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "As I said at User_talk:Rebecca1990#January_2016, an IP/SPA is not a "user" and another user commenting on the formatting is not an endorsement of the image. You've also failed to explain what sources contradict her debut being "Brand New Faces 36"."
3. 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700032875 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)"
4. 19:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Her first actual performance should be distinguished from her non-sex work as an extra. These are the type of edits that make it difficult to believe your doing it in good-faith. It is totally unreasonable to oppose mentioning her first scene."
5. 19:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700156362 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) No, it isn't. Show me where it says she had sexual intercourse prior to "Brand New Faces 36"?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion */ quit edit warring with each other"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Lead images */ new section"

Comments:

• Reported the both of them. It's strange that the two continue to change the photo while edit warring over other matters. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Rebecca attempted discussion over the photo issue on her talk page.[35] Seems like this is an edit war over several articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been appropriate for you to note, either here or in the section directed at me, that I had also engaged in that discussion. To cite only party's participation in discussion when both actually did is not consistent with an even-handed presentation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then let me note that you engaged in the discussion with histrionic accusations of dishonesty, racism, homophobia,[36][37][38] and maybe pedophilia[39]. You're welcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I made accurate comments, which are reflected in the sources Rebecca1990 cited. The sources, and related commentary, rather expressly describe the marketing strategy as racist and dishonest. The same strategy dismisses LGBT sex as inconsequential or nonexistent. Those are not positions that Wikipedia's editorisl voice should endorse. As for just what appeal this picture of a 24-year-old woman dressed up as a sexualized middle school girl has, I think that's evident from the image itself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have fully-protected the article for 24 hours, per a request at
  WP:RFPP. That was just to stop the warring; I had not seen this report and I have no opinion on any other action that might be taken here. I pinged both editors to the talk page, since I saw that there has so far been no attempt to discuss the issues. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Page protected, will not take further action unless problems persist. Swarm ♠ 22:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

Code16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Drmies said to condense it. You Undid revision 700233905 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
2. 07:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "No consensus was established on you taking out important sections of Hallaq, as far as I remember. Cite where? Undid revision 700230374 by FreeatlastChitchat (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) to 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
   1. 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Undoing some unexplained/unwarranted removal of sourced content by Freeatlastchitchat, from back in Nov 25. Content adds significant details to the subject matter, and we did not approve its removal in that discussion."
   2. 03:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "/* Authenticity */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor is trying to change text which was established through consensus after a very very lengthy TP debate on two separate pages during november. Editor has been told to voice his concerns on TP yet ignores it. He has been told that an uninvolved admin endorsed these changes back in NOvember and consensus was established in which this editor was one of the contributing parties, yet he still wishes to change a version established through consensus. User is already aware that 3PR usually leads to blocks and has been blocked before. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings Dear Admins, I've stated my case on the TP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Hadith#Hallaq.27s_condensing), and pinged editors (including a well recognized expert editor) to arbitrate this content dispute. I do not think I went against consensus. I think the other editor overstepped the scope of consensus: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hadith). Also, please notice that user FreeatlastChitchat stopped just short of 3RR and quickly opened this case afterwards, which is a case of gaming the system. This shouldn't be surprising, considering he's been blocked many times before and is constantly involved in edit wars. I request/propose the status-quo remain until other editors can analyze the content dispute and arrive at a decision. cӨde1+6^TP 07:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Both
  WP:DR to involve more people in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@EdJohnston, Understood sir. cӨde1+6^TP 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Vaporwave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 700315501 by Semitransgenic (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 11:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"
2. 19:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "/* 3RR */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

not a dispute, SPA adding non-

Comments:

repeat of editing behaviour this user was previously blocked for Semitransgenic _talk. 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to:[40] by User:Dolphins1925 and more specifically this section [41] This is the position I have tried to maintain without going past 3RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts in order:

1. [42] at 13:09, 16 January 2016
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45] at 11:44, 17 January 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification on his 1st revert [46] and on his 2nd revert [47] and Notified of DS [48], then filed a DS Enforcement Request [49], and Notified of that [50]. The user calls these notifications "spam" [51] [52], and spam [53], .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54] and at Talk:Zhou_Youguang

Comments:
Each time removing Zhou Youguang from the Oldest people article which is astonishing given he noted Zhou turned 110 here in Zhou's article [55]. I'm placing this here because the edit warring report is best done in the standard format but is related to [56] where I'll put a link back to here. I wish the user would engage in discussion. Legacypac (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC) Being dealt with at AE

Page: Alexander Archipenko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 73.178.187.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. [57]
2. [58]
3. [59]
4. [60]
5. [61]

Persistently making controversial (sometimes outright vandal) edits to Ukraine-related articles without attempting any meaningful discussion. --glossologist (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm ♠ 22:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Filmfare Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daan0001 (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. 22:24, January 16, 2016 "Undid revision 700115637 by Vensatry (talk) list them on a talk page or add if he has 5 or more to the list rather removing !"
2. 06:35, January 17, 2016 "Undid revision 700150176 by Vensatry (talk) when did AB received a best negative role award ? Shut your face !"
3. 06:35, January 17, 2016 "Undid revision 700150176 by Vensatry (talk) when did AB received a best negative role award ? Shut your face !"
4. 13:58, January 17, 2016 "happy ?"
5. 19:41, January 17, 2016 "Reverted edits by 172.56.21.40 (talk) to last version by ColRad85" (misuse of rollback)
6. 00:18, January 18, 2016 "Reverted edits by Vensatry (talk) to last version by Daan0001" (misuse of rollback)
7. 03:45, January 18, 2016 "Reverted edits by 208.54.90.228 (talk) to last version by Daan0001" (misuse of rollback)
8. 12:52, January 18, 2016 "Reverted edits by 63.143.230.98 (talk) to last version by Daan0001" (misuse of rollback)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Daan0001 (issued one in the past, although not specifically connected to this dispute. But his talk page suggests he has conveniently ignored those warnings.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tried this technique in the past (per above), but proved to be of no use.

Comments:
The user seems to have some problem with me. It's evident from his talk page warnings, which were issued by multiple uers. Firstly, a user came up with this edit. Since the claim wasn't an exceptional one and was not backed up by reliable sources, I was against the addition. For no reason, Daan0001 came up with a personal attack on my talk page. When Kailash29792 warned him for his behaviour on his talk page, this was his response. Further, he justified his own actions saying that it shall not be deemed as a personal attack. Since his edits were challenging the status quo, I believe he had the responsibility to initiate a talk page discussion. He has made eight reverts (including four unwarranted rollbacks). He has clearly misused his rollback privileges. —Vensatry _(Talk) 07:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was bought here by a user as result of some opinion on page Filmfare Awards. I still stand by my opinion that Priyanka Chopra deserve to be on the Records for winning 5 filmfare awards in 5 different categories as a female actor for her versatility, where as the users point was Bachchan has more Filmfare awards yes that might be right but most of them awards are for his fame rather the award has been awarded to him to appreciate his acting skills e.g. Filmfare Power award - given for fame in Bollywood. - Correct me if I'm wrong?

And I have asked the user to start a talk before reverting but no kept on edit warring with me. Am i the only one to blame here? Why couldn't the user talk before removing content with reliable source? Me having a problem with the user? Please I hardly know it. The user has a problem and it's its duty to deal with it when I said happy to talk?? Daan0001 (talk) 20:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Swarm ♠ 22:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page1: Emma-Jayne Wilson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skyring (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 14 January 2016‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:35, 17 January 2016‎
2. 08:52, 18 January 2016‎

Page2: Clark Shaughnessy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: 15:36, 14 January 2016‎

1. 09:11, 18 January 2016

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute:

1. 22:32, 14 January 2016 Notification of discussion at WT:MOS
2. 04:57, 17 January 2016 Discussion of their resumed reverts

Comments:
Skring has been mass-removing the word winningest from articles without consensus. They were notified of a discussion on the use of the word at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#.22winningest.22_in_sports_articles (see notification above at 22:32 14 January 14). When asked by Cbl62 if they would stop the reverts while the MOS discussion was outstanding, Skring responded at 22:47, 14 January that they "haven't made any such edits since reading the formal notice of the discussion"[62]. However, edits since 14 January (above) demonstrate that they were disingenuous, and have resumed the mass-removal without consensus.

For additional examples of the mass removal of winningest before the MOS discussion, see many of their contributions—marked as minor without an edit summary—before 16:07, 14 January 2016[63]

Looking at their lengthy block log, they have a troubling history of warring and general

• After looking everything over I agree with that assessment of the situation. It's a topic for discussion and it's being discussed; regardless of how you feel about the matter it is nothing short of inflammatory, counterproductive, disruptive and irresponsible to continue edit warring over it while other editors are attempting to hash out a consensus. Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Swarm ♠ 22:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rise of the Tomb Raider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ferret (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. 18:49, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Adding second publisher) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

   This appears to be the first addition of "Microsoft" as a game publisher or developer, and it's as a developer, by Kvally (apparently Crystal Dynamics helped). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2. 19:00, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,539 bytes) (+46)‎ . . (→‎Sales: add digital sales note) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)
3. 19:03, 18 January 2016‎ Ferret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,479 bytes) (-60)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Kvally (talk): Microsoft not a developer. (TW)) (undo | thank)

   First revert by Ferret. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4. 19:05, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Microsoft is a publisher) (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

   Kvally adds Microsoft, as a publisher, this time (apparently Square Enix helped). Other than where Microsoft is credited, it's the exact same page as at 18:49. Score one revert for Kvally. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5. 19:06, 18 January 2016‎ Ferret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,479 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by Kvally (talk): Yes, and that is already noted in the foot note. (TW)) (undo | thank)

   Second revert by Ferret. This is a strict revert (new page identical to the old version). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6. 19:07, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Undid revision 700477225 by Ferret (talk) expose, not sub) (undo)

   Kvally adds Microsoft as publisher. This is a strict revert (new page identical to the old version). Score two reverts for Kvally. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

7. 19:09, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

   Footnote added that Microsoft published the Xbone versions of the game. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

8. 19:10, 18 January 2016‎ Ferret (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,479 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (Reverted 2 edits by Kvally (talk): Please stop, use the talk page if you disagree. Microsoft is not a primary publisher and the footnote is enough, per template guidelines. (TW)) (undo | thank)

   Third revert by Ferret. Ferret replaces Square Enix as publisher but leaves the footnote in place. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9. 19:11, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Undid revision 700477724 by Ferret (talk) Please stop, use the talk page if you disagree.) (undo)

   Microsoft is publisher again. This is a strict revert (new page identical to the old version). Score three reverts for Kvally. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10. 19:13, 18 January 2016‎ Kvally (talk | contribs)‎ . . (28,493 bytes) (0)‎ . . (undo) (Tag: Visual edit)

    Square Enix is now the primary publisher. (Microsoft helped). J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comments:
I haven't done any good research yet, but it really looks to me like Kvally is throwing a

Having done some good research, it looks like my first impression was basically right. I'm throwing a warning on Ferret, but I'm not an admin, so if someone wants to throw blocks around, don't let me stop you. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 20:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. 20:29, 18 January 2016 m (Made changes in error)

Based on this final edit, I'd say it's pretty likely that Kvally is going to stop this disruptive editing. I've thanked him for it and welcomed him to Wikipedia. I think we're done here. J^♯m (talk | contribs) 21:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined Neither party broke 3RR, discussions were not started. Both editors have been notified what they need to do. Please just hash out on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 21:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Kensington Runestone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Gunn Sinclair (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I changed some of the opening comments to better reflect the bias built into the KRS discussion by Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia editors are right now claiming too much of what needs to be included as fringe, when all it really represents is balance."
2. 17:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I added Holand's sentiments about what Breda said and did, to add a voice which wholehearted disagreed with Breda's fast and sloppy findings. Holand thought Breda was a fool, so why should Breda's comments stand out as representing academic credibility?"
3. 03:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC) "I changed the inflammatory and prejudicial term "purported" twice. One definition of "purported" is to "make a pretense," and the Wikipedia entry should not insinuate make-believe, as bias. Also, there is no scholarly consensus as an editor claims."
4. 19:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC) "I changed the unsourced information about how much was given for the KRS, to a first-person accounting of the person receiving the KRS getting it for nothing. This is direct information from one of the two persons involved in the transaction."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continuing to edit war after blocked for editwarring, inserting personal commentary into articles, pretty much not there. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely – For making legal threats, per this edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]