Noticeboard archives

## User:Peter K Burian reported by User:NorthernFactoid (Result: 3-day block for both)

User being reported: Peter K Burian

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Comments: I have tried in vain to reason with the user. I have talked of the need to achieve consensus before making bold edits, and to stay away from making unsubstantiated claims based on the user's opinion. I have also attempted to caution the user about treating currency forecast opinions as fact. He has chosen to ignore my cautions and invitation to discuss meaningfully on the article's talk page. Please see my talk page and the relevant article's talk page for any other information needed. I don't want to revert the user's edits without first receiving guidance from a more experienced administrator. Thank you.

NorthernFactoid (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed the formatting of this report. SQLQuery me! 22:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Reply by Peter K. Burian: The edit war consists of this: I add content, with reliable citations, and he Reverts (deletes) all of it. I UNDO his action so the content I had added is visible. He Reverts (deletes) all of it. I UNDO his action so the content I had added is visible.
Note: Prior to this complaint of an Edit War, I had started a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution re: Canadian dollar ... Filed by Peter K Burian on 21:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC). But that has been Closed because the Edit War Administrators' process is handling the issue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Canadian_dollar_discussion
Here is a copy of that item, including my comments, which should also be suitable as my Comments re: the Edit War: Dispute overview The Canadian Dollar article was frozen in time, at a point before mid 2014, when the value of this currency was still high. Since that time, it has dropped in value significantly vs. the US dollar. In mid 2013 it was at par, but now it is at 70 cents U.S. However, the Wikipedia article failed to even mention devaluation since mid 2014. Instead, it contained only discussions of the strength of this currency.
As I had said on the Talk page, I find it incredible that such a major change - occurring over 18 months to date - and so significant to the topic, has been ignored by an encyclopedia article. (Because of NortherFactoid's content)
I had added the relevant information: a sentence in the lede, fully citated (major news organization) and a new section with 2015-2016 content, again fully cited (major news media). NorthernFactoid has Reverted all of the content that I have added on several occasions. since early January 2016, as the History will confirm (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_dollar&action=history). Most recently today, he has deleted fully cited content that I had added, on two occasions as of 4:20pm, Eastern Standard Time.
I have discussed this with NorthernFactoid in detail on the Talk page under three headings: "This article desperately needs a MAJOR update" "The value of the loonie has been crashing ... how can the lede ignore that???" "Edit War has been started by another user"
He has responded to my comments, so he has been reading them, but has continued to Revert (delete fully cited content that I have added.) To be honest, I have eventually begun to UNDO his reverts starting today. (Yesterday, I had simply added new content, with citations, worded in a manner that might be more acceptable to him; but since he has chosen the Revert that content, I have decided to Undo such changes.)
Have you tried to resolve this previously? I have advised NorthernFactoid that the content I am adding is essential to the topic. The change in the value is not a sudden, one time, factor but has been ongoing for 18 months, though ignored by the content in [{Canadian Dollar]]. I have advised him on several occasions in the Talk sections that I will file for Dispute Resolution. I have served the relevant notice on his Talk page today. Peter K Burian (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
P.S. by Peter K Burian ... My REVERTS this afternoon were all after NorthernFactoid had deleted content that I had added to Canadian Dollar. I was merely undoing his deletions of my content/edits. And he certainly deleted my content often, at least three times this afternoon.
• Deleting my content) 21:18, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,676 bytes) (-481)‎
• (Deleting my content) 21:10, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,316 bytes) (-1,360)‎
• (Deleting my content) 20:50, 13 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,300 bytes) (-502)‎
Amd these are the Reverts that I did, undoing his deletion of my content. He stopped deleting my content after Dispute Resolution began.
• 21:22, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian . . (41,157 bytes) (+481)‎ . . (I do not accept your deleting content that I had added, fully citated, that is essential to this topic. Undid revision 699687528 by NorthernFactoid
• 21:15, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian . . (41,157 bytes) (+1,360)‎ . . (Deleting fully cited content that I had added is unacceptable to me. Undid revision 699686418 by NorthernFactoid
• 21:12, 13 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian ‎ . . (39,797 bytes) (+481)‎ . . (This is essential information to this topic, with a highly reliable citation, and has been deleted twice by NorthernFactoid. I have inserted it again and will start the Dispute Resolution process today.)
Peter K Burian (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Added by Peter K Burian ... once again NorthernFactoid deleted ALL of the content I had added. Needless to say, I did an UNDO to get my content back into the article. He refuses to acknowledge in the article that the value of the Canadian Dollar has plummeted in the past 18 months. Why? Good question.
• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (41,286 bytes) (+2,706)‎ . . (refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715900 by NorthernFactoid
• 01:19, 14 January 2016‎ Peter K Burian (talk | contribs)‎ . . (38,580 bytes) (+588)‎ . . (Refusing to accept deletion of content I had added Undid revision 699715303 by NorthernFactoid
• 00:43, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (37,992 bytes) (-2,706)‎ . . (→‎Value: See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
• 00:38, 14 January 2016‎ NorthernFactoid (talk | contribs)‎ . . (40,698 bytes) (-588)‎ . . (See talk page BEFORE making bold edits to article. Consensus required WP:BRD) (undo | thank)
Peter K Burian (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The user has continually made a number of unsubstantiated claims based on his opinion and the opinion of others (this is what I take great issue with). I have asked him numerous times to provide appropriate sourcing for his claims, and to try to work towards consensus before making bold edits that contradict relevant guidelines. He has either ignored or changes the subject. I apologize for the fractious nature of this debate, but the bulk of it can be seen on the user's talk page, my talk page, and the article's talk page. NorthernFactoid (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Reply by Peter K Burian: Yes, we have been discussing it on my talk page. An example of a post by Nothern Factoid after we had discussed the topic extensively on the Canadian Dollar Talk page: Listen up, you twit! Achieve a consensus before making bold edits—I have asked you repeatedly! Understand this! See the talk page and engage there, amateur! NorthernFactoid 01:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC) Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
UDATE by Peter K Burian:: I have been adding fully substantiated, fully-cited factual information that is highly relevant to a discussion of the Canadian Dollar. I cannot understand how such content can be viewed as "opinions".
e.g. My current edit (if it has not been deleted by someone for the fourth time) includes the following: Although this currency was on par with the US dollar in mid-2013, it has experienced significant devaluation since mid-2014 and was called “the perennial underperformer” by a Bank of America currency strategist in mid-January 2016. (Canadian dollar sinks below 70¢ as oil dips under \$30 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-business-stories/canadian-dollar-flirts-with-70-cent-mark/article28127395/ | Globe and Mail | Toronto)
AND Canada's economy is also based on manufacturing and a low dollar may help to stimulate exports to countries such as the U.S. with strong currencies, but there has not yet been much evidence of this potential benefit. An analysis in the Toronto Star indicates, "it’s unclear whether the low loonie will be able to stimulate the export sector as it has in the past. There has been a fundamental shift in the dynamics of that crucial industry due to the closure of 10,000 export-oriented businesses in the past decade alone." (The dollar closed at 69.71 cents U.S. Wednesday putting pressure on Ottawa to dig deep into its economic stimulus tool kit http://www.thestar.com/business/2016/01/13/loonie-closes-below-70-cents-us-for-first-time-in-nearly-13-years.html |Toronto Star)Peter K Burian (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I have attempted (in vain, I fear) to restructure the thread of conversation. I apologize if it now misrepresents who replied to what; feel free to fix indentation as necessary. larryv (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Looking into it. larryv (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious WP:EDITWAR at Canadian dollar over the last four days. NorthernFactoid provided sufficient evidence against Peter K Burian but failed to mention their own transgressions:
From 13 January onwards, there are ${\displaystyle {\binom {7}{3}}=35}$ different ways to pick a WP:3RR violation out of this list.
WP:AN/3 isn't about who's right and who's wrong—it's about WP:DISRUPTIVE editing, and you've both been extremely disruptive, despite having sufficient experience to know that reverting over and over and over and over is nearly always unacceptable. Both editors blocked – for a period of 3 days. Please read the policies and guidelines I've linked to, and when the block expires, go back to WP:DRN. larryv (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:Truthtrue reported by User:Krystaleen (Result: blocked)

Page
Tekken 7
User being reported
Truthtrue
Previous version reverted to
1. 15:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts
1. 17:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699420029 by Krystaleen (talk)"
2. 12:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699776577 by Krystaleen (talk) we don't need to argue"
3. 15:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699790537 by Krystaleen (talk) The last pronouncement from Harada is the proof. It was discussed one thousand times, you're the only one who have problems about it."
4. 14:49, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699953314 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk)"
5. 15:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699965937 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) You reverted without reason, not me"
6. 15:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699966293 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) This article has not changed (for 2 weeks) since you came back creating chaos and YOU are reverting it."
7. 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 699967275 by TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) Yes, we can discuss it, but please, don't revert it again, till a consensus is reached, ok?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
1. 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Editor has agreed to the edits back in September 2015 on the article's talk page Talk:Tekken 7#Beta game. So this very same issue has been discussed before. In addition, he has done a logged out revert here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tekken_7&diff=699814608&oldid=699814524 Krystaleen 17:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You've done three reverts as well. Your case for a breach hinges on the "logged-out" edit actually being the same IP as User:Truthtrue, and for that you need a Checkuser. Have you made a request for this? And why not just take it to talk and find a consensus? There must be more than the two of you with an interest in the subject. Edit-warring to the brink of 3RR is lame. --Pete (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I've done 3 reverts, that is not breaking any rule. He's done 4. I haven't made any checkuser request, it's pretty obvious it's him since he did it almost immediately, I mean if it quacks like a duck... and yes it does seem like we're the only 2 people interested in this, as evidenced by the talk page discussion. And that's the problem, we've reached consensus, back in September. Somehow between September and now he decided he didn't like the consensus.
Also, if you read the talk page discussion and his edit summaries, it's clear that this editor probably doesn't know how to read a diff, or if he does certainly he doesn't show it. For some reasons he always think I'm removing content, where the fact is I'm only moving it to the end of the paragraph (and making it more factual by putting "as of" instead of the ambiguous "currently"). This has happened over and over again it gets really old.--Krystaleen 07:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Seconded: Truthtrue just reverted for a fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh time, which I've added above. I strongly support that an administrator either fully protect the page or block Truthtrue until the current consensus is accepted. TheTMOBGaming2 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've invited Truthtrue to self-revert and take the matter to the talk page. They've posted to the talk page, so far. If they self-revert and are willing to engage, they can continue full participation. If they revert beyond this point, then a block is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours User basically stated his intention to continue the edit war. I've blocked temporarily in the hopes that he'll return to constructive editing after the block. However, if the behaviour were to recur, then a longer-term or indefinite block would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:Gala19000 reported by User:Amortias (Result: No action)

Page
Operation Hammer (1997) , Operation Steel
User being reported
Gala19000
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
1. 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "This operation is sited as a stratigic turkish victory as they managed to kill many pkk members and also many of their camps/hide outs were destroyed. Not ling after this the pkk had beome less efective then they were before and declared later a ceas f..."
2. Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) to 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
1. 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Once again, those operations are from the turkish perspective. They have been described as succesful operations by the TAF and thus has been resulted as a turkish victory."
2. 17:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC) "Removed decisive part of the victory. The operation had been done succesfully by the TAF and thus it is mentions as a turkish victory. The pkk on the other hand has not given any result about the attack/operation and thus it makes no sense to remove or..."
1. 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User is edit-warring after previous blocks warnings on various subjects in this area (diffs to follow). Topic ban might be the solution here. Amortias (T)(C) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: [11].

Diff of edit-warring / 3RR warning: Simply look at his talk page. It's full of old and recent ones. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seconded - User has edit-warred a bunch, and lead to PC protections of multiple articles, and might even be puppeting. This is definitely some kind of puppetry on Turkish battle-related articles since there was recently an army of editors on First Anglo-Afghan War. Probably should start a small-scale investigation into it if anybody finds proof connecting accounts except for that fact. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• The diffs provided here don't show a 3RR violation by User:Gala19000. If this is a complaint of long-term edit warring it's too vague. There've been a lot of IPs warring at First Anglo-Afghan War but I don't see a connection to Gala19000. In any case I've semiprotected that article. Unless more details can be given this report may be closed with no action. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
• I will, have already told the other editer of the article what the reason was for the edit (edit 'war'). Don't realy see how I violated Wiki with those edits as the other edit of the user was unsourced. By the way, I have nothing to do with that Anglo-Afghan war.Gala19000 (talk) 21:10, 13 January
• Result: No action. Some of the edits by User:Gala19000 do raise eyebrows, such as this and this one. They might appear to be POV pushing to make the Turkish side of these battles appear more successful. "For the Turkish side, it was a succesful operation (turkish claim)" appears to be saying that the operation should be reported as a Turkish victory just because the Turks considered it to be so. At the same time, he removes 'Citation needed.' Still, there isn't enough evidence here for an edit warring block. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:173.217.184.74 reported by User:IronGargoyle (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lola Bunny
User being reported: 173.217.184.74

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

Editor is making claims that they are removing POV material, otherwise I would simply block for vandalism. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours by User:BethNaught. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:134.226.123.233 reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: Normans
User being reported:

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]; [25]

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

We appear to have a member of the University of Dublin pushing a particular edit; they may be right, they may be wrong, but they're refusing to discuss the change. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:Novoneiro reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: blocked 36 hours)

Page
User being reported
Novoneiro
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

• 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)
• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Swarm 02:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:192.121.113.96 reported by User:EnigmaLord515 (Result: 48h)

Page
User being reported
192.121.113.96
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"

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

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)

## User:DavidTParchem, User:71.90.71.141, and User:75.135.78.126 reported by User:World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (Result: Warned)

Page
TNA Genesis
User being reported
DavidTParchem
71.90.71.141 (appears to be same user)
75.135.78.126 (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
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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 [28]. 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 [29]. World Heavyweight Wrestling Champion (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

• 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)

## User:Rebecca1990 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: Page protected)

Page: Ethnic pornography
User being reported: Rebecca1990

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34] [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36], 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)

Note Rebecca1990 also reported by the same user for similar behaviour at the Incident noticeboard. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 19:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The one that needs to be blocked here is you, for edit warring and vandalism ([37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]). 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)
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)
"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)
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)
Incidents like these two (there's many more I can't specifically remember right now) make it difficult to assume he's doing all this in good-faith. He has a habit of obsessing over something in porn star biography articles, whether it's mentions of webcam modelling as a distinct occupation from pornographic film performing, mentions of being placed on CNBC's list of the year's top 12 porn stars, or mentions of debuts in a porn genre, and illogically objecting to its inclusion in articles. I have remained 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)
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[43]) 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)
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)
• Page protected for one week. Regards, Swarm 02:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment It's going to start up all over again on Keisha Grey isn't it User talk:Rebecca1990 / User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz...? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:77.57.145.121 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: blocked x 2)

Page: Duke University
User being reported: 77.57.145.121

Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

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)

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

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Four reverts in 28 hours is practically WP:3RR. larryv (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

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

## User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Musdan77 (Result: Page protected)

Page
User being reported
Dr. Vicodine
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 List of awards and nominations received by Brie Larson. (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

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)

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)
• Page protected Katietalk 16:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:166.77.103.133 reported by User:SanAnMan (Result: Warned user(s))

Page
Tweek x Craig
User being reported
166.77.103.133
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 Tweek x Craig. (TW)"
2. 17:01, 29 December 2015 (UTC) "December 2015 (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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)

• 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. Katietalk 16:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:189.40.65.135; User:189.40.67.109; User:179.215.244.23; User:191.138.82.238; User:189.40.66.202; User:189.40.64.56; User:189.40.66.106... reported by User:HombreDHojalata (Result: Warning, protection)

Page: Taurino Araujo
User being reported: ... ... ... 189.40.66.106

Previous version reverted to: [51]

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]

• 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)

## User:TalhaZubairButt reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:decline)

Page
Partition of India
User being reported
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
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

• 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)
• 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)

## User:Human3015 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result:declined)

Page
Partition of India
User being reported
Human3015
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 Human3015: Unexplained changes, again POV pushing. People left India to get better employment opportunity and better education in Pakistan? what next? (TW)"
4. 15:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Kautilya3 (talk): Talk page discussion is going on, this is newly added info, as per BRD other editor is discussing on talk page. (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

• 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)
• Comment - Self-regulation is to be welcomed. However Human3015 doesn't show any recognition of the larger issues. When his revert is reverted, the obligation to discuss as per WP:BRD falls on him. Redoing his revert within seconds without even bothering to check why it has been undone doesn't bode well. He hasn't responded to my comment on the article talk page [52]. He has deleted my 3RR notice posted on his talk page [53]. All this suggests a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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 WP:BLANKING I can do that, it is not big issue. I think BRD was applicable on TalhaZubairButt (talk · contribs) because his edits were got reverted. Anyway, I have already cleared my stand. I will not edit that article for 15 days or maybe for more period if required. As far as punitive block is concerned, there will not be much use of punitive block. I am participating in 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)
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)
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)
• Declined, same as the request below Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:218.186.55.164 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Semi)

Page
Chou Tzu-yu
User being reported
218.186.55.164
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 Chou Tzu-yu. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

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). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

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)
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 Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 15:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
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)
• 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)

## User:Code16 reported by User:FreeatlastChitchat (Result: Both warned)

Page
User being reported
Code16
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

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)

• 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+6TP 07:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
• Result: Both User:FreeatlastChitchat and User:Code16 are warned. Each of you has been blocked plenty of times for edit warring in 2015. If either of you reverts this article again before February 1 without getting a previous explicit consensus for the change (within the last seven days) on the talk page, you may be blocked. Feel free to start RfCs or use other methods of WP:DR to involve more people in the discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@EdJohnston, Understood sir. cӨde1+6TP 17:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:GoalsGalore reported by User:SWASTIK 25 (Result: Both editors blocked on another forum)

BOTH EDITORS BLOCKED
GoalsGalore blocked for 48 hours and SWASTIK 25 for 1 week (as he has been blocked for this before) by User:GiantSnowman (non-admin closure)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page:
User being reported: GoalsGalore

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_top_international_association_football_goal_scorers_by_country&action=history Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]

The user is continuously reverting my edits without proper reason. — Swastik Chakraborty (User talk) 13:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment This can be closed as it ran parallel to the OP's AN/I thread about the same issue and the same editor. They are both now blocked by User:GiantSnowman here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talkcontribs) 13:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

## User:BjörnBergman reported by User:Legacypac (Result:Being dealt with at AE)

Page: Oldest people
User being reported: BjörnBergman

Previous version reverted to:[59] by User:Dolphins1925 and more specifically this section [60] This is the position I have tried to maintain without going past 3RR.

Diffs of the user's reverts in order:

1. [61] at 13:09, 16 January 2016
2. [62]
3. [63]
4. [64] at 11:44, 17 January 2016‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification on his 1st revert [65] and on his 2nd revert [66] and Notified of DS [67], then filed a DS Enforcement Request [68], and Notified of that [69]. The user calls these notifications "spam" [70] [71], and spam [72], .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73] and at Talk:Zhou_Youguang

Each time removing Zhou Youguang from the Oldest people article which is astonishing given he noted Zhou turned 110 here in Zhou's article [74]. I'm placing this here because the edit warring report is best done in the standard format but is related to [75] 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 Spartaz Humbug! 20:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

## User:Gunn Sinclair reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: Indef)

Page
Kensington Runestone
User being reported
Gunn Sinclair
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

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)

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

## User:Ferret reported by User:Kvally (Result:Declined )

Page: Rise of the Tomb Raider
User being reported: Ferret

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). Jm (talk |