Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

User:Whatcha2016 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: stale)

Page: Sherlock (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Whatcha2016 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Sherlock (TV series)#Nationality

Comments:
Editor is removing the content even after being warned and having a discussion created. Discussion also exists at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Sherlock, which they created while logged out under the IP of 86.149.19.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Similar edits were formed by 2a02:c7f:7020:2800:34a7:d9e:21fc:f533 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) with these edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can guess where this report is going. An admin will see that it was submitted days ago, the user hasn't reverted since, and since it's sizzled out since it hasn't been addressed (while reports after this have been), the editor in question will be let go and will know that it's alright to violate 3RR. No problems. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Stale — we don't block punitively, and the user appeared to stop edit warring after the actual 3RR warning was left on their talk page (so they probably did learn it wasn't okay to violate 3RR). Also, your report was almost certainly seen by (and investigated by) several admins over the last few days—they just left it open waiting to see if the user would continue. Feel free to update or open a new report if they resume. --slakr^\ talk / 07:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

My exact point proven. Thank you for that and your lack of contribution. 3RR all the way. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Pbierre reported by User:Richwales (Result: Warned)

Page: Birthright citizenship in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pbierre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13] (yes, I know this comment was on Pbierre's talk page, not the article's talk page)

• See also User talk:Richwales#Questions about Birthplace Citizenship summary section (permalink: [14]]).

Comments:

Pbierre's addition of new material has been reverted by three different editors (myself, Jc3s5h, and Wikidemon) — and he has been cautioned regarding several policies (including WP:BURDEN, WP:NPOV, WP:EW, WP:3RR, and WP:DR) by myself and Jc3s5h. Despite having had WP:BURDEN explained to him, he continues to re-add his changes, apparently firm in his conviction that the burden lies on others and not on him — insisting in his edit summaries that "WP rules do not allow suppression of opposing views on a controversial topic" and that others must stop "doing any more summary deletions of disputed content". In a situation like this, I would normally just go ahead and block Pbierre for edit warring myself, but since I was one of the people who reverted him ([15]), I'm bringing the matter here to WP:AN/EW to avoid any tiny possibility of my being seen as violating WP:INVOLVED. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Pbierre has started a section in the article's talk page (Talk:Birthright citizenship in the United States#Public Opinion running 2:1 Against Current U.S. Birthplace Citizenship Policy is Relevant to Topic). So far, at least, no one else has joined this discussion. Although I'm happy to see that Pbierre may finally be getting the message that there is a controversy here that needs to be hashed out in talk, he followed up his talk page post by almost immediately reinstating his own material — thereby continuing the ongoing edit war which he said he was hoping to head off. I, for one, am not yet convinced that Pbierre understands or accepts the principle (stated in WP:EW) that edit warring is not OK even if you are convinced that you are obviously right and everyone else is obviously wrong. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC) 01:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Pbierre is warned they may be blocked the next time they revert at Birthright citizenship in the United States unless they have previously obtained a talk page consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:DavidThomson1997 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Khojaly Massacre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

DavidThomson1997 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 728078796 by Dr.K. (talk)"
2. 23:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */"
3. 17:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */Fixed typo."
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) to 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
   1. 09:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */Fixed title with the text."
   2. 09:50, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a "free" corridor */Removed content without a valid source anymore."
5. 07:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Claims of a corridor */Fixed title more to the content."
6. 15:03, 30 June 2016 "/* Claims of warnings and a corridor:*/Fixed title"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey. (TW★TW)"
2. 01:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Khojaly Massacre. (TW★TW)"
3. 30 June 2016 "Warning: Three-revert rule on Imbros."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit-warring across several articles related to the Balkans and AA2. Disruptive editing for many days, blanking. Will not stop. Please see here his blanking of this 3RR report. Dr. K. 01:19, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Also warned about discretionary sanctions. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Sro23 reported by User:188.32.100.23 (Result: reporter blocked)

Page: Tajik language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sro23 (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. [diff]
2. [diff]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
edit war. 188.32.100.23 (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering others have reverted them, and they included no diffs in this report, and similar edits by another IP (User:188.32.101.127), I believe this may be a case of a boomerang. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week (the reporter). Materialscientist (talk) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Alanhopes reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Blocked)

Page

Rangers F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
2. 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
3. 20:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
4. 19:42, 2 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
5. 17:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
6. 17:18, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
7. 16:32, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"
8. 15:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "/* First team squad */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Rangers F.C.."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Previously blocked 24hr for edit warring on this article. Immediate return to edit warring. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:84.135.156.106 reported by User:LucasGeorge (Result: Semi)

Page: 50 Cent Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. 84.135.156.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 84.135.130.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 84.135.159.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 84.135.132.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20][21][22][23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:

This is borderline 3RR and a more complex issue. I have added changes to the lede of the article based on a recent Harvard research which brought into light new findings, and was reverted three times by the same user under a series of different IP address, each time to a more outdated and POV laden intro from partisan sources. The IP displayed no intentions of discussion, and made a series of seemingly false accusations (accusing me of misinterpretation) with his reverts and deletions.

Furthermore, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation against him by another editor [25], where his other accounts and IPs displayed a similar editing habit - several quick additions and reversions with vague and often misleading summaries, then quickly switch to another IP the next day. In light of his prior record and lack of accountability by using a new IP everyday to revert, I reckon he is due for some sort of sanction.--LucasGeorge (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. It seems unlikely that a range block would be practical. EdJohnston (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Furry-friend (Result: No violation)

Page: Furry fandom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

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

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

Comments:

User:Beyond My Ken has a preferred heading, "social psychology studies", for a section in the furry fandom article. Despite edit-summaries explaining that "social psychology" is the wrong term to use, a talk-page discussion about why "studies" is an apt header for a certain section, and a recent talk page discussion that further explains why "social psychology" is the wrong term by appealing to the references themselves, BMK insisted that these are "non-consensus edits" but did not further discuss his apparent notion of what the consensus is. I responded to him that "no consensus" is not a valid reason to revert an edit if it's the only reason. He changed his reason to "POV edits, even though none of the edits push a POV or alter the POV of the article. I was willing to discuss these initial changes but BMK ignored the discussion and reverted them anyway. Now he's calling a different set of changes POV-pushing and it just seems like it's personal. Furry-friend (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems our furry friend has no idea what edit warring is. I suggest instead of trouting, custard is used. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring seems to be repeatedly reverting edits without discussion, as is the case here. What little discussion there was is specified. When it amounted to "no consensus" I was expecting discussion; there wasn't one. When it became accusations of "POV-pushing" it seems like things escalated beyond a civil edit dispute. Furry-friend (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi who seems to be friendly with BMK (2, 3) has reverted without specifying a reason in the edit summary and doesn't seem like he's going to discuss it. Furry-friend (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• No violation Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I have waited for his discussion replies for months, he seems to want to revert without discussion, and now User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi is simply reverting without even giving a reason in the edit summary. That's not "consensus". Now he's resorted to accusations of POV-pushing. I have reached out for discussion and waited, but BMK would rather revert and accuse me of not discussing and POV-pushing. Furry-friend (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Finally BMK has deigned to grace me with actual discussion, accusing me of POV-pushing edits like this one (removing "unreliable source" notice from a reliable source), this one (softening the wording of a claim that's based on a poor source), and this one (moving a sentence from the middle of a paragraph to the beginning of a paragraph). Furry-friend (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It appears that because my username is Furry-friend that all my edits are POV edits, and since Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi reverted my edits without a reason in the edit summary and without discussion, it's automatically the consensus... Furry-friend (talk) 13:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

He's resorting to personal attacks now and still refuses to discuss the issue. Furry-friend (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Note This is now at WP:ANI NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:105.154.146.90 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Semi)

Page: Idrisid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 105.154.146.90 (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. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Said IP has chosen NOT to use the talk page.

Comments:
I will be extremely generous and believe this IP is not the same person as this one or this one, both of whom have been edit warring on the Idrisid dynasty article as well as other "perceived" Berber articles. None of the IPs in question have chosen to use the talk page, as such it is unclear their issues(s) with the Idrisid dynasty. Is it the mention of Arab, or the Zaydi, or "Shia Islam in Morocco" categories at the bottom of the article? There have been comments from other editors these IPs may be a blocked user:JovanAndreano. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I am pretty confident that the IP hopper is Omar-toons' sockpuppet. An investigation has already been opened. M.Bitton (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Admin(s) should be aware this disruption has been carried over to List of wars involving Algeria, French Algeria, conquest of Melilla, Conquest of Ceuta, just to list a few. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean that it was carried on these articles by Jaume21, well known for his disruptive editing on Spanish wikipedia with the username Bokpasa. 41.249.151.6 (talk)

There is a sock case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bokpasa/Archive though the latest entry there is from 2012. I am not sure how we know that Bokpasa and Jaume21 are the same person. Jaume21 is recently active and is indef blocked on the French Wikipedia. Here is the SUL information for Jaume21. Do we think that Bokpasa and Omar-Toons are the same editor? EdJohnston

@EdJohnston: Everything about this IP hopper points to Omar-toons' disruptive behaviour pattern (the very thing that got him indefed). There is an open investigation here. M.Bitton (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@EdJohnston:: Bokpasa is the opposite of Omar-Toons. But User:Jaume21 and User:Joan Valls82 are almost certainly Bokpasa. I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation on them. If the above IPs are Omar-Toons, then it is certainly a case of his being drawn to save pages from Bokpasa's socks, which emerged a couple of months ago and have been running rampant through Moroccan history pages. Walrasiad (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected one year. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks EdJohnston, but as you know, this particular case of sock puppetry is not limited to a single article. What about the others ? M.Bitton (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:M.Bitton reported by User:105.154.146.90 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: List of wars involving Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see his talk page before blanking

105.154.146.90 (talk)

Comments:
105.154.146.90 which has already been reported by User:Kansas Bear is obviously Omar-toons' IP hopping sockpuppet[37]. M.Bitton (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a list of the other IPs (notice the same geolocation as 105.154.146.90) used on the above article to revert to the POV version of the blocked user Omar-toons:

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

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

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

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

M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Semi-protected one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:96.254.101.16 reported by User:Trut-h-urts man (Result: Semi)

Page: Jake McGee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 96.254.101.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42] (new IP, same editor)
5. [43]
6. [44]
7. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Comments: This anonymous user attempted to add the nickname "Uncle Jake McGee" to the page in March, abusing multiple IP addresses to continue an edit war. The user cites a questionable source that states the nickname, but no other sources or mentions can be found, and several editors assisted in reverting the anon due to unreliable sourcing and later WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The IPs were blocked and it appeared the user had given up. The user returned yesterday and re-added the nickname, and today posted childish insults to my talk page. I am aware that, strictly speaking, this editor has not violated 3RR yet (at the time of filing), however, given the extensive history and clear indication that the anon has no intention of stopping, they should be blocked as soon as possible. I have also filed for page protection. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The editor has now broken 3RR by using a new IP. I have added the diff to the report. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 23:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

...And another (diff #5), reverting my reversion of the same nonsense. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

One more... Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Again... Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 23:53, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Page semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:64.231.169.3 reported by User:2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313, (Result: )

Page: Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).
User being reported: 64.231.169.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

An IP Added incorrect and German airdates, and are not supposed to be there. On Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness (season 3), He added incorrect airdates for 2 episodes, and German airdates for 7 episodes. On List of Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness episodes and Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness, he changed the end date from June 29, 2016, the US end date, to January 7, 2015, the German end date. I then revert them, but then, he reverts it to the incorrect info every time. The airdates listed there should be the correct US airdates, not either incorrect, German, or other international airdates. Before this happened, the correct US airdates were listed. Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]
6. [52]
7. [53]

I have warned the user that he cannot put in international airdates in a US airdate field, but continues to revert it to German airdates. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

Comments:

Purpose BOOMERANG for filer. They're edit warring with me now. Major WP:OWN issues. Note that 72.193.84.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and the filer geolocate to Las Vegas, likely the same user. If so, some major edit warring occurring. See [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Update: It is the same user, and I already know that I don't own the page. All I am trying to do is keep the US airdates in the Original airdate box, and not replace it with German airdates, which is also causing lots of edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 4 July 2016

Who is the same user? You and the other IP? Or me and the IP you filed against? If the latter, you need strong evidence if you're gonna accuse me of socking. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

For note, nothing in WP:TVMOS precludes the use of international airdates. The filer is mistaken in thinking the airdates must be US ones EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

German airdates are usually placed in footnotes. Same thing with other international airdates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 4 July 2016

Please stop adding replies on the same line as EvergreenFir, make the reply on a new line and properly indent it, and use four tildes (~s) to add the signature and date. As for your reply: international airdates would only go in footnotes if they were not the original air dates. If they are the original air dates then they go in the OAD field. The only thing we should be arguing about is whether or not to have an AltDate column and whether first English (Canadian) or first country-of-origin (US) takes priority to inhabit it. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The filer, IP 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313, and IP 72.193.84.75 are the same user, and there is another IP editor too, like stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 (talk • contribs)

The problem here is that the US air dates for the later episodes are NOT the original air dates. OAD refers to the first televised broadcast per template:episode list#Parameters, not later televised broadcasts in the nation where the series was produced. The US dates are not even the first English broadcast, which is probably the next most notable dates. Those happened in Canada on YTV. I would also encourage this editor who reported me to properly sign ALL of their posts here and on my talk page. Using the special:diff function would also make for briefer link quotes. 64.231.169.3 (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Some additional background information for consideration:

• special:diff/722915579 and other edits of User talk:68.224.254.163 by 2600:8801:184:e600:8a63:dfff:fe96:6313 indicate admission of being that user.
• 17 September 2015 this user (as User:68.224.254.163) was blocked for a month for ban evasion by @Ohnoitsjamie:. On 18 September 2015 the request for unblock was denied by @Karl Dickman: for the user being another incarnation of User:68.108.23.15. On 29 July 2014, Mr. @Geraldo Perez: said this IP was a suspected sockpuppet of User:Es715. How deep does the rabbithole go? 64.231.169.3 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Anaxagoras13 reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Copa América Centenario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Anaxagoras13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [62]
2. [63]
3. [64]
4. [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66] Talk

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:This user has been blocked recently for his edit warring on 2015 Copa América and persists with the current and has no recollection of the warning I had issued to him. Proceeds to remove a sizable section of the article page with little explanation, perhaps highly controversial and made no effort to discuss these changes first on the talk page. Also initiated a preemptive edit warning on User:87.6.136.87 (only had one reversal) who had first noticed this content removal. Thank you kindly.

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Eugen Simion 14 reported by User:Pablothepenguin (Result: )

Page: Talk:Coverage of Google Street View (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]
5. [73]

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

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

Comments:
Won't respond to requests to solve dispute. Pablothepenguin (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:StAnselm reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StAnselm (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. [74]
2. [75]

The article is under 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]. User has been blocked previously for edit warring and disruptive editing [77].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:
The article is under 1RR restriction. StAnselm is fully aware of this (see warning above). They are claiming that this is some kind of egregious BLP violation so they get to edit war to their preferred version. This isn't the case. The text is actually well sourced with over a half a dozen sources provided on the talk page [79], [80]. Yes, in the article itself, the text only had one or two sources - but that's because it's silly to have the [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]...[111] kind of citing that makes articles look ridiculous. StAnselm knows this. So using BLP here is just an excuse it's just an attempt to WP:GAME Wikipedia rules.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: As I made clear in my edit summary and talk page comment, I was removing a BLP violation, and claiming a BLP exemption. The text in question said that Trump was "widely described as a right-wing populist". There were only two citations for this particular claim, and neither reference even used that phrase. As has been made clear by multiple other editors on the talk page, it is not enough to find a source saying he's right-wing" and another saying he's "populist" - an explicit source is needed. No reference had been given for this particular wording. As a poorly sourced contentious claim, I had to remove it on sight, and I don't really know why I've been reported here. StAnselm (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you're the only one on the article who thinks it's a BLP vio sort of suggests it isn't. And this has been pointed out to you and you decided to violate 1RR anyway.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all - I think you need to read the whole discussion. User:Doc9871, for example, said:

How on earth was this [9] even supposed to be accepted at face value as "sourced"? Edit summary: "the description itself is fine, although a more explicit source is better". A more "explicit" source? What kind of lazy garbage is this where you can insert a "description" that is unsupported by the source to hold the place for a more "descriptive" source that actually uses the phrase?!

I suggest you withdraw this report before it booomerangs. StAnselm (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

[81] "Speaking as an admin, I would reject the idea the BLP exemption applies to that revert". [82] "Considering that you have been blocked before for edit warring under a fallacious appeal of WP:BLP, do you really think it's a good idea for you to violate the 1RR imposed on this article?". [83] "StAnselm, for all your pontifications on my talk page, you just broke the rule you said I would break, and are thus eminently blockable. NeilN is quite correct that the BLP exemption doesn't apply here".

These are all comments addressed to you *before* you decided to go and break 1RR on purpose, in some kind of WP:POINT violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no - these comments were all made after I made my second revert. StAnselm (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• StAnselm should know from previous blocks and warnings that what counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. In practice, it should be invoked only for removing material that any reasonable person would deem as libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material. That criteria was not met in StAnselm's second revert. The material removed "right-wing populist" is a reasonable paraphrasing of the Washington Post source which states "His [Trump's] style is reminiscent of populist and fascist leaders " and in its headline states "Donald Trump may be showing us the future of right-wing politics". This is exactly the kind of gaming the system that brought the very Arbcom case from which the discretionary sanction came. - MrX 22:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And has been pointed out to you by multiple editors - and as I said before, I was surprised you didn't know this - right-wing + populist ≠ right-wing populist. So, no - it was not a reasonable paraphrase, as anyone actually familiar with the terminology would know. StAnselm (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And yes, I stand by the claim for a BLP exemption - any reasonable person would deem this as "poorly sourced contentious material". MrX, I think you are being unreasonable here. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you right-wing populism actually describes Trump's politics quite accurately. I suggest reading the article and reviewing some sources before concluding otherwise. In any case, 1RR means don't revert more than once. The conspicuous edit notice says You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article. If it really is a BLP violation someone else will revert it. You can also report it to one of the many notice boards at your disposal.- MrX 22:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One google search and about five minutes lead me to the following articles, all of which support the description of Mr. Trump as a "right-wing populist": [84], [85], [86], and notably [87] the third paragraph of which begins: "Mr Trump is a rightwing populist." Whatever one thinks of Mr. Trump, the argument that he is not described in this way seems hard to sustain. Thank you. Dumuzid (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

And it is disappointing that User:Volunteer Marek didn't bother to look for sources to support his claim. I'm not saying that Trump has not been described as a "right-wing populist" - I am saying that it is a contentious claim (especially with the phrase "widely described") and that such sources were not in the article (or even on the talk page), and so the claim was poorly sourced. StAnselm (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider self-reverting if enough sources were produced now? Dumuzid (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, if there was a reliable source saying he was "widely described" in this way. But the talk page discussion seems to be heading towards a consensus that he is "widely described" as "populist" but not as "right-wing populist". StAnselm (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Even if "right-wing populism" does describe Trump's policies, that would be irrelevant to our BLP policy. It is still a contentious claim, and it needs to be reliably sourced. For BLP policy, it is not good enough for the sources to simply exist. They need to be in the article, and the onus is clearly on the person adding (or wishing to add) the material. StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• More 2 cents: What I see is claiming BLP on the second revert but only asking for consensus in the first one. I don't think it became a BLP vio within a few hours.--TMCk (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

G12 Vision - removal of contentious material

Page: G12 Vision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HalcyonHaylon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Their only edits have been to this page.

Their edits have summaries such as "Removed opinionated, non-biased content that is not neutral." The material is acknowledged as contentious and has personal opinions, but it has been worked over by many editors over a long time. The removed section "Concerns" counterbalances the positive other sections. People's personal experiences are relevant in this page.

They also removed a whole section that had the embedded comment:

   NOTE: Just because you might disagree with this section doesn't mean you can delete legitimate text, discussion and references.
   Unsupported changes to this section *will be reverted*.

I have reverted their changes twice:

• [88]
• [89]

My edits have included this note.

Another editor posted a message on their talk page, but is was rebuffed. I have posted a "Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion" on their talk page.

What should I do to help ensure this page's "Concerns" section is kept?

Thank you for your help. peterl (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:JordanianExpert reported by User:Makeandtoss (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [90]
2. [91]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [92]

Comments:

Violation of 1RR by an account that is not even permitted to edit on this article, WP:ARBPIA3. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am glad this report happened so I could raise the following issues, I call on the board of editors to look into the editing history by Makeandtoss on Mudar Zahran page, 1-He has deleted a huge chunk of the original article multiple times despite it had several reliable sources, this could be easily found if you go further through the edit history of the page. Of course the parts he edited several times without any proper reason or cause were pro-Zahran. 2-He has entered negative information against Zahran using non-reliable sources, such as Ammonnews which is a known pro-Jordan's regime's site, and on top, the Arabtimes.com, the most read in US, has described that site as run by a Jordanian intelligence collonel, he also used three unknown, least read, Jordanian sites to support his edit, a huge violation of Wikiepdia's rules. 3-When one of the editors/users tried to even state that Ammonnews was unreliable, Makeandtoss deleted the entire comment and kept what he wanted, the version he likes that is. 4-In one part in the edit history, Makeandtoss describes reliable Israeli media as Zionist/Israeli propaganda. This exhbits bias. 5-If you read the edit history well, you will see he has used unreliable and unknown Jordanian sites to describe Mudar Zahran as an Israeli mossad agent, something that could have ended up causing physical harm to Zahran, and above all, is pure trashing of the biography of a living person and is against the guidelines of wikipedia rules. 6-I call on all of you to view the entire edit history, Makeandtoss does break the rules. Thanks ---- JordanianExpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanianExpert (talk • contribs) 23:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Arab Times (US) once claimed that King Abdullah II of Jordan is a serial killer. Here's the article, anyone interested can enjoy the style of the website and the amusing content. So if you consider "Arab Times" "reliable", then I am sorry to inform you that no one is going to take you seriously.@JordanianExpert: Makeandtoss (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Electra1234 reported by User:Dane2007 (Result: No violation)

Page: Amber Doig-Thorne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Electra1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14:43, July 4, 2016]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [14:43, July 4, 2016]
2. [16:54, July 4, 2016]
3. [July 4, 2016‎]
4. [18:10, July 4, 2016]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18:12, July 4, 2016]

User is removing image that is relevant to the subject of the article. I have attempted to engage user via their talk page, warnings and I opened a discussion on the articles talk page to maintain integrity of the article. Dane2007 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[93]]

Comments:

Attempted resolving several times; user continued edit warring and did not engage on talk page.

• No violation Removal of copyright violations is specifically exempt under 3RR. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Lorisuzanne33 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: )

Page

Noel Neill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Lorisuzanne33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
2. 23:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
3. 23:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death info"
4. 23:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Added death date"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Noel Neill. (TW)"
2. 23:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Noel Neill. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
2. 23:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"
3. 23:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC) "/* Death */ resp"

Comments:

Continual edit warring regardless of warnings and discussion on article talk page. No edit summaries used, no communication by user on article talk page. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope so hard that this WP:BOOMERANGs back at you. You have been edit warring with multiple editors on this article removing every single reference to the subject's death. EW is a reliable source: you removed it and claimed it wasn't. The Hollywood Reporter is reliable: you removed it and claimed it wasn't. Yahoo news? Same. New York Daily News? Same. And every time you had the audacity to warn others about edit warring. Helper214 (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• The page is protected; are more sanctions needed? —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Reverting back to status quo was done appropriate and per BLP policy. Nothing from a major news source has been reported on her alleged death, only mirror sites and online gossip sites have made mention of it. The "news" of this has been out there for over 24 hours, yet no major news source has reported it? That alone makes it dubious. There have been hoax reports of her death before, the most recent being in October 2015. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Really?

• The Hollywood Reporter - Actress Noel Neill, the First Lois Lane of the Screen, Dies at 95
• Deadline.com - Noel Neill Dies: Lois Lane Of TV’s ‘Adventures Of Superman’ Was 95
• Entertainment Weekly - Noel Neill, Superman's first onscreen Lois Lane, dies at 95
• The Republican (Springfield, Massachusetts) - Noel Neill, film's first Lois Lane, dead at 95
• Digital Spy - Superman star Noel Neill, the first screen Lois Lane, dies aged 95

But no major news source, huh? Helper214 (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)