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:190.173.142.241 reported by User:Moosehadley (Result: Blocked)

Page

User talk:190.173.142.241 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 03:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC) to 03:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */ new section"
   3. 03:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */ new section"
2. 03:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC) to 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Contested deletion */ new section"
   2. 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 03:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC) to 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 03:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */ new section"
   2. 03:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* HIV/AIDS IS A FRAUD */"
   3. 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 190.173.142.241 (talk): unexplained speedy deletion template removal (HG) (3.4.6)"
2. 03:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 190.173.142.241 (talk): unexplained speedy deletion template removal (HG) (3.4.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – Special:Contributions/190.173.128.0/17 blocked 1 month by User:Ian.thomson. See the block log of the range as well as User talk:190.173.240.80 for background. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Reza karimian767 reported by User:Jimi Henderson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Millie Bobby Brown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reza karimian767 (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. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:
--Jimi Henderson (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:22, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

User:109.93.252.56 reported by User:Ammarpad (Result: Blocked)

Page

Nigerian Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Today */ I reserached further, many strange things comes from Nigeria cos of /war, elections, political situacion/ all should be taken with reserve cos of personal/group povs etc. As I wrote before it is not news reporting website it is Wikipedia article."
2. 18:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "Added History and Today section, Critisism source moved under today section cos it is not news reporting article, it is Wikipedia article."
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC) to 17:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 17:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "Explained in my previous edits. Not here to push personal pov articles and reporting and collecting news this is wikipedia article not some news portal."
   2. 17:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "History and Today /present day/ subsections"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "+note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Criticisms Section */ re"

Comments:

Using this IP and Special:Contributions/109.92.9.66, they're repeatedly removing or attempting to obscure valid criticism, reported by NYT, CNN, BBC and all mainstream Nigerian papers. They neither respond to note on their talkpage nor on the article's talkpage –Ammarpad (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Colonestarrice reported by User:DrKay (Result: )

Page: George III of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Colonestarrice (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] undoing insertion of words "the United Kingdom of" between "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland"[6][7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9][10][11]

Comments:
How is that a revert? I did not reinstate anything from my previous version. On the contrary, I appreciated that @Surtsicna: understood the issue and tried to find a compromise and I participated in the search for a compromise. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Already explained above. DrKay (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"Undoing insertion of words" is a very creative alternative for removed, and removing and adding things constitute the normal process of editing, which is not really the same as undoing. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor inserted some words. You removed them. That removal is a revert. See Help:Reverting. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

"An editor inserted some words. You removed them." – actually I didn't. Surtsicna's revision stated: "King of (the United Kingdom of) Great Britain and Ireland". I changed this to: "King of Great Britain and Ireland / King of the United Kingdom". So regardless of the fact that I did not revert Surtsicna's version to any previous one, I didn't remove United Kingdom nor King of nor Great Britain and Ireland either, I just changed their order and the formatting. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor inserted the words "the United Kingdom of" between the words "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland". You removed them. That is a revert whether you simultaneous perform another edit or not. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. WP:3RR policy explains further. CBS527^Talk 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Hyjukilo reported by User:Tsumikiria (Result: 31h)

Page

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876930226 by Tsumikiria (talk) Consensus? You are but one person. I fully understand your point of view, but if you read the article, as well as other statements made by Alexandria, she makes it very clear that the ancestry is extremely remote, which should be Wikipedias job to clarify"
2. 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876929139 by Tsumikiria (talk) Everything said is clear from the source, Alexandria has said their her ancestry is extremely remote, from 500 years ago"
3. 12:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ Regarding the last edit: I agree it was a bad phrasing. Alexandria, as she herself said, has no recent Sephardic ancestry, neither culturally, religiously or ethnically. The current version puts her on the same level as those with recent ancestry or a ethnically crypto-Jewish background. She is not more Jewish than other Puerto Ricans. All she has done is some regular geneology and this should be emphasized"
4. 22:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ See article. Most Latinos have more than one Sephardic ancestor."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Caution: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"
2. 12:50, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "/* "extremely remote" ancestry */ new section"

Comments:

Tsumikiria (T/C) 13:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I will update the page with accordance to her own statements Hyjukilo (talk) 13:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Fairly clear 4R. Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:CultureArchitect reported by User:CaradhrasAiguo (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876813277 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) Again, you have removed relevant references citing several independent sources. The edit comments provided were factually incorrect referencing WP:SPAM and stating that all the sources actually link back to a single report (while they are independent investigations). Please stick to WP:V"
2. 17:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) to last revision by CultureArchitect. (TW)"
3. 02:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC) "/* Chinese internment camps */ Actually it's according to many reports backed by many independent news sources backed by satellite imagery of the interment camps which are too big to hide..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"

Comments:

This is not the first time the user has been abusing Twinkle to revert editors (more established than himself/herself): [12], [13]

User:Mrspaceowl reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: 72h)

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

Previous version reverted to: 12:10, 5 January 2019

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:01, 5 January 2019
2. 14:12, 5 January 2019
3. 14:16, 5 January 2019
4. 14:22, 5 January 2019
5. 14:28, 5 January 2019
6. 14:44, 5 January 2019 (is a revert of this edit)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:15, 5 January 2019
2. 14:20, 5 January 2019

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User ignoring WP:BRD and legitimate objections of two other users to repeatedly insert the same text, while accusing those same users of "tyranny", apparently in a crusade to right great wrongs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72 hours, I suspect if this continues the next one might be permanent. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Wolfman12405 reported by User:MShabazz (Result: Blocked for a month)

Page: Palestinians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wolfman12405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:41, 4 January

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 7:45, 5 January
2. 11:27, 5 January

Note: Per WP:AIPIA, the article is subject to a 1RR restriction.

Edit warring has continued since I warned the editor and notified him about this report.

1. 17:06
2. 17:35

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• When I notified the editor that he had violated 1RR, he called me a hypocrite crybaby. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
• (Comment) The user previously warred to insert "violent Hamas terrorists" onto Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and tried to make the article imply that the subject endorses the organization. He also restored another POV warrior's content on the same article. I don't think this user is here to improve this project, at least not on ARBPIA and AP2 topics. They're here to launch personal justice. An indef would certainly save everyone else's time than two topic bans, per a quote I assume y'all remember. Tsumikiria (T/C) 16:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

1) u r a crybaby hypocrite, just look at how u act, and when people do the same u revert their edits and run to cry over it to the officials.

2) I NEVER warred about hamas - who are a violent terrorist group, now that u mention it - in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's page, that's a lie! All I did was add that she admitted to have no knowledge about the Israeli-arab conflict. Shame upon urself. #liar!--Wolfman12405 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• In light of the editor's comments and his continued edit-warring, after I warned him and notified him about this report, I believe a long block or perhaps a topic ban may be appropriate. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case.

• Ist revert 11:27, 5 January 2019‎
• 2nd revert 17:06, 5 January 2019‎
• 3rd revert 17:35, 5 January 2019‎

• 18:03, 5 January 2019‎ warned of IR infraction and asked to self revert

• 20:10, 5 January 2019‎ refuses to do so.

• 17:05, 5 January 2019‎ Regardless of ur envy &/ hatred towards the Jews for returning here.’ Gross WP:AGF violation in suggesting that, in disagreeing with his edit, I am an antisemite.Nishidani (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked for a month. I nearly pressed "indefinite" here, mainly for the abuse of other editors, but if another block is necessary if will almost certainly end there. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Chrismccown reported by User:RolandR (Result:Blocked )

Page

Clan Ewing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876955663 by Calton (talk) Please use talk page before reverting. You are reverting other contributions not related to sourcing as well."
2. 16:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876955663 by RolandR (talk) Your reverts violate Wikipedia edit warring rules."
3. 16:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876952793 by Ebyabe (talk) No reason to revert"
4. 15:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876941807 by Wikaviani (talk) The book is not partisan. Nothing controversial is in the posted content. Please share your views on talk page."
5. 13:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876886878 by Bidgee (talk) Sourcing is valid"
6. 03:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876876564 by Wikaviani (talk) Stop reverting, you are violating WP policey in an edit war"
7. 01:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876872435 by CorbieVreccan (talk) The sources are valid and not COI"
8. 01:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "the article is sourced"
9. 00:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876862563 by CorbieVreccan (talk) Everything is sourced. The Ewing crest badge is too old to have copywright protection. . Please stop trolling my edits."
10. Consecutive edits made from 23:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC) to 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
    1. 23:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 876844156 by CorbieVreccan (talk) There is no claim of Norse origins in here."
    2. 23:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is targeted harrasment of all User:Chrismccown contributions: Please see full conversation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Determined_SPA_with_declared_COI Chrismccown (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect (as I've said before!), I think the right way to look at this is that the other conversation you linked to was an attempt to avoid this filing. However, you don't seem to be taking on board what pretty much everyone else is saying, so this became unavoidable. I'd suggest a deep breath and a bit of listening before going forward, in whatever manner you choose. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

As I've said before, I look forward to a review of what's going on here.Chrismccown (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Flyte35 reported by User:Surtsicna (Result: )

Page: Lady Jane Grey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Flyte35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]
6. [21]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:
Flyte35 has been simultaneously edit warring at William IV of the United Kingdom. Surtsicna (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User: Leitmotiv reported by User:Basilosauridae (Result: )

Page: Pikmin 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leitmotiv (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] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877126739
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877141828
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877144909
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pikmin_2#Underground_Cave

Comments:
Continual edit warring from Leitmotiv. Has been told multiple times over multiple months to reach consensus and not just reassert their edit. This reporting template is a little confusing, sorry if there are any errors. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm within the 3RR. Also a reminder to Basilosauridae, that not following his own advice and blind reverting is also edit warring. I can't edit war with myself. You are also an implied party. The difference between my edits and yours, is that I supplied new evidence for my new edits (which was a suggestion from the previous thread last year), which you seem to summarily disregard. I'm simply following Wikipedia's WP:BOLD policy, for which there does not need to be a consensus previously reached. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You didn't provide new evidence. Saying you reviewed it is not presenting evidence. Your WP:BOLD argument has already been addressed on the talk page. If you think you have evidence to support your edit, present it on the talk page for evaluation. You know that there is a talk page discussion where multiple people objected to your edit, but you are choosing to ignore that discussion and make your edit. This is edit warring. Your edit was made three times despite reverts and requests to discuss on talk page, to my understanding that violates 3RR. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I did. Clearly you didn't see it in the talk page and not doing your due diligence that you require of me. Can't have it one way sir. As for my bold argument, I won that one by the way, so it was addressed in my favor since no one had a rebuttal nor provided any new insight to Wikipedia's own policies. The only one ignoring anything, appears to be you. This latest comment by you is evidence of that suggesting I should post evidence in the talk page, when I have already done so. Ouch... you're failing hard. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Per Bradv's own comments "be bold, revert, discuss" is exactly what I did, and you did not. You are the implied edit warring person here that goes beyond my edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to direct me to where those things happened, because I don't see where any of that occurred and view your statements here as a misrepresentation of events. In the absence of that, I will wait for admin to evaluate and respond. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are unwilling to read my comment on my own supplied evidence, clearly you are not up to the task of reviewing anything I supply. I've read the entire discussion prior to my edits, and you should have as well. You've pretty much disregarded everything and flushed the due diligence required of you. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with asking you to summarize your evidence or at least point out to me where it is. Not sure why this is egregious to you. If you think you're right, provide the evidence. Saying you reviewed something and have reached the conclusion that it is how you say it is isn't evidence. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

It's egregrious because you require that of me, but you can't bring yourself to do it. I've supplied exactly what you've demanded and you continue to blind revert. Read the article in question's talk page and you'll finally be up to speed. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

lol ok. This isn’t how a discussion works. I have read the page and don’t see anything that constitutes as your evidence. I won’t engage with you further as you have expressed an unwillingness to have a constructive discussion. Will wait for admin comment. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

You're only laughing at yourself. Also for the admin involved, here is the evidence I supplied in the talk page. This is not intended to help Basilosauridae, but the admin reviewing this case. Basilosauridae should have identified this long ago. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

as you can see, nobody agreed that what you are referring to was a valid reason to make your edit, so you’re just providing proof that you are edit warring without reaching consensus. I thought you meant new, undisputed evidence. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to reach consensus for new evidence (and yes I'm claiming new, undisputed evidence as contrasted with Tantamount's original revert - are you sure you're reading the talk page? Certainly not responding to it). I'm acting on Bold policies as stated before. You are going in circles now. The only person not discussing in the talk page is you, which you clearly have demonstrated an interest in doing so, but have refrained from. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

you don’t have new evidence, you linked to evidence that was already discussed and disregarded by everyone else in the discussion as an invalid reason. I’m clearly on the talk page then and on the talk page now, I don’t think misrepresenting events that are clearly viewable by everyone here will help you in any way. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No one supplied evidence like I did in the original conversation last year - but I have done it today. And you claiming you are a part of a new discussion, regarding new evidence, is a bold faced lie. The last time you talked in there regarding the actual dispute was half a year ago. You're not actively following your own advice today. Posting about edit warring is not participation in the discussion at hand, no matter what delusions you want to believe. You're the one misrepresenting your current participation on the matter. All you've done is blind revert and discuss edit warring. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I never claimed I was in a new discussion about new evidence; I am in a new discussion requesting you to present your "new" evidence, which you have not done. You have just rehashed old, already disputed evidence. The conversation took place half a year ago, so your critique on that is invalid; your actions today resurrected that discussion. I asked you to discuss today's edit on the talk page. Burden is on you to post your "new" evidence on the talk page, as you are aware that editors don't agree with your edit. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh it was implied. Don't fool yourself. Discussions are on talk pages, not in blind reverts by yourself. You haven't been actively participating per your own advice. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:HMITFilms reported by User:TedEdwards (Result: )

Page

Ninth Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877147758 by DonQuixote (talk)"
2. 21:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877147424 by TedEdwards (talk) (In 'Rose' he enters the TARDIS and exits in another location, meaning by all definition he travelled with the Doctor)"
3. 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877146606 by TedEdwards (talk) (The official wikipedia page for a companion states "the term "companion" refers to a character who travels with, or shares the adventures of the Doctor." Mickey smith travels with the Doctor in "Rose".)"
4. 21:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877144629 by DonQuixote (talk)"
5. 21:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877130039 by TedEdwards (talk) (Is commonly accepted as a companion for 9. Also is the second person to travel in the TARDIS in the revival series)"
6. 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced content to the page. --TedEdwards 22:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Found another revert on same page. Also DonQuixote has warned the user for adding unsourced content three times today on User talk:HMITFilms. --TedEdwards 22:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Edit war seems to be continuing, with revert by HMITFilms at 22:08 --TedEdwards 22:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Resnjari reported by User:Khirurg (Result: )

Page

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877146646 by Alexikoua (talk) no its not. The article only notes that Armenian was used by an educated class. Nothing about the frontier districts. So its not mentioned in the article. Please don't remove sourced material on a wp:idontlikeit basis. Thank you. Make use of the talkpage as well if there is something of an issue."
2. 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "precise. Harris notes Armenian and Slavic languages was being widely spoken, i.e in frontier districts. This is an important piece of information."
3. 01:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "ok fixed issues with the previous sentence and placed the correct page number. Made article sentence conform properly to convey the source. I placed an extra weblink within the ref to the scholarly source as its accessible, so i thought no quote would be needed. Can place one though."
4. 01:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877016670 by Khirurg (talk) no consensus for removal. Take to talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Breached 3RR before I became aware of it.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has re-instated the text " the Armenian and various Slavic languages were widely spoken, in particular within border districts" 4 times in the last 24 hours. In addition to a brightline 3RR violation, it's also a WP:CLOP violation. Khirurg (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Did you warn/remind Resnjari before reporting him? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Ktrimi991 is tagteaming with Resnjari edit-warring to restore a clear WP:CLOP violation to a featured article. I think he should be blocked as well. Please note also both Resnjari and Ktrimi991 are frequent edit-warriors and have been reported and warned at this noticeboard multiple times. In this case, edit-warring to restore CLOP in the article is a new low. By the way, CLOP is still in the article, after Ktrimi991 edit-warred it twice. Dr. K. 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)