Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359
360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369
Incidents (archives, search)
1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170
1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339
340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Photomenal reported by User:AlphaBetaGamma (Result: Blocked one week)

User being reported: Photomenal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "Continuous disruptions by this user. Most likely a sockpuppet of a previous user who was banned and who made very similar disruptive edits."
15:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "The Shammar mountains are a very large geographic part of Najd. Meanwhile Diriyah has only had historical relevance in the past 300 years and there are 1000 of such Najdi villages. Thus the photo is more representative and more neutral. Ahadith have no place here and have never had that."
11:35, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "No relevance to this article at all. No other region has any ahadith attached to it. For good reason."
18:54, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Return to previous version. The hadith in question is weak and has no relevance to an article about Najd. Geogrpahical feature more representative."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

10:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Najd "/* Removal of the Hadith section */ new topic"

Comments:

I'm not happy with how the user being reported is assuming bad faith and accusing Abo Yemen of socking. Obvious attempt to avoid 3RR violations by reverting a bit late. The notice at the top of this noticeboard boldly states "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."

This has escalated into a ANI report at WP:ANI#Photomenal calling my edits disruptive and throwing out false accusations, and the talk page discussion is literally going nowhere close to resolving the dispute. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that the edit warring template is a bit out of place, but the user has been made aware of 3RR in 2023, so they should have the 3RR thing in mind already. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Nicely presented report. Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indef them. Ever since they joined Wikipedia in 2018, they barely had any constructive edits. The project can survive without them 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodthirstiness is not a good look.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry😔 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thedayandthetime reported by User:Lil-unique1 (Result: Not blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned between 5-9th Jan about a similar issue, different article, user blanked the talkpage, Warned on 13 Jan, Blanked 3 days later about a similar issue, different topic, warned 25th Feb about this discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [2]

Comments:
So I haven't been directly involved as such in this edit war, however Thedayandthetime is clearly not here to be constructive. There is no evidence of following WP:BRD and their editing constitutes WP:EDITWARING, breaches of WP:3RR and a lack of engagement. There's no evidence of trying to start a discussion to gain a consensus except a single message stating their POV on the article talkpage. The user was involved in a similar edit war at Cowboy Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Their edits also demonstrate they do not understand WP:AFFILIATE either as they're insisting on commercial links to source track listings. The volume of edits to the article topics discussed is unacceptable even if they are right in what they are trying to say or promote (I haven't checked and I don't care enough at this point). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil-unique1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lil-unique1, thanks for the report. The user has edit warred with a sockpuppeteer and removed disputed material about living persons that was re-added in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE. You may be right about the issues identified with Thedayandthetime's behavior, and Thedayandthetime may have to change their approach to such situations, but I can't really take action against them at this time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thedayandthetime (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ItalianHistorian25 reported by User:50.221.225.231 (Result: Page protected)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

As shown at [12], I made a sequence of small improvements to the article. I made sure to break it into chunks and carefully label each such improvement with an explanation.

ItalianHistorian25 mass reverted all of these improvements, at first with no explanation, then falsely accusing me ([13]) of "removing references to historical facts". This is a lie. I did no such thing. The above diffs show this. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected for one week. Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: And the block for ItalianHistorian25 mass-reverting improvements without explanation and breaking WP:3RR? 50.221.225.231 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I chose not to block either of you for edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Progress and on reported by User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Partially blocked for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User being reported: Progress and on (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC) "Will the user Opolito desist accusing of original research and reverting factual edits with solid factual references are given. His acts can only be regarded as vandalism. A 'source that *directly* says what I want the article to say' was given, in fact many. That is that the Mersey Railway is the 2nd oldest underground urban railway dating from 1886."
21:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC) "inderted new ref"
20:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC) "Glasgow and District has no 100% underground stations, just a long tunnel with stations at the ends. Stations are open to atmosphere - but could be classed as an underground railway. Wikipedia is about FACTS. Facts are the Mersey Railway is the 2nd oldest underground urban railway in the world dating from 1886, making the Subway the 4th oldest. That is abundantly clear. Refs are given. Look it up, it is factual. You appear to be pedaling misinformation."
19:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC) "inserted factual historicals."
14:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC) "corrected historical fact with ref"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Glasgow Subway."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to insert the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR into the article, including failed referencing (why?—they don't like their subway being one below Liverpool's?!) and arguing with Users Opolito, John, Danners430, and also , 331dot on their talk, making 4 reverts in 24 hours, 5 in 36. This is not counting their overall bad faith/IDHT approach to editing: accusations that other editors have an agenda, one has "has made an idiot of himself" while another is "taking the mick like the other one", and also taking the mickey, that other editors have "screwed up" or are awkward".

Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? What upsets you? Progress and on (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: WP:BATTLEGROUND for info. Cheers, Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 19:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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:AmaryahJohnson1996 reported by User:Musashi1600 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1277456444

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Request by User:RickyCourtney for an explanation of reverts, unanswered as of this writing: Special:Diff/1277533725

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1277560859

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but three reverts in less than two hours is clearly edit warring. Initial explanation provided with the first revert was "He's an irrelevant change fleet list just separate passengers and cargo in the plane.", which doesn't make any sense. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was posted the editor made a fourth revert to the page: Special:Diff/1277572097. I have attempted to engage the editor on their talk page to better understand their concerns and warn them that they were approaching the 3RR limit, however the response was incoherent. RickyCourtney (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.74.140.68 reported by User:Chrisahn (Result:)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1277446269; Special:Diff/1277452428

Diffs of the user's reverts, first page:

Diffs of the user's reverts, second page:

Special:Diff/1277782841

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1277766831

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The IP has received several warnings in the past but never responded. I think my edit comments were clear enough, but the IP apparently ignores them as well.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1277782483

Comments:

The IP has received several warnings (previously for disruption and vandalism, now for edit warring) but never responded. I think my edit comments were clear enough, but the IP apparently ignores them as well.

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, but I think this is a case for WP:IAR. Or rather: We shouldn't apply the rules too diligently. It's an IP that received several warnings on its talk page and never responded. If the IP does the same edit on List of United States over-the-air television networks again in a day or two, it should be blocked. Anything else would be waste of our time. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go. The IP reverted again, and now also started an edit-war on another page. Can we PLEASE just stop this and block the IP? Sure, it's technically not 3RR, but what else can we do? Post yet another warning on the IP's talk page? That's a waste of time. Why do I have to spend so much time just to stop this obviously disruptive IP? — Chrisahn (talk) 14:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:BauhausFan89 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Partially blocked 1 month)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

I started a discussion at Talk:Germans#Language_and_diaspora in which another user and myself both opposed BauhausFan89's addition of the map (as well as other additions by them). They were edit warring before at

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Discussion started on talk page by me, Talk:Culture_of_Germany#Pictures_of_the_article, ending in a warning by me for edit warring, Special:Diff/1271311955, warning on user's talk page: Special:Diff/1273851375

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1277790079

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but slow edit warring on at least two pages. Please note that they have been warned recently by another user for edit warring (Special:Diff/1275518787) and that three different users (one of them myself) have warned them for marking edits as "minor" on their user's page. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had really hoped this would stop... but it's been going on since at least July of last year on the Telecomm article alone. It took a firmly worded notif to get them to take the issue to the talk page, after repeatedly ignoring input from several other users to do so.--Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 20:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked – for a period of 1 month ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A02:587:CC21:8C00:A518:FB8D:F504:3C59 reported by User:Iseult (Result: )

User being reported: 2A02:587:CC21:8C00:A518:FB8D:F504:3C59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
07:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
07:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
07:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
07:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
07:00, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "born 23 January 1951"
Consecutive edits made from 06:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC) to 06:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
1. 06:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 06:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""
06:02, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "born 23 January 1951 oxi 4 November 1951"
05:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Alexis Kougias."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

07:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Birthdate */ new section"

Comments:

Appears to be range; see User:2A02:587:CC21:8C00:43AE:4E7:13E9:FA33 for same edit after 3RR warning. Iseult^Δxtalk to me 07:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also reported at wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#Report concerning 2a02:587:cc21:8c00:a518:fb8d:f504:3c59.

I am an involved admin. Peaceray (talk) 07:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Inikaka reported by User:Belbury (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely)

User being reported: Inikaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

08:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Removing content that is based on wrong advertisements by few people and is hurting the feelings of thousands of practitioners. Sahajayoga is scientifically backed and is practised in more than140 countries."
08:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Removing content that is based on wrong advertisements by few people and is hurting the feelings of thousands of practitioners. Sahajayoga is scientifically backed and is practised in more than140 countries."
08:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "removed unauthentic information that has hurt feelings of many believer"
10:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Sahaja Yoga is not a religion. Its a meditation techniques practiced in more than 140 countries. Please stop spreading nuisance without proper knowledge. Here are some of the authentic resources from different countries giving the details. 1) [14]https://us.sahajayoga.org/ 2) [15]https://www.sahajayoga.com.au/ 3) [16]https://www.sahajay"
10:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1277724300 by Bon courage (talk)"
09:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Sahaja Yoga is not a religion. Its a meditation techniques practiced in more than 140 countries. Please stop spreading nuisance without proper knowledge. Here are some of the authentic resources from different countries giving the details. 1) [17]https://us.sahajayoga.org/ 2) [18]https://www.sahajayoga.com.au/ 3) [19]https://www.sahajay"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

10:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sahaja Yoga."
09:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Sahaja Yoga."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Four edits changing "religion" or "religious movement" to "meditation technique" in the first sentence, two blanking a lead sentence (supported in the body by sources, and discussed at length on talk) about some characterising the group as a cult. The user was warned for edit warring the same issues last November.

Since joining Wikipedia last year, 24 of their 26 edits have been edit warring or otherwise disrupting Sahaja Yoga content. Belbury (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards