Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:Deathlock97 reported by User:Lemonademan22 (Result: Stale)

Page: Latino World Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Deathlock97 (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 ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:
Has been warned on his talk page previously. We don't do part-time members on articles yet has ignored the warning and decided to keep adding it anyway. Voilation of 3RR. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Stale and the user has not violated 3RR. Bbb23 (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  There's three edits there. Looks to me as if the user has. Lemonademan22 (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Lemonademan22: WP:3RR is more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. The diffs above are from January 19 to February 18, and two of them are consecutive edits; Per WP:3RR A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This content dispute would be something to discuss on the article's talk page instead of reverting each other back and forth. - Aoidh (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's an accepted consensus voted on by the members of the Wikiproject Professional Wrestling that we do not include "Part-time members" plus it's all unsourced anyway.

  I doubt a talk page consensus would do anything considering the user did not reply to the talk page warning and isn't engaging outside the edits themeselves. Lemonademan22 (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  You'll still need to actually point to the discussion that shows there is a consensus (and a WP:VOTE is not the same as a WP:CONSENSUS), and engage in talk page discussion to avoid being blocked yourself for edit warring. Doubting that a talk page discussion will be effective is not an excuse to engage in repeated reverting of edits in lieu of such a discussion. Per WP:EW, An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. - Aoidh (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  Here. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 112#"Associates" in stable/faction articles (also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Archive 112#Part-time members). Also, where do I go from here? Do I direct the discussion to the appropriate talk page? Lemonademan22 (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

  I have responded to this at my talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  I'd just like to add that the user violating 3RR doesn't really matter. They're still edit warring, even if it's in slow motion. They've continued after I placed a warning on their talk page, and they have not communicated at all. Consequently I don't see them stopping, which is why a block (or P-block) might be necessary. — Czello ^(music) 12:12, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• I've blocked both User:Deathlock97 and User:Lemonademan22 for 24 hours for their continued edit warring on the article Latino World Order after this report was marked as stale. Both are engaging in a slow-moving edit war and Lemonademan22's comment that Your edits will keep being reverted in lieu of any attempt at discussion contributed to their being blocked alongside Deathlock97. - Aoidh (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Leaky.Solar reported by User:Dorian Gray Wild (Result: No violation)

Page: Kidnapping of the Bibas family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leaky.Solar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1276954601

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Leaky.Solar's 1RR: "Readded 2/18 announcement the yarden bibas section above mentions the announcement of his expected release as well" is not an explanation. Yarden Bibas was not the subject at this section, but his killed children.
2. My explained objection: "WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTOPINION, Hamas is considered as a terror organization by Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, as well as the European Union".
3. Leaky.Solar's original editing.

The article belongs to the ARBPIA. A general warning has already been written on its talk page.

an3-notice.

• This is very poorly presented. Based on the diffs above, though, it looks like Leaky added the material today at 17:02, was reverted by the filer at 18:08, and Leaky reverted at 19:25. In that sequence, Leaky never violated 1RR as they reverted only once.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Dorian Gray Wild, please let me know if I made a mistake in the above analysis; otherwise, I will be closing this as "no violation".--Bbb23 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• In the He WP, an edit warring is forbidden even once. I tag User:The Mountain of Eden. They will decide if they leave it, or revert the undoing of Leaky and return here if Leaky persists. _Dgw|Talk 23:26, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

No violation per Bbb23 above. Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Bo12121 reported by User:Paramandyr (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Sabancı family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bo12121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am unsure of Bo12121's motives or issues with the information.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

User:Bo12121 has been edit warring on Sabancı family and Hacı Ömer Sabancı. I suspect they are logging out[15] to edit-war as well. --Kansas Bear 21:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Justegypt reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Tutankhamun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "I am trying to work with the rest of the editors and discuss the reason for removing my edit, but no one is answering. I want to clarify that this is not an edit war. This is not a difference in the accuracy of the information. This is the removal of an editor’s edit for no reason."
2. 02:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "This edit took me several hours, and it is simply removed over and over again without explaining any reasons, and no one sends me a message on the talk page, and then I am warned that I am in a edit war! This is a disgusting society. I'm really tired of it"
3. 01:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "adults? Are you kidding?"
4. 01:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "Sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia have been removed"
5. 01:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "I noticed that you removed my edit even after adding many “reliable” scientific and historical sources that tell the story of Abd al-Rasul, in addition to some news articles that convey his story. I made a note that this is a “different story.” Failure to appreciate my edit and my effort is unacceptable. I wait for you in the talk page, and until then I will re my edit."
6. 00:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "Several modifications were made (it took hours of effort to search and check the sources). I added the story of Hussein Abdel Rasoul. If you have an objection, you can discuss it on the talk page."
7. Consecutive edits made from 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC) to 21:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
   1. 20:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Adding information about the main image of Tutankhamun in the article"
   2. 21:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "I have added more information about the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb and sources will be added immediately"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "/* February 2025 */ cmt"
2. 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "/* February 2025 */ cmt"
3. 00:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by FlightTime (talk)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

User:Reliable solves reported by User:Garudam (Result: No action)

Page: List of wars involving Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1276954127 by DACartman (talk)"
2. 19:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1276953541 by DACartman (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC) to 19:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1276816540 by Shubhsamant09 (talk)"
   2. 19:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1272990321 by Borgenland (talk)"
   3. 19:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia!"
2. 20:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "/* Introduction to contentious topics */ new section"
3. 20:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on List of wars involving Bangladesh."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Should be indef'd for mass generic changes without opting consensus driven approach. – Garuda ^Talk! 14:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

• Hasn't gone over 3RR, and hasn't been warned of 3RR. Minor edit war happened yesterday, and hasn't restarted today, so getting stale. Decline to take action. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

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

Page: Najd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:

1. 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."
2. 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."
3. 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."
4. 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:

1. 10:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 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)

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)

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

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)

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