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)
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371
Incidents (archives, search)
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492	493	494
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User: Sinclairian reported by User:Skitash (Result: Both blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]

Comments:
This editor has violated WP:3RR by reverting four times within 24 hours to reintroduce unsourced disputed content. None of the sources they've cited support the content they're adding. They've also made uncivil remarks.[4] Skitash (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made several attempts on the talk page to show that each of the sources I have cited do, in fact, support the already cited content that the reporting user has removed 4 times ~~in the past 24 hours~~. When challenged on their contents, I pointed out specifically where the information in each source was, and only received a reply of "Nonsense". Otherwise, the sources that I have provided in order to resolve this conflict have been almost immediately dismissed out of hand by the reporting user each time I have tried. Sinclairian (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sinclairian: Skitash has reverted three times in the last 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, youre right. Misread the dates of the initial removal some weeks ago. I’ll strike that. Sinclairian (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: Have indeffed Sinclairian as a sock of BedrockPerson. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2402:d000:813c:89f2:1fff:bd85:6a23:f6a2 reported by User:Not Wlwtn (Result:/64 Blocked two weeks)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: diff

Comments:
IP address continues to vandalize the article and make WP:NPOV edits, changing details about certain parties without sources or justification. IP user is currently engaged in an edit war and has reverted two of my edits where I undid their edits.

I have warned them twice on their talk page now. Not Wlwtn (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for a period of 2 weeks The /64, by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, thanks, I forgot to note this here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carausius19 reported by User:SigillumVert (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:
User is repeatedly adding a living person in the category of fraudsters despite that person being aquitted by court. Repeatedly violates BLP in general and BLP:CRIME, accuses other editors of sockpuppetry without any basis. I normally try to assume good faith, but this is clearly disruptive and contrary to policy. SigillumVert (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked. BusterD semi-protected the article before my block. Now that the user is blocked I don't think protection is neeed. I'll leave that to BusterD to decide.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. Thanks! BusterD (talk) 00:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:JDiala reported by User:HAL333 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:After a partial reversion of the image caption, JDial made three further reverts and spurious, bad-faith assumptions ("just want a painting with white people here"). ~ HAL333 13:40, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this appears to be a pattern of behavior, and they have been warned for invoking race elsewhere. ~ HAL333 17:03, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Daniel Case (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thrgssdf reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [26] I asked the editor who kept reinserting this information that was flagged as WP:COPYVIO to go to talk in the edit summary here. They reverted me instead.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [27]

Comments:
This edit warring is exacerbated by the fact they are edit warring to reinsert extensive block quotes that were flagged by other editors as WP:COPYVIO there have also been concerns this editor may be socking although this is really more just another exacerbating factor to the obvious edit-warring. Simonm223 (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:StanleyTimberlake reported by User:Werter1995 (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[29]
[30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [32]

Comments:
tries to remove a photo from an article about himself, violating WP:Conflict of interest. WP:DISC and others. — Werter1995 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2003:100:3700:4900:ED73:66AA:EA1F:BA0F reported by User:MrOllie (Result: /64 blocked 24h)

User being reported: 2003:100:3700:4900:ED73:66AA:EA1F:BA0F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

16:38, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289122709 by MrOllie (talk): revert per talkpage, "I object" they said! offered to find a solution, they went to my talkpage to throw threats! sad!"
16:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "more neutral tone to avoid excuses of blind revert!"
03:12, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289015500 by MrOllie (talk): never in any article a template shown at the top, plus how a cited content would be reverted!"
20:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1288038575 by MrOllie (talk): revert blindly is not acceptable!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

16:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

15:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Edit war! */ Reply"

Comments:

Talk page discussion is full of threats to report to ANI and personal attacks as well (see [33]). MrOllie (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The range: 2003:100:3700:4900:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) Daniel Case (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJUPLOADS22 reported by User:HawkNightingale175 (Result: Reporter blocked as a sockmaster)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [40]

Comments:
This user has constantly added inaccurate information to the page after I constantly told him to stop. Even after explaining on the talk page why his edits were inaccurate, he continued to make said edits, even after I threatened to report him multiple times. I have reverted the page well more than 4 times but he continues to make the edits despite my providing evidence that contradicted the claims made by his edits. I have not made an edit warring report before so my apologies if this post is formatted incorrectly.

I've indefinitely blocked HawkNightingale175 as a sockmaster.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stonkaments reported by User:Gotitbro (Result: Both blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1289208256 by Stonkaments (talk): The WP:ONUS is on you to justify these edits, not on other editors to clean up your mess"
03:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289207305 by Gotitbro (talk) Addressed on talk page. BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
03:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289206428 by Gotitbro (talk) happy to discuss specifics on talk page"
03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1289015719 by Reflord (talk): Revert BLP violations, misrepresenting sources, and numerous copyediting errors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

04:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "/* BLP violations removed */ Reply"

Comments:

User violated 3RR and bizzarely warned me of a block for edit warring. I realize I have made 3Rs on this page, but stopped right at the limit (the first edits of mine here were not reverts). Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edits were in fact reverts, as clearly noted by your own edit summaries (“restore clearly relevant content…” and “undue?, half our article covers his extremist publishing and clearly the thing he is known for”). Thus you made four reverts, violating 3RR. WP:CLEANHANDS Stonkaments (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will let an admin be the judge of my initial bunch edits on the article, an article I had edited long before you became active on it, almost a day ago before your edit warring. You still refuse to acknowledge that you yourself have unambiguously violated 3RR. Gotitbro (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Exemption #7 of WP:3RR: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." You introduced contentious material that was biased and poorly sourced; how long you have edited an article is irrelevant except insomuch as highlighting that fact indicates a pattern of acting as if you WP:OWN the article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:LentiaCity reported by User:REAL MOUSE IRL (Result: Indeffed at the SPI)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "I already gave a reason."
13:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC) ""
21:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "The "400.000" one doesn't make sense and cannot be used as an normal source as it is the only source stating that death toll. Plus if 643,000 really did die then the Chechen Population would be low."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I've indeffed the account at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blazing73 reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

This is closed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:38, 8 May 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.

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [48]

Comments:
Edit warring against numerous editors while attempting to impose their version of the article. Skitash (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no valid reasons for this other than that my modification was rejected without any clear reason. You were offered to discuss the topic on the discussion page, but you refused this arrogantly because you did not understand the topic and do not listen to others editors WP:Listen. Blazing73 (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Blazing73, I can see without my glasses on that you were edit warring against three other editors. You're lucky that ToBeFree had a wonderful dinner with apple pie and ice cream for dessert, because I would have blocked you site-wide. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies For the second time you really need to read this Wikipedia:No personal attacks Blazing73 (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blazing73 that's not a personal attack. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If I had said that, I would have been banned. Blazing73 (talk) 05:44, 8 May 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:Algirr reported by User:Skitash (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [56]

Comments:
I'd like to note that this isn't the editor's first time engaging in disruptive editing. See their edit history in Fall of the Assad regime, Hafez al-Assad, and Arab Cold War. Skitash (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat for the hundred thousandth time, we had a discussion, I had the last word there, and if you are unable to scroll down the list of discussions, it is not my damn problem and not my damn fault. Algirr (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally went to sleep 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

moreover, your pointless claim about Hafez al-Assad is pointless. It didn't reach the edit war, and I attached sources, while my opponent needed several attempts to read the article and find the mentioned details, after which he said that this source, because it is a blog, is not a relevant resource (he didn't even say this since the first his re-edit) Algirr (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their three messages in that discussion,[57][58][59] it doesn't seem like @Abo Yemen agreed with you at all. Skitash (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, my counterarguments don't have to be taken into account? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not joking, I also disagreed with him (what a surprise, right?) and gave my arguments, if you suddenly didn't notice Algirr (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the "fall of the Assad regime". Can you please remind me WHICH and WHOSE collage was approved for posting? And WHO was the first to change and divide it, although they had neither the right nor the justification for this in the form of creating a consensus? Algirr (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This personal attack speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Selbsportrait reported by User:Czarking0 (Result:Declined)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2
3
4
5

Comments:

Full disclosure I have also been editing the page and some of these are reverts of content I added. I have also been removing content from the page. I do not think my edits constitute edit warring but recognize my own bias in that judgement.

Pinging some users which may have interest here @FactOrOpinion, AnonymousScholar49, and Horse Eye's Back: Czarking0 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised edit warring and WP:OWN concerns regarding this article with Selbsportrait before. I advised them to take a step back, they appear to be doubling down instead. That being said this does appear to be more technical edit warring than serious direct back and forth edit warring... The sheer volume of their contributions makes it hard to tell though. I also do not see a warning at Talk Selbsportrait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the an3 notice. If you look at the page history you will see he deleted it. Unless that is not what you meant and I am supposed to add something else? Czarking0 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to warn the user that they are violating 3RR, or about to do so, if they continue to revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok maybe I misunderstood something or did not read something I was supposed to? On WP:3RR the only mention of warn I see is in the paragraph that begins If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited given that this is a contentious topic, Selbs is not a new editor, and has already been warned about his conduct on by Horse's Eye on this page, I determined that Selbs was aware that edit warring is prohibited. In that case I understood the guidance on 3RR to mean that I should go here Czarking0 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, at the top of this page, it says "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." Second, if you follow the instructions on how to create a report, which apparently you didn't, there's a spot for you to provide a diff of that warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret "consider warning them" as "you must warn them." If it's intended to be a requirement rather than a consideration, then the wording should be changed. I also don't see a requirement on WP:EW. It does say "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy ...," but Selbsportrait is clearly aware of the policy (e.g., their user page says "Talk pages may improve the entries they're meant to improve, but only as a last resort. ... Its main use is to avoid edit wars"). WP:EW likewise encourages talk discussions to avoid/resolve edit wars, and the form here also asks for a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page." So I understand the decline. That said, I agree with Horse Eye's Back re: "WP:OWN concerns regarding this article ... The sheer volume of their contributions makes it hard to tell" if they're edit warring. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the 3RR? Selbsportrait (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 8 May 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