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)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178
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)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Sinnarmaile reported by User:Aaaas216& (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Chhatra League have militant factions, provided enlugh sources for it"
12:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC) ""
16:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

09:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sinnarmaile "/* January 2025 */"

Comments:

The user constantly added unsourced material as shown in their edits. Even though, the user claims to have added citations. I am unable to find any related to the subject the user is using for supporting their claims. Warned the user once but it seems did not collaborate with it. Aaaas216& (talk) 12:53, 31 January 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) 18:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another recent one which i reverted just now. Bruno pnm ars (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] and [8] and [9]

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:74.104.110.86 reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

User being reported: 74.104.110.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1273102252 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
18:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1273102352 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
18:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Tributes, legacy, and popular culture */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:17, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "General note: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on Milton Berle."
18:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Billy Crystal."
18:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dick Ebersol."
18:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Formatting, date, language, etc (Manual of style) on John Belushi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor was warned not to add unreferenced and trivial pop culture references in articles. Multiple warning, including for edit warring, were ignored. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't edited since you gave them their last warning (otherwise, I agree that this user has crossed the EW line without violating 3RR). Let's see if this situation holds. Daniel Case (talk) 18:59, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for a period of 31 hours by EvergreenFir for adding unsourced content. Daniel Case (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Le Blue Dude reported by User:BangJan1999 (Result: Declined)

User being reported: Le Blue Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

20:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1272910490 by Traumnovelle (talk)"
Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) to 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Later shifts in tone */ This is a subject matter expert in line with Kleefeld. Finally got the quote we needed! Horray!"
2. 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Later shifts in tone */"
3. 20:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Later shifts in tone */"
01:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1272733631 by Hydronium Hydroxide (talk)"
00:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC) "It’s a direct quote. I’m not breaking the rules. We can debate this with a RFC or arbitration"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Things have settled down somewhat since earlier in the week, noting that the latest diff posted above is 4 minutes prior to Tiggerjay's warning, and LBD made no edits to the article in the 27 hours between that and this report. The horror that is Sinfest does look like it wanders the borders of five or six Wikipedia:Contentious topics, however. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Per above. Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:7563:6E02:139B:165 reported by User:Objective3000 (Result: 2604:3D08:6E7D:2100::/64 blocked 72 hours)

User being reported: 2604:3D08:6E7D:2100:7563:6E02:139B:165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"
01:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* See also */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

01:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Bishonen | tålk 20:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kiranpawar3210 reported by User:Dympies (Result: Blocked 48 hours, user alerted to CTOPS)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:28, 27 January 2025 "Undid revision 1272117316 by Ratnahastin (talk)"

18:13, 27 January 2025 "Undid revision 1272169548 by Ratnahastin (talk) "

22:19, 31 January 2025 "Undid revision 1273079605 by Ratnahastin (talk) This specific sentence is not found anywhere in the given reference"

00:16, 1 February 2025 "Undid revision 1273091307 by Dympies (talk) The exact sentence is not found in any source. Some sources do not even exist"

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

Comments:
Edit warring with multiple editors in order to glorify this king by either adding honorifics or censoring content he doesn't like. Dympies (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours User also alerted to CTOPS; will leave notice of same on talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lnydcs reported by User:JollyJelly425 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23][24][25]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [26]

Comments:
The persistent disruptive edits while refusing to provide the sources and engage discussing at the article's talk page. I tried to persuade him to refer to online sources, but given that he argues Google to be a a bribed propaganda machine, I'm starting to feel less confident in the user's ability to constructively engage in Wikipedia.

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Isimmons1 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: No violation)

First addition: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

No discussion has taken place on the article talk page; however, the user has discussed the issue on User:Redrose64's talk page

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

Comments:
Long term edit warring - user has tried four times to add content which goes against established consensus to a page, and has been reverted by two users already - three now including myself. No attempt by the user to start a discussion until the post on Redrose's talk page. Danners430 (talk) 15:06, 1 February 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) 23:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not asking for the 3RR to be applied in this case - I’m asking for it to be reviewed as to the concerns around edit warring, which is clearly happening here. This is the edit warring noticeboard is it not? Danners430 (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:109.76.175.107 reported by User:Lemonaka (Result: )

User being reported: 109.76.175.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

19:11, 1 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Hurry Up Tomorrow."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Obviously edit-warring against different users. -Lemonaka 19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A00:20:7:6ADE:2158:8D15:DBCD:A40E reported by User:JollyJelly425 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:
Shortly after Lnydcs[40] was permanently blocked from persistently adding the unsourced disruptive edits and edit warring while refusing to engage in the talk, the new IP user 2A00:20:7:6ADE:2158:8D15:DBCD:A40E [41], likely Lnydcs's block evasion IP, is continuing the edit warring with the similar contentious and disruptive edits, violating WP:PROXYING. I think the page may need the protection given that the user is potentially keep changing the IP to evade the block and continue the edit warring.

Update: The likely same user is now using a new IP to continue the behaviours [42], which seems to be a VPN IP [43] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JollyJelly425 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks The range 2A00:20:7:6ADE:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) Daniel Case (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also blocked 2A02:6B67:D050:2A00:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) for the same time, Daniel Case (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Santasa99 reported by User:WikiEditHr (Result: No violation)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hrvatini%C4%87_noble_family&diff=prev&oldid=1272499357

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

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

Comments:

The user has displayed continuously irrational and unscientific behavior through edits, by using sources with no scientific basis or consensus. Having gone through the users post history, I have found that this has not been only an issue I noticed, but it is a pattern that has been pointed out to the user by several other people over the years.

No violation. The 4 reverts listed above are incorrect as some of the edits are consecutive. Santasa99 has made two reverts, one on January 31 and one on January 28. Bbb23 (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a short comment in case someone from ANI gets interested, as the link for this report is posted there: as Bbb23 correctly noticed, I reverted on 28 and 31 Jan, two reverts of replacement of sourced with unsourced content,.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ProtectorofHERUTAGE reported by User:Jfire (Result: Indeffed)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

03:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "False information removed, zellige is a safeguard registered art"
03:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "Fake information removed"
02:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "Zellige is a safeguard Moroccan heritage and it’s explicitly Moroccan. No other country should claim or lie on history on Wikipedia."
02:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "False information removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

03:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Zellij."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

02:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC) on Zellij "Please use the talk page to explain why you think this sourced information should be removed."

Comments:

Yes, and again just now. These are his only edits. Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also requested page protection for the article ([46]), if approved, that might solve the problem. Otherwise, I would push this further: this account is an obvious WP:NOTHERE. It's obviously related to the IP user(s) who has been making POV vandalism (pro-Morocco, anti-other North African countries) for several days: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]. The username and this logged-out edit in response make it clear they're just here for one disruptive purpose, related to political disputes between Morocco and Algeria. R Prazeres (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely Acroterion (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:13enedict reported by User:Mellk (Result: Blocked one week)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments:

SPA. Slow edit warring over ancestry. They were also warned about WP:RUSUKR but they do not seem to have paid attention to this. Mellk (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is also clearly the same person as they referred to the talk page discussion started by 13enedict in the edit summary, plus 13enedict logged back in to leave this message on my talk page 10 minutes after I reverted the IP. Mellk (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think this is not the first vexatious attack on me. I have consistently sought dialogue on the subject, following Wikipedia's policies. I have received a rather perplexing barrage of attacks which I don't think are merited. I am proposing well-sourced changes and no-one has expressed any coherent opposition to the content as far as I'm aware. People seem to want to avoid this content regardless of its veracity and relevance. A careful reading of Wikipedia:RUSUKR leads me to believe that it does not apply in this case, only a casual reading of the policy would support that conclusion. If this policy were to apply, then almost any subject however tangentially related would be subject to it. The behaviour of others is not in the spirit or, I fear, the rules of Wikipedia and are frequently discourteous. I believe a careful reading of the situation will demonstrate my vindication. 13enedict (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:151.251.252.85 reported by User:Slatersteven (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]

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

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

Comments:

Very much a wp:nothere SPA. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:07, 2 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