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:Baldoz reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Scuderia Ferrari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Fixed discrepancies made by user Lobo151"
4. [1]
5. [2]
6. [3]
7. [4]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
2. 20:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F reported by User:Dawnseeker2000 (Result: Page protected for three months)

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

User being reported: 2409:408D:4DC2:2922:0:0:8388:6C0F (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269446497 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) to 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1268811016 by Dawnseeker2000 (talk)"
   2. 10:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Pudukkottai."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also the history of Pudukkottai Municipal Corporation [5] Dawnseeker2000 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

See link to my request to have the page protected Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700-Pudukkottai and that request's denial Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Archive/2025/01#c-Daniel_Quinlan-20250108191600-Dawnseeker2000-20250108183700

Page protected for a period of three months This has been going on regularly since the last protection expired, and got really fierce lately. Since the article comes under ARBIPA, I will leave a CTOPS notice on talk.

User:Boackandwhite reported by User:TheTimesAreAChanging (Result: Blocked 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to: Boackandwhite's initial bold edit; my revert to last stable version.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. revert 1
2. revert 2
3. revert 3
4. revert 4
5. revert 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Boackandwhite, a new account with fewer than 100 edits, has already racked up an impressive record of disruption, even if this is more due to lack of competence than bad faith. Boackandwhite's talk page is filled with warnings about adding unsourced or unverifiable content, removing speedy deletion tags out of process for a page created by Boackandwhite himself, uploading an image with no source or license information, and making edits that contravene Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

At Afghan mujahideen, Boackandwhite reinstated unsourced material after it was challenged (primarily by myself, but also by other page-watchers) five separate times in less than a month, eventually merging a source that plainly fails verification to validate the proposed change (and that's excluding multiple IP edits that cannot be conclusively linked to Boackandwhite). In a talk page thread initiated by Boackandwhite, I attempted to explain why his edit had been contested: "Since your source does not directly state that NATO is an ally of the mujahideen, your edit failed verification and has been reverted. If you disagree, then please provide a page number and quote of the relevant excerpt that verifies the claim." However, Boackandwhite stopped replying and instead resumed edit warring, apparently convinced that since the U.S., the most powerful member of the NATO alliance, clearly supported the Afghan mujahideen, that must also mean that NATO as a whole can be considered allied to the mujahideen—no sourcing or verification necessary.

Even though this can be considered a low-intensity edit war, Boackandwhite's seeming inability to understand Wikipedia's sourcing/content policies and insistence on reverting to restore the perceived "truth" to our article, coupled with a break in communication from this user, has reached a point where some kind of administrative action may be warranted. Thank you for your consideration.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

no. i added NATO for his support to gulf war coalition (that included mujaheddin) with operation anchor guardian. Boackandwhite (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours As noted, more about competence than anything else.

User:94.187.8.87 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Page protected)

Page: Fadlo R. Khuri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.187.8.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]
6. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:94.187.8.87

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
This is a straight-forward case of edit warring by an unregistered editor (using multiple accounts). This material was also the subject an edit war in 2022. There may be genuine WP:BLP concerns but edit warring without participating in the Talk page section specifically opened to discuss this material is not acceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of three days by Randykitty Daniel Case (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:46.217.186.173 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 46.217.186.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269596382 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
2. 12:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269506258 by MacaroniPizzaHotDog (talk)"
3. 01:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269482182 by StephenMacky1 (talk)"
4. 22:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269469326 by JacktheBrown (talk)"
5. 21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269452155 by Fneskljvnl (talk) FASISM TOWARDS MACEDONIA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bulgaria–North Macedonia relations."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Persistent edit warring. StephenMacky1 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Asafviki reported by User:Seawolf35 (Result: Blocked from article for 72 hours)

Page: Russo-Turkish War (1735–1739) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I understood you at the beginning but now I think you are doing this unnecessarily. All the sources are reliable and you can take a look if you want.İf you really have a sound reason tell me the truth please."
2. 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Can you please tell me why you reverted my edit?i just want to know where am I doing wrong."
3. 09:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "I am making my edit since there has been no objection to the mentioned sources for 3 days."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

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

Comments:

Also LOUT socking with this edit. --Seawolf35 ^T--C 15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from article; hopefully in that time someone can explain what they are doing wrong. Daniel Case (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:TG-article reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: SmartLynx Airlines Estonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: TG-article (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"
2. 19:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Accidents and incidents */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Boeing 737 MAX."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also edit warring at Batik Air, Boeing 737 MAX, Singapore Airlines Flight 321 and Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268. User has been told to discuss edits on talk pages on multiple occasions, and seemingly refuses to do so. Danners430 (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Danners430 This is not a 3RR violation. I see two reverts. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

No it’s not a 3RR violation - but it’s a user that’s consistently edit warring across multiple pages and refusing to engage in talk pages, which is why I believe it still belongs on the edit warring noticeboard.

Edit: I’ll get the rest of the diffs here in a sec… I used Twinkle for the original report. Danners430 (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Singapore Airlines Flight 321 - reversion 1, reversion 2 (which was following a pertial reinstatement of their already reverted content)
• Batik Air - partial reinstatement of reverted content, followed by reinstating his reverted edit
• Red Wings Airlines Flight 9268 - reinstating their previously reverted content
• SmartLynx Airlines Estonia - reinstates their reverted edit, then again partially reinstating their reverted edit.
• Boeing 737 MAX - legitimately and in good faith alters a template, but then after being reverted doubles down and reinstates the edit.

The user has previously been blocked for this exact same behaviour by User:Canterbury_Tail, and is nt responding to talk page messages. Danners430 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

User:190.201.157.28 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Wolf Man (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 190.201.157.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 23:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
4. 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wolf Man (2025 film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. No, but level 4 warning previously given on editors talk page here

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Page protected for a month)

Page: Until Dawn (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:60E4:6CE4:B415:E562 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 00:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269714333 by MikeAllen (talk) Okay, the vandalism has gone on long enough, you are removing accurate information, and you have engaged in this obsession for days, just accept the information and let it go"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 00:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684805 by MikeAllen (talk) Enough with the vandalism already"
   2. 00:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1269684573 by MikeAllen (talk) Stop with the vandalism, its accurate information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Until Dawn (film)."
2. 00:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Until Dawn (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "/* We edit by consensus */ new section"

Comments: I was just about to report this IP user here until I noticed you already did it a few mins ago...

Anyways, the IP user has actually made five reverts not four, here's the fifth (or actually, the first) one: diff on 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC).

The report is missing "previous version reverted to:" so here it is: diff

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected for one month by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Adrikshit reported by User:Aman8188 (Result: Reporter blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Kajari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Adrikshit (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. [19]
2. [20]
3. [21]
4. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments:
Nominating editor blocked – for a period of two weeks by ToBeFree Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I have also added a CTOPS notice to the article talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

And Aman has been alerted to contentious topics, too. Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Janessian reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result:indefinitely partially blocked)

Page: Killing of Wong Chik Yeok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Janessian (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 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) to 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
   1. 11:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "Posting the photo of a deceased tagged to such an intense tragic story would greatly hurt the family. Imagine this is your daughter mug shot, killed by her husband, with her summarised tragic story plastered for the world to see. All I did was to remove her picture and you youngsters spare no effort in reverting it."
   2. 11:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC) "This man, worked hard his whole life, faithful his entire life, fell ill to a mental illness, does not deserve to have his face tagged to a summarised wrong version of the story for the entire world to see. Imagine this is your brother, who spent his old age in agony. Are you sure this is the right thing to do? What good does it serve to publish pictures of an old case other than to serve what grandiose ideology?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be slow edit warring at this point. JBW has already banned them once for edit warring. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also point out that before their first ban for edit warring @Janessian was making comments with a seeming intent to intimidate users that reverted his edits. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Isabelle Belato has indefinitely partially blocked Janessian from the Killing of Wong Chik Yeok article. PhilKnight (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)