Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

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.

Update this 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)
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
366	367	368	369	370	371	372	373	374	375
Incidents (archives, search)
1188	1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194	1195	1196	1197
1198	1199	1200	1201	1202	1203	1204	1205	1206	1207
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
492	493	494	495	496	497	498	499	500	501
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Nerd271 reported by User:Oncoars (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

This has been closed with a partial block for both sides for 2 weeks and can be appealed using an unblock request, or at WP:XRV, or at WP:AN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:55, 23 November 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: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I did not. I am sure they know perfectly well that they are edit-warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [4]

Comments:

Yesterday, the user reverted some edits I had made without any justification, merely the edit summary "Better version". When I restored my edits, they reverted again, with no explanation. When I repeatedly asked for explanations, they made no serious effort to do so. When I attempted to find out the reason why they had undone even one of my changes, it became clear that they did not understand what my edits had even done (see article talk page). I still have absolutely no idea what they disagreed with.

The user reported me for edit warring; see above on this page. The report was closed with no action. This evening, I was frankly furious to see that they had once again trashed all of my edits without any effort to explain why [5].

If there was some coherent reason that they disagreed with my edits, there would be a basis to discuss the matter and attempt to come to an agreement. If I made some kind of mistake, all they have to do is explain what it is, and I will be glad to learn something. But if the user simply reverts edits they have taken an irrational dislike to, there is no basis for discussion and no possible productive outcome. Oncoars (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks, from editing this specific article only. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you blocked me? I edited carefully to improve an article. My edits have been repeatedly reverted with no explanation, by someone who I now see has been blocked repeatedly for similar actions. It is quite unbelievable that you would punish the victim of an attack in exactly the same way as you punish an attacker. Oncoars (talk) 07:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent further edit warring. I have read your message. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What message? Why are you punishing the victim of an attack? Oncoars (talk) 08:25, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "victims" in edit warring. You were sanctioned because, instead of taking measures to avoid an edit war, you went right at it with the other editor. Outside of a few narrowly-drawn exceptions, none of which apply here, you cannot edit war. It does not matter if you are right, as indeed the first paragraph of the relevant policy page says. Daniel Case (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was an attack and I was the victim of it. If the user had reverted saying "I disagree with your changes because of X, Y and Z", and I had simply reverted back, your patronising tone might not have been so jarring. But the user reverted my edits repeatedly without ever providing a coherent reason. They did this even after they had been very clearly warned against doing so following their earlier attempt to game the system. They have already been blocked *six times* for edit warring and disruption, so clearly they are not deterred by blocks and will continue to edit war and disrupt. I, on the other hand, have been blocked for being the victim of their attack, and that is indeed a deterrent for me to try to improve any articles. I'm certainly not going to do that any more. Oncoars (talk) 12:20, 23 November 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:Nathaniel13Schmitz reported by User:Barry Wom (Result: Warned user(s))

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:

Warned (Special:Diff/1323810413) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:~2025-35245-83 reported by User:Pro-anti-air (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

User being reported: ~2025-35245-83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC) "I removed the redirect and added real information"
17:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC) ""
17:12, 22 November 2025 (UTC) "Added information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to have created the account @Isaactheeditor, which makes it 4 reverts [17]. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 17:43, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocked 2 weeks by ToBeFree for disruptive editing. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 23:46, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot to note this here! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:~2025-33566-40 reported by User:QWisps (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:
User was already banned for 24 hours and has come back from the ban to continue edit warring.

Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kolya Muratov reported by User:Swatjester (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks, page protected for 2 days)

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[26] - Dubious claim sourced to anonymous blog. I reverted citing WP:RS.
[27] - reinserting exact same dubious claim, cited to different source that does not support the claim. Reverted, told the source does not support the claim, asked them to discuss on Talk page and provide a quote. Additionally, edit summary seems to indicate they lack an understanding of what WP:RS is -- an anonymous blog source is not "credible" per our policies.
[28] - Revert without discussion, combined with personal attack in edit summary.
[29] - Revert without discussion, gibberish added to edit summary.
[30] - Revert without discussion, explicitly refuses to provide a quote of what specific portion of the source they assert supports this claim.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit Warring warning, 3RR violation notice

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31] -- note that user has reverted since I posted this, and is not substantively engaging on the talk page but rather still playing games of making vague comments "Just check the last two pages" rather than simply showing their work directly with a quote like I asked.

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

Comments:
The claim that Kolya is attempting to insert here is of course nonsensical on its face (That the larger a military unit size is, the more talented its leader is -- history is replete with examples of that not being the case and this seems like an egregious case of failing to comprehend basic causal correlation), and is not found in the source that I've seen. But instead of discussion, an editor with literally tens of thousands of edits seems to completely fail to grasp basic concepts such as WP:RS, WP:ONUS, and WP:CONSENSUS. At this point, I'm increasingly concerned that they are knowingly attempting to be deceptive -- there's just no explanation for the repeated refusal to provide a specific quote. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks
Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Uinsnskzkkjshjs reported by User:Sangdeboeuf: second report (Result: Blocked sitewide 48 hours and from page for a month)

User was blocked for a week for edit-warring at Men's rights movement. Their first action after the expiration of their block was to make a substantially similar edit to the same article against consensus. Compare their pre-block edits:

to the recent diff:

14:26, 23 November 2025

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 00:17, 24 November 2025

Comments:
The specific changes to the page's contents include the unnecessary capitalization of men's rights movement, the addition of the weasel word considered, altering the sentence about UN Women, and especially the POV removal of groups and individuals known as men's rights activists, etc. Despite the user's claim that they have no interest in any editing battles, it seems that editing battles are exactly what they are interested in. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very keen on reporting constructive and improvement edits that don't align with your preferences. My modifications are reasonable and can withstand scrutiny. The original version contains "absolute wording" and unreasonable generalizations. For example, the unreasonable use of "UN Women," when in fact this organization has not officially expressed any such views; the viewpoint only comes from one of its web pages. These modifications are intended to optimize wording, avoid unreasonable absolutes, and maintain inclusivity in language. You must see that the original text contains a lot of unverified and absolute content. Much of this content was added by you. Please improve this entry instead of maintaining your personal viewpoint, as that is more constructive. Thank you. Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate: I have no interest in participating in any edit war. Anyone concerned can look at the complete edit history; this person continuously blocks any constructive edits and reports and intimidates others. Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Initiating an edit war" is your action; I am correcting your damage, remember that. Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours and from page for a month. Daniel Case (talk) 04:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:NotJamestack reported by User:Ryuudou (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [33]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[34] "From here on out, I am invoking WP:IAR ... Once again, WP:IAR"
[35] "We are both very close to breaking 3RR. You need to cut this out"
[36] "No. Your edit removed well cited content. Just stop. Don't revert this. Stop."
[37] "To readd cited text related to slavery."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

Comments:

Edit warring to insert disputed content without consensus. Not only is he citing IAR after being warned about edit warring, but he keeps repeating bad faith allegations and personal attacks in his edit summaries. His comment implies he intends to keep reverting without consensus. He has a battleground attitude. Ryuudou (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gonnym reported by User:Grufo (Result: No violation)

Previous version reverted to: 1320800462

Diffs of the user's reverts (WP:1RR should apply here):

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: It seems no warning can be done when WP:1RR applies? I have tried however to be as clear as possible in my edit summary.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 November 23#Template:Verbatim title

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1323883541/1323885718

Comments:
The user keeps restoring an old version of the Wikipedia:Article titles page from June 2025 in order to argue that our rules forbid templates like {{Verbatim title}} (which they have nominated for deletion – I am the author of the template, which is why I got involved in the debate). The page however talks about how pages are named, not how their titles are displayed. They seem unaware of the WP:1RR rule that applies to policy pages. --Grufo (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As in an undiscussed change of a policy page that is now reverted to protect your own templates? The Banner talk 12:10, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see the 1RR-restriction. It is a contentious topic, yes. The Banner talk 17:26, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ABSURD report. As The Banner pointed out, Grufo is trying to push their created templates as policy with ZERO discussion and is surprised/dissapointed/unhappy that those changes are being reverted. If you want to enact new policy file a RFC! Don't just impose your will on everyone. Recommend sanctioning Grufo for this. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grufo mentions 1RR three times in this short report; why. There's nothing in the linked page that supports their assertion that 1RR applies to policy pages. Perhaps they are thinking of WP:BRD, although that applies to all pages, and means that Grufo's bold edit has been reverted which should lead to discussion on the talk page. On the talk page, not via noticeboard reports which are not neutral venues of discussion but attempts to weaponise Wikipedia's processes to gain the upperhand in an editing dispute. I agree with Zackmann08 that if any editor should face sanctions, it is not Gonnym. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:30, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fortuna. If you try to edit the page, you get this warning (emphasis mine):

Attention:

You are editing a page that documents an English Wikipedia policy. While you may be bold in making minor changes to this page, consider discussing any substantive changes first on the page's talk page. Editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. See content changes to policies and guidelines for more details.

That is why I am here: If I had ignored that warning and had in turn reverted Gonnym's edit, I would have incurred in the same WP:1RR violation. --Grufo (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No violation -- the operative word here is encouraged. The fact that policy pages are expected to reflect a strong community consensus is an overriding principle here: Gonnym is clearly in the right for reverting an undiscussed change to a policy page. This doesn't give infinite license to revert--if the edit war had continued, sanctions on both sides would likely have been appropriate--but two reverts of a clearly contested attempt to change policy seems to be within appropriate bounds of conduct. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThehouseofStuart reported by User:ScrabbleTiles (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

22:28, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "must post reliable source if you’re making changes"
17:57, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "vandalism"
17:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "edit was done without adding any new information to back up editing reverting back to historically accurate content"
17:10, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "making a correction other user made a historically inaccurate and uneducated edit without signing proper documentation as to why edit is factual should probably look at some more historic references. Also the Vatican if they’re going to try to make another edit."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

17:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"
19:50, 23 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (UV 0.1.6)"

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

Comments:

This user is consistently removing sourced information, and then replacing it with unsourced information after being warned multiple times by multiple editors (twinkle hasn’t picked up on all of the warnings for the report). Clear refusal to listen and doesn’t seem to be getting the point. This is not the only page that they have been repeatedly re-adding unsourced content to after it has been reverted by other editors. It’s also tricky to assume good faith after this [40]. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Choess and @Somepinkdude ScrabbleTiles (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariCro2019 reported by User:DalidaEditor (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Attempt to resolve dispute on user’s talk page: User talk:MariCro2019#Argumentation

Comments: The manner of speaking and the arguments used are an blatant word play, as if the explanation were for children, rather than an effort to make an encyclopedic article. Dalida Editor _{please ping or message me} 17:49, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple temporary accounts on Joan L. Mitchell reported by User:David Eppstein (Result: )

~2025-35810-13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36115-21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36203-34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36059-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36140-71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-35951-75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-35839-87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
~2025-36219-38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not all of these names performed the actual reverts reported but they are all obviously the same editor (maybe running with cookies disabled. They are not trying to present the appearance of multiple editors so this is not a case for SPI.) Because of the rapidly-changing temp accounts, I suspect that any intervention will have to be based on IP addresses. I have not checked the IP addresses used by these accounts.

Previous version reverted to: first three reverts fourth revert

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note that I performed four other edits in that time period but only two were reverts; the other two were non-revert adjustments of citation metadata.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:~2025-36059-60, 13:13 24-Nov; Acknowledgement of receiving the warning before the most recent revert: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See many messages on Talk:Joan L. Mitchell; final revert continued after both that discussion and 3RR warning.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: User talk:~2025-36219-38

Comments:

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 Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models 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 Deletion review
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