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:Wamalotpark reported by User:Ponyo (Result: blocked )

Page: United States Board on Geographic Names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wamalotpark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First edit to change the capitalization

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. First revert, using their IP, which is very obviously the same editor
2. Second revert
3. Third revert
4. Fourth revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

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

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

Comments:

• Wamalotpark is edit warring with multiple editors across multiple articles, and are making the same edits while logged out.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• The charge is obviously correct. User:Wamalotpark, I reverted you because no advantage should go to the edit warrior. If you revert again you will be blocked. The logged-out editing is another matter, a more serious matter, and as it happens I can see just how much of it you have been doing. You should stop doing that esp. if, as you did here, you seem to be doing it to avoid scrutiny, because it's abusive and you are going to get blocked for it. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• More recent example @Drmies: In Wamalotpark's recent edit at Mariano Rivera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), reverting to restore their preferred version and putting the onus on the other editor to start a discussion, in an edit summary no less, is continued edit warring.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  I only reverted one time. No intention to edit war. Wamalotpark (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

  Many follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You had made a bold edit. It was reverted, showing disagreement. The ideal response is to start a discussion. Piling on with a revert when others are reverting too only stokes the fire. —Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Wamalotpark, edit warring is an attitude, a mode of behavior, and these edits exemplify that. This is also why I have no problem blocking you right now for your baseball edits in a report that started with about edits over names--admins on this board are free to investigate whether reported editors are guilty of edit warring in general. So thank you, Bagumba, for adding this; I had hoped it wouldn't be necessary. Wamalotpark, you may say it wasn't your "intention" to edit war, but your edits resulted in one, and it is not possible for you not to have seen that. Drmies (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Denniss reported by User:Just-a-can-of-beans (Result: Blocked 48 hours; article put under indef ECP per WP:RUSUKR)

Page: 45 mm anti-tank gun M1942 (M-42) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Denniss (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] - note that this one is marked as a minor edit.
3. [4]
4. [5]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, but see page edit comments.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

Comments:

This page on a WW2-era anti-tank weapon has been edited today because the gun has been seen on video in active service of the Russian Armed Forces. Note that this is a caliber which has seemingly not had munitions produced for it since the 50s, so a return to service is not something that could just happen at any time. This is clearly noteworthy, but the user in question is repeatedly reverting any discussion of it. No attempt has been made by the user to justify this on the talk page. Additionally, the user marked his third reversion as a minor edit - perhaps in an attempt to avoid automated flagging or scrutiny? Once challenged (by me, after his third revert) he again reverted, marking his fourth, and bizarrely claimed WP:OR applied because the original editor viewed a video which was publicly released by a media channel of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. I think that a 20-year user with 45,000 edits knows that this claim is ridiculous.

A review of his talk page and edit history finds lengthy and frequent issues taken with his editing, which is almost entirely composed of reverts - some of which seem opinionated and overly editorialized (example: [8]). Looking further back, this user has had repeated formal and informal warnings for edit warring, following users to revert their edits, etc. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I have further placed the article under indefinite ECP per WP:RUSUKR. Daniel Case (talk) 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

User:ElectionEditorJO reported by User:Tacyarg (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Elena Parent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1271864106 by TW929 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC) on User talk:ElectionEditorJO "Warning: Edit warring on Elena Parent."

Comments:

Editor added unreferenced content about this person standing for election on 21st January; it has been removed repeatedly by several editors, and this editor has added it back six times from the 21st. Editor has been advised three times on the Talk page about adding unsourced information, and received an edit warring warning. Tacyarg (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Newsjunkie reported by User:Laterthanyouthink (Result: No violation)

Page: Edward Berger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1272284233 by Newsjunkie (talk): He is still NOT German."
2. 23:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1272233271 by Newsjunkie (talk): He is *NOT* German./Added extra accessible citation."
3. 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1271487607 by Gorrrillla5 (talk): Not German"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have no alternative but to report this editor. They keep reverting my changes, which have also included style fixes, citations, and another editor's additions. This is the third time and they are not discussing on the talk page. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I am discussing it. I answered your questions. newsjunkie (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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) 19:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Ixudi reported by User:CharlesWain (Result: Full-protected for three days)

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:48, 27 January 2025 Ixudi talk contribs 20,438 bytes +913 Undid revision 1272076216 by Orientls (talk)removal of sourced content, no consensus reached on talk
2. 19:55, 27 January 2025 Ixudi talk contribs 20,710 bytes +671 →Affinities with Bihari languages
3. 09:24, 28 January 2025 Ixudi talk contribs 21,245 bytes +880 Restored revision 1272376185 by Ixudi (talk): DRN relates to the lead
4. 13:53, 28 January 2025 Ixudi talk contribs 21,245 bytes +1,206 Undid revision 1272397888 by Chanchaldm2 (talk) it is not POV, the Charyapadas are subject to an academic debate and the article is supposed to showcase both sides of the debate.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

Edit warring against multiple editors. Also making false accusations on talk apge such as claiming that I was "blocked for mass additions of unsourced content",[13] when it never happened. CharlesWain (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected In full for three days, so the discussion listed at the South Asian Literature task force page can get going without the temptation to edit-war in the interim. Daniel Case (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Shwobopho reported by User:Skyerise (Result:Declined)

Page: Black magic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shwobopho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

• No violation The first revert diff is from a week ago, so there are only 3 reverts today. In addition, they have stopped reverting and are discussing on the talk page. @Shwobopho: no more restoring of the disputed content unless there's consensus on the talk page to do so. Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)