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:92.20.112.81 reported by User:Trailblazer101 (Result: Stale)

Page: Creature Commandos (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 92.20.112.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290788914 by Alex 21 (talk)"
2. 02:21, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "TV articles do not typically include genres in the lead, per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:TVGENRE"
3. 02:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1290787367 by Alex 21 (talk) sorry has to be undone"
4. 01:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "it's a rule that you cannot add the word superhero to the televison shows which is stupid but that's just what i've been informed of."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Creature Commandos (TV series)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP has been warned plenty of times and has edit warred at various superhero television articles. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Declined as stale. While 3RR was violated on Creature Commandos (TV series), the IP has not made any edits since being warned about edit warring by both you and me. If either editor resumes edit warring, I think blocks are more than justified. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I didn't want him to be bitten as a newcomer, so I didnt want him to be on ANI. I do think I might be a good idea to check if its sockpuppetry just incase as he is locked deep in one subject and with certain behavior (of course not evidence but just precaution).

I misread the talk page, I thought you were another victim but you were just doing the same as me. I wouldn't have sent as stern warning as a message but it is still justified. JamesEMonroe (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Sigh. This is why vandalism runs rampant. Two accusations of potential sockpuppetry, but it's "stale" after only six hours. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

The only other IP address I've seen mentioned in today's discussions as being potentially the same editor hasn't made an edit for almost two months. That's not exactly evidence of sockpuppetry. If there is evidence of sockpuppetry, someone can make a report at WP:SPI. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 08:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Update about the IP: they stated in their talk page that they will stop editing (diff: [1]). To be honest I don't quite understand this person's ideas and intentions, or why they were so defensive regarding their edits. Anyhow we will see how that goes. The Sophocrat (talk) 20:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@The Sophocrat: Thanks for the update. I don't really know either, and I am not sure whether this was their first time editing, but if they were new, they were not exactly welcomed by the community (see WP:BITE on explaining reverts, assuming good faith, etc.). The determination that a user is a sockpuppet or vandal should depend on evidence rather than it being the default assumption for new users. Also, plenty of helpful contributors started off with some pretty rough edits. Regards. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, that definitely didn't happen; proceeds to edit less than four hours later. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex 21, the page is currently protected until 20 May 2025; the most recent edits have not been reverted. Does a need for administrative action remain? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

A page protection should certainly help. Many thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

User:77.161.162.69 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 77.161.162.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:40, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Stop spreading non sense and fake news just because it's "sourced". Make your due diligence or don't touch on subject you don't understand."
2. Consecutive edits made from 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) to 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 09:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "See previous explanation"
   2. 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC) "Mix of game engine not technically exist, stop spreading false information"
   3. 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) to 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 21:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Like it or not, there is no such thing as using two engine, it wouldn't compile. You don't have the knowledge to argue obviously so why modifying without substantiated data?"
   2. 21:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "/* Development */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) to 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "It's retarded to think/claim that a game is made with two different game engines."
   2. 16:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:14, 15 May 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered."
2. 04:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion Remastered."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

IP user that doesn't understand that a video game uses two different video games engines. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit-warring continues. The bit that the game uses two engines is sourced, one for gameplay and for graphics. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You obviously have zero knowledge on the subject and I already told you that "sourced" doesn't mean truth. You are knowingly spreading fake news at this point. I already explained to you that a game cannot run on two engine. You don't know the difference between a framework and an engine, that is your problem. Ignorance isn't an excuse. 77.161.162.69 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

77.161.162.69, fortunately, we don't need to discuss individual users' knowledge when discussing Wikipedia content, as Wikipedia is built on secondary sources and doesn't publish personal knowledge. If secondary sources known for their editorial oversight report something, we can add it to Wikipedia articles relying on their interpretation. If something factually wrong seems to have been added to an article but is properly sourced, you'll need to contact the source and get it changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Rosaelisil4 reported by User:Mikejuliao (Result: Wrong Wikipedia)

Page: Campeonato Sudamericano de Fútbol Sub-17 de 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rosaelisil4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166923896

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166853094
2. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=166923896
3. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167073950
4. https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167349458

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025&diff=prev&oldid=167269441

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discusi%C3%B3n:Campeonato_Sudamericano_de_F%C3%BAtbol_Sub-17_de_2025#c-Mikejuliao-20250517203200-Reversiones_injustificadas_y_posible_vandalismo_por_parte_del_usuario_Rosaelisil

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usuario_discusi%C3%B3n:Rosaelisil4 == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == [[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring]] regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.

Comments:
The user has carried out multiple reverts (undo) of my edits without providing valid justification, neither in the edit summaries nor on the article's talk page. Specifically, they are removing links to stadium pages that have been a standard practice in all editions of this tournament on Wikipedia, across all languages. Their argument of “saving code” has no editorial basis and is not supported by any style guideline. I believe this behavior disrupts collaboration and may constitute a violation of the edit warring policy. Mikejuliao (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

El usuario ha realizado múltiples reversiones (undo) de mis ediciones sin dar justificación válida, ni en los resúmenes de edición ni en la página de discusión. Particularmente, está eliminando enlaces a páginas de estadios que han sido práctica común en todas las ediciones del torneo en Wikipedia, en todos los idiomas. Su argumento de “ahorrar código” no tiene fundamento editorial ni está respaldado por políticas de estilo. Considero que esta actitud entorpece la colaboración y puede constituir una violación de la política de guerra de ediciones. Mikejuliao (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Declined Wrong Wikipedia. Mikejuliao, you seem to be looking for es:Wikipedia:Tablón_de_anuncios_de_los_bibliotecarios/Portal/Archivo/3RR/Actual. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Surfsup1967 reported by User:Triggerhippie4 (Result: No violation)

Page: Canaan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surfsup1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [2]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [6]

Comments:

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) 15:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

User:71.115.78.70 reported by User:Toast1454 (Result: Already blocked)

Page: F1NN5TER (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.115.78.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕"
2. 13:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕🖕"
3. 13:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC) to 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:00, 20 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on F1NN5TER (level 2) (AV)"
2. 13:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Already blocked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Koppite1 reported by User:HorrorLover555 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Cowboy Carter Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koppite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

• User had demonstrated that they refused to follow WP:BRD and had attempted to violate WP:STONEWALL after being told by both myself to go and discuss in the article's talk page first several times and Livelikemusic here. They appear to have started a report on me in the noticeboard to falsely accuse me of edit-warring despite the evidence I provided stating otherwise, in an attempt to poison the well and cast false apersions. HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:HorrorLover555 reported by Koppite1 for edit warring

Page: Cowboy Carter Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Constantly reverting longstanding edits without consensus. Rather than responding to my questions on the article's talk page (asking why a factual statement is deemed puffery), HorrorLover555 was rather make this report prematurely (as i had already stopped reverting and have actually joined the discussion of the article's talk page BEFORE this whole issue was referred to this notice board)

Koppite1 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment It should be noted that you had started it first, and had refused to follow WP:BRD nor engage in the discussion that was already taking place. The only thing I have done is contribute beneficially and follow the procedures of discussing on the article's talk page. HorrorLover555 (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think you started it first by reverting my edits. What you should have done was seek consensus first because those were long standing factual edits. However, we both want to avoid a ban, so i suggest we stick to the talk page and try and resolve the issue. Koppite1 (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Then why didn't you discuss first before starting a 'back-and-forth'? HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  You should ask yourself the same question. Koppite1 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

  Seeing as you had started it, in which Livelikemusic had stated that it had been contested multiple times in this edit summary here, why do you believe you don't have to follow the same rules as everyone else on this website? HorrorLover555 (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Combining with the above section. Both users blocked for 24 hours. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And they are lucky you made the block and not me. I usually block users for longer for this kind of runaway edit warring that long ago blew past 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Homecow reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: 1999 East Timorese crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homecow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 103.130.130.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 00:56, 14 May 2025 (UTC) by 103.130.130.115

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:19, 16 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
2. 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
3. 02:31, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
4. 03:48, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
5. 04:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
6. 05:03, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
7. 06:34, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Pineapplethen
8. 06:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Opm581
9. 11:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Opm581
10. 23:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Melbguy05
11. 10:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC) 103.130.130.115 reverted Melbguy05
12. 11:12, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Chipmunkdavis and Less Unless
13. 11:53, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Melbguy05
14. 14:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Chipmunkdavis
15. 17:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC) Homecow reverted Toddy1

103.130.130.115 was blocked for disruptive editing on this page at 06:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC) for 31 hours, and again at 10:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC) indefinitely. But as you can see, Homecow simply carried on the edit war.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
User talk:103.130.130.115 06:42, 17 May 2025 (UTC)
User talk:Homecow 11:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 18:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of indefinitely Likely sockpuppetry. Considering protection. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Luke.haddad120 reported by User:Mitch minty (Result: Both indefinitely pblocked)

Page: Centre des Archives Nationales (Lebanon) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luke.haddad120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]
5. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [22]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [23]

Comments:

• Both indefinitely pblocked from editing the article. The two have been edit-warring for months, and it would appear that for both it's the only article they're interested in.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

How to get someone else to look? Is a low traffic article. Other user seems to be using to promote someone with unreliable backdated source. Now I can't revert that even though I follow rules about talk page. Mitch minty (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

User:Lemonademan22 reported by User:NJZombie (Result: )

Page: Sabu (wrestler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lemonademan22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [24]

Diffs of the user's reverts: May 11 Death date reverts

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

May 12

1. [28]
2. [29]
3. [30]
4. [31]

May 13 At this point the reverts switched to birth date reverts

1. [32]
2. [33]

May 14

1. [34]
2. [35]
3. [36]

May 15 At this point, they're reverting the death date again, along with reverting the birth year due to once source questioning the year of birth.

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

May 17 Now the reversions over whether his name is Terry or Terrence begin, along with reverts over place of birth.

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]
6. [46]
7. [47]

May 18 After that last May 17 edit, I placed a 3RR warning on the user's talk page, which was ignored.

1. [48]
2. [49]
3. [50]
4. [51]
5. [52]
6. [53]
7. [54]

May 19

1. [55]
2. [56]
3. [57]
4. [58]
5. [59]
6. [60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [62]

Comments:
Article subject died on May 11. Since that time, Lemonademan22 has been in a consistent edit war multiple users, both anonymous and registered, over the subject's birth date, death date, place of birth, and birth name. While discussion does occur on the article's talk page, the reversions continue relentlessly with no actual consensus being reached before doing so. I have not taken part in said talk page discussions but other than one edit correcting what I thought was an age error made by a different user, and one where I made the same revert Lemonademan22 did concerning a unconfirmed death date at the time, I have not taken place in reverts. User has been warned, as have others who have taken place in the edit warring, but the warning was ignored. While I have no stake in either side of any aspect of the changes, the edit warring from all involved needs to cease. Some of those other editors have been blocked but Lemonademan22 has not, despite being the most consistent abuser of 3RR concerning this article. Most, if not all of these disagreements could have been solved with providing the best sourced info and adding a note stating that the information provided is disputed. To be clear, I'm not debating the information Lemonademan22 is adding or removing. I'm calling out the disregard for edit warring. NJZombie (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)