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:2600:387:15:2734:0:0:0:4 reported by User:FlightTime (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

Page: Richard Chamberlain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:387:15:2734:0:0:0:4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "Encyclopedic trivia"
2. Consecutive edits made from 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC) to 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
   1. 20:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1283327380 by Alachuckthebuck (talk)"
   2. 20:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
3. 20:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
4. 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"
5. 19:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life and death */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

And again - FlightTime (open channel) 21:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:Izno for disruptive editing. - Aoidh (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

User:2804:14C:5B76:8A98:0:0:0:742 reported by User:Sadrabp (Result: No violation)

Page: Brenda Romero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2804:14C:5B76:8A98:0:0:0:742 (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]
3. [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [5]

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

Comments:

The user repeatedly adds the phrase "is John Romero's wife" to the first sentence while refusing to engage in any discussion. Siev (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Adding that I have requested page protection for the article for the same reason, as the IPs adding this text are changing. Tacyarg (talk) 19:16, 2 April 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. Page protection might be better. Daniel Case (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

User:2600:4040:5C5C:CF00:6143:34AB:5CBB:3652 reported by User:GommehGaming101 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Sticky Fingers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:4040:5C5C:CF00:6143:34AB:5CBB:3652 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:28, 3 April 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:29, 3 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Goats Head Soup."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

they have been consistently adding unnecessary information to other Rolling Stones album-related articles as well; see their edit history. I warned them on their talk page and reverted some of their edits but they did not listen. Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:32, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked EvergreenFir (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

User:NicolasTn reported by User:Qiushufang (Result: Partially blocked for 3 months; nominator partially blocked for 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• August 2024

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]
6. [13]
7. [14]
8. [15]
9. [16]
10. [17]
11. [18]
12. [19]
13. [20]
14. [21]

• September 2024

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

• December 2024

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]
5. [30]
6. [31]
7. [32]
8. [33]
9. [34]
10. [35]
11. [36]
12. [37]
13. [38]
14. [39]

• January 2025

1. [40]

• February 2025

1. [41]
2. [42]

• March 2025

1. [43]
2. [44]
3. [45]

• April 2025

1. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47][48]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [49]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [50]

Comments:

Long term edit warring over several months. Reverted every edit by users Vacosea (talk · contribs), Qiushufang (talk · contribs), Amigao (talk · contribs) to their preferred version. Single purpose account with no history other than reverting on Amdo. Abandoned talk discussion after it became clear they did not have consensus, did not address any concerns, and consistently uses spurious reasons based on some version of go to talk, more talk needed, talk discussion not valid, or talk discussion not detailed enough for their reversions despite abandoning talk. Probably also a competence issue and does not understand basic Wiki policies [51]. Qiushufang (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Reported user Partially blocked – for a period of 3 months ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Nominator Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

User:180.222.69.207 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: )

Page: Me & U (Cassie song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 180.222.69.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 03:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 03:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 03:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:47, 4 April 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Me & U (Cassie song)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user keeps on trying to add the statement of this song being on “GTA 5 Non Stop Pop Radio”, without any source. They have been asked multiple times to provide a source and still refuse to do so.

It’s not that the claim is incorrect (the song is actually in GTA 5), but if there’s no reliable secondary source stating that fact, then it’s not notable enough for inclusion in the article. ApexParagon (talk) 05:36, 4 April 2025 (UTC)