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:Woovee and User:Aradicus77 reported by User:3family6 (Result: Both blocked indefinitely, enough is enough)

Page: Goth subculture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Woovee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Aradicus77 (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]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]
10. [11]
11. [12]
12. [13]
13. [14]
14. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Aradicus77: [16]

• Woovee [17], [18]

I tried to resolved previous disputes, as did other editors. This is now another article that's part of this topic where these editors are going at it.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19], [20]

Comments: These editors have had an ongoing conflict on articles related to post-punk, gothic rock, and glam rock. I warned them about edit warring, and Aradicus77 even brought the issue to ANI. When they then brought the issue to this page, ToBeFree blocked both editors from editing the post-punk and Gothic rock articles. They also warned both that if they see more edit warring between the two, they will propose an interaction ban [21], [22].

--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:33, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

I literally told ToBeFree to block us off that page and he said he wasnt interested Aradicus77 (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

How am I edit warring? I opened up a talk page discussion about what I was gonna add. Issan agreed. I made changes. Woovee reverted everything I added with no explanation then I added it back. Why do you keep making it look like I am the aggressor? Aradicus77 (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

This edit summary by Woovee is unacceptable [23] does he not know not everyone in the world speaks English as a first language? Does he not know people are fluent in 4 diff languages and might have errors at times? Aradicus77 (talk) 14:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

[24] and when I told you about this on your talk page you didnt even reply. Ive also mentioned before woovee only edits goth related pages for the last few months I contribute to all kinds of pages from what users like Binksternet has said it feels like while I was contributing to a wide range of music pages I stumbled onto pages that Woovee was trying to uphold ownership of (not crazy to say this as other users have pointed out his OWN mentality) and now while I try to just edit pages as usual. Woovee turns everything into an edit war which Binksternet said is what Woovee does. So what are my options now just never edit those pages? How does that not mean that Woovee is using OWN tactics Aradicus77 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment To be honest, both of you have been pbanned from two pages already, this one would be a third, and I strongly suspect that anything further would simply result in a topic ban from music-related items. So there's a choice here - either you can discuss this and come to a mutual agreement (or use a dispute resolution noticeboard) or that will be the inevitable conclusion. It's your choice. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

  I went ahead and blocked both sitewide indefinitely so we can talk about binding unblock conditions like topic bans or interaction bans, and even if they're just for a limited duration to encourage editing elsewhere and with less problems. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

User:AshwinAjax reported by User:Magawla61 (Result: )

Page: AFC Ajax in international football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AshwinAjax (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. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

4th warning [29]

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

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

Comments: The user User talk:AshwinAjax keeps playing messing up with the content of AFC Ajax in international football I warned him/her via his/her Talk page but it didn't help. He/she kept going insistently on it. Magawla61 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Whathever2 reported by User:Nswix (Result: )

Page: List of UFC records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ultimate Fighting Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of current UFC fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) UFC rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), etc.

User being reported: Whathever2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "The reason for the change was already explained in a previous edition. What matter is what appears in the UFC fighter card during the live event. The flags that appear here are not about nationality, but about which country that athlete is representing. We should respect each athlete decision to represent whatever country they want. Fighters like Topuria and Mackenzie have multiple nationalities, they are free to choose which country they want to represent in their card"
2. 18:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Most submissions - By division */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on UFC rankings."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Nationality warring across half a dozen pages. Brazilian editor has decided a fighter is Brazilian, will not relent in changing flags back, despite multiple editors changing their edits back. Nswix (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The flag shows the country, which athlete is representing. Topuria represents Georgia and Mackenzie represents Brazil. Tjis flag appears in their cards and this flags must be in that tables here. Lado85 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Catjerine reported by User:EarthDude (Result: Page protected)

Pages: Drew Pavlou (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Anti–People's Republic of China sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Catjerine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: [30][31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]
6. [37]
7. [38]
8. [39]
9. [40]
10. [41]
11. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [45]

Comments: The user is repeatedly adding WP:UNDUE and potentially WP:BLP violating content. By the time I had noticed of their edit warring at Drew Pavlou, they had already broken 3RR. The user's edit warring continued while a discussion regarding their disputed changes was taking place at Talk:Drew Pavlou#WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. After I went to their talk page, I saw that they had not been warned and as such, assumed that they did not know about the edit warring policy or about 3RR so I placed a basic edit warring template. However, upon further inspection, I realized that the user had already been warned of edit warring in the past and informed of what 3RR is,[46] though the user had then removed that older warning.[47]. After me warning the user regarding their edit warring, they went on to continue their edit warring. Worst of all, they then simply copied my edit warring warning and pasted it on my user page[48]. Looking at the user's broader edit history, it is riddled with constant reverts of the BLP article Drew Pavlou. — EarthDude (Talk) 19:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

To take a moment to characterize what's been going on, a while back Earthdude conducted a rapid-fire series of edits on the Drew Pavlou page, omitting sections on frivolous grounds added by multiple other users. Each of my reversions addressed, line-item, reasons why the removed section was in fact due. Earthdude's conduct in eschewing a consensus-seeking approach, declining to engage in a discussion about the subject matter, and acting in an autonomous manner through repeated reversions suggests their conduct more strongly aligns with the behavior that rules against edit warring seek to discourage. I additionally fail to see how either using the edit warring warning placed on my page as a template nor the discussions I've had regarding Pavlou's page in the past have any bearing why it's inappropriate for me not to acquiesce to edit warring by EarthDude. Catjerine (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

None of this excuses your edit warring, that too at a BLP article. When I had edited the Drew Pavlou article a while back, I didn't just remove overdetailed and heavily undue information, I also added quite a lot of information from reliable sources that was missing from the article. Baselessly accusing me of edit warring is absurd, when you are the one who has not only broken 3RR but gone far beyond that. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:17, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

For a large portion of your omissions you neglected to even state a reason why you thought the information was undue. Moreover, your minimal engagement on the talk page (where you give only cursory mention to your basis for deleting long-standing, notorious and properly sourced information) is more indicative of an attempt to check off compliance standards for elevation rather than good-faith engagement in the substantive issues. Trying to correct for edit warring on your part is not an act of edit warring on mine. Catjerine (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected. Catjerine needs to read WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

User:209.160.186.2 reported by User:LuniZunie (Result: No action)

Page: ACE Rent a Car (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 209.160.186.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1319434893 by Lp0 on fire (talk)"
2. 20:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "The content is highly subjective, and does not cite credible sources."
3. 20:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "Removing vandalism."
4. 20:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "removing vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on ACE Rent a Car (level 2) (AV)"
2. 20:20, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on ACE Rent a Car (level 4) (AV)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• While they did violate 3RR, their deletions were in line with policy, and the content should not have been re-added. @Lp0 on fire, LuniZunie, and Plasticwonder: please be more careful when re-adding deleted content; even if a user doesn't provide an edit summary, the burden is still on you to show that the content should be in the article. As they are (I assume) a new editor who doesn't know about our edit warring policies, closing with no action. —Ingenuity (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Got it, apologies. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, realised my mistake the moment I saw this thread. lp0 on fire () 20:39, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

User:2003:D3:FF23:88A3:5291:BC3D:9151:493 reported by User:LuniZunie (Result: blocked for 1 day)

Page: Terence Hill (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2003:D3:FF23:88A3:5291:BC3D:9151:493 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "Revert Uunexplained and unhelpful edit which contravenes BLP"
2. 20:32, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "Unexplained and unhelpful edit, and incorrect edit summary ...the edits were clearly explained"
3. 20:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "Unexplained and unhelpful edit, and incorrect edit summary"
4. Consecutive edits made from 20:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC) to 20:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
   1. 20:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "Non-notable and as per BLP"
   2. 20:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Non-notable and as per BLP"
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC) to 14:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Personal life */Non-notable here"
   2. 14:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "/* October 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

While the information they have removed may be fine, they keep removing unrelated citations for unexplained reasons. On top of this, they refuse to provide further explanation on their deletion of the proper citations. – LuniZunie ツ_(talk) 20:36, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

The edits have been appropriately explained in the edit summaries, unlike those by use LuniZunie which had no edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D3:FF23:88A3:5291:BC3D:9151:493 (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Currently getting throttled by Rapid disruption private filter. Happy halloween, pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 20:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 day. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2025 (UTC)