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:BBJJKK reported by User:Mellk (Result: User alerted to CTOPS)

Page: Timurid Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BBJJKK (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

Editor continually changing area in infobox despite 3RR warning on user talk page asking them to discuss their changes. Similar disruptive editing on other articles as well. Mellk (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I understand the concern. My intention was not to edit war. I made changes based on reliable sources (Profile Books preview PDF and Seshat database), and I believed they improved the accuracy of the article. I will refrain from making repeated reverts and will wait for consensus on the talk page. Thank you. BBJJKK (talk) 05:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Are you willing to self-revert? Your fourth revert is a violation of WP:3RR. Mellk (talk) 06:06, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but I would like to clarify that the previous figure of 4.4 million km² had no cited academic source. I updated the area to 5.5 million km² based on reliable references, including Seshat: Global History Databank and the preview from Profile Books. Both are academically accepted sources. Therefore, I believe the new figure is better supported and should remain unless a stronger, properly cited alternative is presented. Thank you BBJJKK (talk) 06:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You have still violated 3RR (which is a blockable offense) and there were already three sources cited (note that this response is identical to what they posted on the article's talk page). Mellk (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any three sources, so I changed the Timurid area to 5.5 million km² because I couldn't find that source. BBJJKK (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I gave you enough sources, and you say you have a source but you can't show it. There was no information on Wikipedia that the Timurids' area was 4.4 million km², which is why I changed it to reliable sources. BBJJKK (talk) 06:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope that even though I've cited so many sources that it's 5.5 million km², you won't try to change it back to 4.4 million km² because there's no academic data. BBJJKK (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I have just linked them even though they are already clearly cited in the infobox. Mellk (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

But my sources were also valid, and yours is only the first source is close to the truth, but some of the empire areas in your first source do not match Wikipedia's data. From your second source, I could not find any information about the size of the Timurid Empire, and your third source is a regular site that does not blindly copy your first source. Maybe in this case, you will go back and change the Timurid Empire to 4.4 million km². This is unfair BBJJKK (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. I added the area and population figures of the Timurid Empire based on academic sources such as Seshat (https://seshat-db.com/core/polity/370) and Profile Books (https://profilebooks.com/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/PDFs/9781788161930_preview.pdf). The figures are 5.5 million km² for area and approximately 49 million for population. These are clearly cited in the infobox, and I appreciate your help in linking them in the body as well to improve visibility and verification. BBJJKK (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

TLDR: They are not willing to self-revert. Mellk (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, you want them to revert to an unsourced and incorrect state, to make the wiki better? 72.20.140.37 (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

For the millionth time, the 4.4 million figure is already cited to three sources. I hope you are not related to BBJJKK. Mellk (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Your first source is great, I admit, but some of the fields do not match other information on Wikipedia, and in your second source I could not find any information about the Timurid field, and your third source is just a copied version of the first source, now think about it, I gave you two sources that are clearly and strongly identical, but yours is very weak, and the remaining empire fields do not match Wikipedia BBJJKK (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Taagepara's data does not match at all, Wikipedia says the Tang Dynasty was 5.4 million km², but Taageparanjng's source estimates it at 5.2 million km², and the Golden Horde at 5.2 million km², but Wikipedia says 6 million km², and Byzantium at 1.5-1.6 million km², but in reality it is not that much. The Seshat.Com website you doubted was created by Turchin Peter, you called it unreliable, but the area of both the Macedonian Empire and the Ottoman Empire was taken from Peter Turchin's book "A Theory for the formation of Large empires", and here you are doubting Seshat.Com, which was created by Turchin, although Wikipedia used his books as a source. Taagepara said in his first book that the Timurids were 4 million km², but then in Wikipedia it is 4.4 million m². This does not match at all. The real source is the information provided by Peter Turchin and Daniel Hoyer in the book Profile Books, which is 5.5 million km² in the Temurid area. Seshat.Com, and they are consistent with each other BBJJKK (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll just weigh in here and say that this is woefully factually inaccurate (as outlined at Talk:Timurid Empire#Area) and suggests that the editor has not actually read the sources they dismiss. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Why did you tell me to place the Timurids, like the Mauryan Empire, based on two different sources, but then you reverted them to their previous state? How fair is that? BBJJKK (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

That's not what I told you (note "if"), and I'm not the one who reverted you (it was R Prazeres). TompaDompa (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand what you meant. BBJJKK (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Moreover, these two studies related to Seshat.Com and Profile Book are also modern and new studies, so it would be better to leave the Timurid Empire as 5.5 million km², and it would be great if you could adjust the area of the Timurid Empire in the article The Largest of Empires to the same. The reason is that having two different, contradictory information in two articles leads to confusion and distrust. I hope you agree with me. The discussion needs to end as soon as possible BBJJKK (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

I hope you understand me BBJJKK (talk) 11:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Declined as user seems to have started discussing. I have alerted them to CTOPS, especially since IPA has been merged with SL and the SASG sanctions and expanded to apply to Bangladesh and Nepal, too (It's now officially South Asia (but still excludes Bhutan). Daniel Case (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Koolaidpedia reported by User:NegativeMP1 (Result: Blocked 24h)

Page: Baldi's Basics in Education and Learning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Koolaidpedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here, though see comment

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1301302784
2. Special:Diff/1301397496
3. Special:Diff/1301409970
4. Special:Diff/1301435853

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: No formal warning as I didn't want to come off as hostile or enforcing my own view point as I would have had to be the one warning them (nobody else except me and them are involved in this). I also myself am bordering on 3RR, so I am trying to back away from the situation directly (hence the following discussion). Although, I did specify here that I wanted to avoid an edit war. But I apologize if a warning would've been desired prior to this report and if that discussion wasn't enough.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1301440737

Comments:
To fully clarify, some things on this report may look odd as, in the middle of this, I tried making a series of changes to the article itself to make it more compliant with sourcing policies. So the original version linked above is technically different than the one that was there prior to the users fourth revert, if that makes sense. But maybe this wasn't the appropriate time to do cleanup on the article when an edit war was underway, so I own up to that. Also, this is my first time engaging with this noticeboard at all, so I apologize if I am missing anything here or if the situation is not urgent enough (it really is just over the wording of a lead sentence). I just didn't know what else to do about it. λ NegativeMP1 21:36, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

User is continuing to edit (see here and the rest of their recent contributions) while ignoring this situation. Even though they've been alerted on their talk page. λ NegativeMP1 23:14, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Photographer's Box reported by User:Cloventt (Result: )

Page: Francisco Peralta Torrejón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and: The Theatre Times (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Photographer's Box (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14][15]

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

Comments:
I came across the The Theatre Times article at NPP. I added the usual maintenance tags and removed some uncited promo fluff. The author took this quite personally and reverted my removal before I had time to explain with wikilove. I noticed in their contribution history another recent biography that had not been reviewed, so I added some tags there too. I initially suspected a possible COI/autobiography situation on that, though they have denied any connection, so I removed the tags. They came to my talk page and eventually requested some constructive advice, which I provided, but they have apparently rejected that too. I've done my best not to be too WP:BITEY, but overall they seem to have taken constructive edits and advice rather personally, so its at the point that I would like to WP:DISENGAGE and let someone else give them advice. In the meantime though, the maintenance tags on the articles should be reinstated. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 00:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Added several serious sources, hope this is okay now.--Photographer's Box (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Got a THANKS from Cloventt after adding the sources.--Photographer's Box (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Now all of a sudden he dislikes the sources. I want to get out of this game, please delete the article The Theatre Times.--Photographer's Box (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Sunjara reported by User:MrOllie (Result: )

Page: Theory of everything (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:37, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "REmoving these papers which were significant is vandalism and willful prevention of updating the article to present year. That you had not edited the previous nonsense out (ER=EPR is not in any way related to a UFT) means you are not qualified to be editing."
2. 01:28, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "/* Present status */ - REFERENCES IN PROCESS OF BEING UPDATED DO NOT VANDALIZE!!!!"
3. 01:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing article -- all of these papers are discussed in scientific literature and the last one is in peer review now, there is no reason to remove these the paper is vandalize with old crackpottery and needs updating with recent developments"
4. 01:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Causal sets and ER = EPR are not theoories of everything I am repairing a mess and updating it stop interfering and using this to hold up promotional crackpot theories"
5. 01:06, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "I am not promoting any particular theory. The field theories listed here are crackpot theories. I am replacing with the popular developments through the current year"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 01:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC) on User talk:Sunjara "/* July 2025 */ Reply"

Comments:

100% of this new user's edits so far have been additions of a preprint article and/or a biography of the author of that preprint. In addition to the 4 reverts at Theory of Everything, they're up to 3 about the same content at Quantum gravity. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Revert #5 performed while this report was opened and added above. - MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have been updating to include work by Roger Penrose (the greatest living physicist), Peter Woit, Alan Connnes, etc. I have suggested a recent physicist's bio be added but that is purely for the purposes of including more information on relevant physicists. When I found the article "quantum gravity" and "theory of everything" the articles included random references to "ER = EPR" as a possible route to unification when it is not, references to crackpot theories and even set theory as possible routes. I have been updating and removing complete nonsense, promotional references and past vandalism. Please stop interfering. You may remove the reference to the last speculative work if it's helpful, but that paper is less speculative than Lisi's paper which NEEDS to be mentioned so your attack edits make no sense Sunjara (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I have tried explaining the problems with your edits on your Talk page. Your responses to my edits have included a personal insult ("That you had not edited the previous nonsense out (ER=EPR is not in any way related to a UFT) means you are not qualified to be editing" — for the record, I would have removed that if I had noticed it). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Grayfell reported by User:Czarking0 (Result: )

Page: ChatGPT (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Grayfell (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. [17] (begin 24hr period of removing content not really reverts)
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]
7. [23] (warned after this edit before next one)
8. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warn

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: After I warned, I stopped editing article and talk. Grayfell decided place condescending messages on my talk page rather than discuss on article talk. I do not wish to speak with him right now.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments:
Czarking0 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Many of these are consecutive edits, not distinct reverts. MrOllie (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

This block of edits and I suppose this edit are reverts. The rest are just normal edits. Czarking0 did not attempt to discuss this with me, reverting in ways which did not actually undo the changes and which introduced blatant errors. Czarking0 templated message doesn't really seem like an assumption of good faith in this situation. I was exasperated by this, but I did not mean to be condescending. Grayfell (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:AOBF Czarking0 (talk) 02:36, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what that link is supposed to prove. Are you talking about my talk page comment? Your reverts had problems, and your talk page seemed like the place to explain that, since your template suggested that you didn't understand what I was saying. I would be happy to explain the content issues involved, somewhere else, but AN/EW is premature at best. Grayfell (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm seeing normal edits and a couple reverts, not an edit war. Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:2.147.103.238 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: )

Page: Mirza Nasrullah Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.147.103.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: They made multiple edits for some reason when reverting, so it's a bit confusing if I write their diffs. But as you can see here [26], they have been reverted 5 times.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

Comments:

User:Italianpasta999 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: How Bad Do U Want Me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Italianpasta999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1301699601 by 194.158.235.234 (talk)"
2. 03:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1301674545 by Muboshgu (talk)"
3. 03:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 01:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 14:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "/* July 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. See also the user's attempted noticeboard disruption caught by the edit filter. Bishonen | tålk 18:04, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:DJRobin123 reported by User:REAL MOUSE IRL (Result: )

Page: List of Pinky Dinky Doo episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: DJRobin123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:18, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 20:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:35, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on List of Pinky Dinky Doo episodes."
2. 20:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removing {{copyvio}} templates."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User is removing a copyvio revdel template and reinstating copyrighted content. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Nightkillercraw reported by User:MaahirSehgal (Result: )

Page: List of Hindi films of 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 19:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 17:38, 21 July 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on List of Hindi films of 2025."
2. 20:54, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Hindi films of 2025."
3. 21:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on List of Hindi films of 2025."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user has been warned multiple times including level 4 final warnings. He's been blocked multiple times, still doesn't comply with the guidelines and continues vandalizing and making disruptive edits, when reverted, initiates an edit war. Requesting admin-intervention for a permanent solution. MaahirSehgal (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

User:KamalJamal500i reported by User:Wburrow (Result: )

Page: 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF second round (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: KamalJamal500i (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:54, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Second round"
2. 04:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Second round"
3. 04:49, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Second round"
4. 04:37, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Second round"
5. 04:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Second round"
6. 04:34, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "←Redirected page to 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Second round"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:51, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification – CAF second round."
2. 04:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 05:07, 22 July 2025 (UTC) "/* Redirect the article */ Reply"

Comments:

Editor repeatedly WP:B&Ring a page despite reverts from several other editors. Wburrow (talk) 05:09, 22 July 2025 (UTC)