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:Darkwebhistory reported by User:Pink Bee (Result: P-Blocked indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to: This is roughly the version they like to maintain, but it's not exact, since the reverts are all manual (see below).

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:54, 7 November 2024 "Restored vandalized wiki"
2. 19:19, 10 November 2024 "The sources are current and valid, as they are cited in other articles. The changes made lack any evidence to support or refute the information. Currently, it stands as vandalism"
3. 17:28, 25 November 2024 "This is the correct version. all new edits dont have any cites or anything . it is vandalism at this point"
4. 16:47, 2 December 2024 "All other edits before hand are not correct. again vandalism"
5. 02:43, 6 April 2025 "Going back to the basics and what was published when i created this wiki"

These are all manual visual reverts: the user appears to keep a copy of "their" version of the page somewhere, and reverts back to it by copying and pasting it back in.

Diff of edit warring warning: Warned by Grayfell on 3 December 2024 (diff).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Grayfell pinged them on 11 November 2024 (diff) mentioning their edit warring behaviour, and received no response.

I (under my old username) first pinged them later that day (diff) in a message which mentioned the edit warring, but was actually addressed to Grayfell because it was about a mistaken revert of one of my edits. As it was not addressed to Darkwebhistory, I can understand that they did not respond.

However, on 25 November 2024 (diff), I directly addressed them, asking them to [p]lease stop reverting [...] the whole page. Grayfell reminded them that they do not own this article, and do not get to decide that edits you don't agree with are vandalism. The conversation continued until 3 December, without any input from Darkwebhistory, despite them being pinged several times.

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

Comments:
There appears to be a lot of WP:OWN going on here, with no attempt to engage in any discussion. There has been a lot of work to improve both the content and references of the article since the version that Darkwebhistory keeps reverting to, and they undo all of these changes every time they revert.

(I'd find this editing pattern problematic anyway, but there does seem to be another potential reason besides simple ownership. An IP user pointed out on 11 November 2024 (diff) that Darkwebhistory seems to have significant ties to the sources that are used in the version of the page they keep reinstating. Most significantly, darknetdiscussions.com (which has been down for some time now) seems to be their own website. I'm here about the editing, though, not that.)

Thanks. Pink Bee (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked indefinitely. Aoidh (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

User:2407:4D00:7C02:1B5A:D597:7440:A940:5318 reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Kublai Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2407:4D00:7C02:1B5A:D597:7440:A940:5318 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284218470 by Qiushufang (talk)- explain it properly for what reason you kept a false information, or you’re just afraid to discuss about it in Talk:Yuan dynasty "
2. 07:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284218207 by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) - could you deny that the Yuan dynasty was merely a division of the Mongolian empire?"
3. 07:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284217742 by Remsense (talk)- I’m talking about the correct information, Kublai was Mongolian !"
4. 07:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284216786 by Remsense (talk)- okay let’s talk about it in talk: Yuan dynasty"
5. 07:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1284214961 by Remsense (talk)- The state was a Mongolian regime, China was just a region absorbed into the Empire by Mongol conquest"
6. 07:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "The regime was a division of Mongolian empire, not properly Chinese"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC) "/* Yuan China vs Mongol Yuan */ new section"

Comments:

• Partially blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Skr561 reported by User:shadowwarrior8 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours for violating 1RR)

Page: 2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skr561 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:31, 3 April 2025 (UTC): ("There is no evidence that pro-Assad elements massacred civilians...")
2. 12:27, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("The Human Rights and Humanitarian Action Monitoring Committee,...")
3. 12:52, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
4. 18:48, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
5. 20:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")
6. 09:18, 6 April 2025 (UTC): ("No edit summary")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [2]
2. [3]

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [4]
2. [5]

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

Comments: The new comer user Skr561 has fiercely engaged in editwarring tactics in the page, despite multiple warnings and attempts to discuss in the talk page. Furthermore, Skr561's last 5 editwarring reverts occurred within a period of less than 21 hours.
Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 10:16, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours since this article is under community sanctions and both went way across the 1RR line. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:TarantaBabu (Result: No violation, article protected)

Page: Safavid Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Safi-ad-Din Ardabili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HistoryofIran (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. 20:01, 6 April 2025 HistoryofIran deleted the edits I previously contributed to the article without providing any justification
2. 19:48, 6 April 2025
3. 19:43, 6 April 2025 I request administrator review of these cross-page reverts and the editor’s refusal to engage in genuine consensus-building, as this pattern risks harming the encyclopedia’s integrity.
4. 23:32, 13 February 2025 @ Safi-ad-Din Ardabili This revert contradicts Wikipedia’s policy of good faith collaboration and resolving disputes through discussion. I urged @HistoryofIran to either justify the revert or engage in consensus-building. However, HistoryofIran didn't.

In February, after HistoryofIran reverted my edit, I attempted to seek consensus on the talk page but was unsuccessful. I initiated a discussion on the talk page to seek consensus with @HistoryOfIran. However, as documented on the talk page, it was not possible to reach mutual agreement with @HistoryOfIran."

According to Wikipedia:Edit warring "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war. Edit warring is unconstructive, creates animosity between editors, makes consensus harder to reach, and causes confusion for readers."

I have escalated this matter to the [noticeboard] for further review. Given the complexity of the issue, one editor provided partial input as a third-party perspective. However, this partial contribution did not resolve the underlying dispute or establish a clear consensus, as evidenced by the ongoing discussion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [ 19:48, 6 April 2025 ] "Despite all my efforts, HistoryofIran issued an edit warring warning to deter me, which I believe was intended to intimidate rather than resolve the dispute constructively."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [ 13:20, 14 February 2025 ]

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

Comments:

Given the lack of progress, I request administrator intervention or mediation to resolve this matter in accordance with Wikipedia’s dispute resolution guidelines. TarantaBabu (talk)

More WP:GAMING by TarantaBabu, I didn't even violate WP:3RR. As is already apparent, diff from February is about a completely different article (Safi-ad-Din Ardabili), where I attempted to talk to them [8], which was futile, as they were more interested in being combatative, seemingly more interested in getting a "gotcha" moment against me, just like now, just like in the noticeboard [9] where they "escalated" (more WP:GAMING) matters to and suddenly vanished after my response, which included calling them out for blatantly lying to make me look bad, as they are doing here. I'm sure TarantaBabu was already aware of this, but they themselves have reverted four times in just one of those articles (Safavid Iran) article since March [10] [11] [12] [13] in relation to the same subject. So by their logic, they should appear even worse off here. But then again, they only need that "gotcha" moment against me, editing collaboratively seems secondary, if not less. I can go into depths about this if needed, but that would perhaps be more relevant in a WP:ANI report of them. Anyhow, I would argue WP:OUCH here. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." TarantaBabu (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello TarantaBabu, which response do you expect to this report? Page protection? You both being blocked, which is a higher damage to the established editor than to your 13-edits-per-year account? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Why should I be blocked? Just because I don't have edits in English Wikipedia, does that make me wrong on this report. The edits are there. Cited, sourced. Those are contributes to the articles. They fit with WP policies. HistoryofIran violates Wikipedia:Ownership of content by reverting my edits. HistoryofIran is removing my contributions through edit warring.

A thorough review of edits, talk page, and noticeboard will resolve this dispute. TarantaBabu (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A good chunk of your 66 edits is your WP:GAMING reports of me (you have already made 2) and ceaseless WP:ASPERSIONS like this comment. Can you please stop? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• No violation, article protected. The only article at play here is Safavid Iran on which both editors have reverted three times, so I have protected it for a couple of weeks for discussion to take place. I note that the article has been semi-protected multiple times and has attracted various sockpuppets in the past. There is only one revert on the other article (see WP:BRD), so nothing to do there. Black Kite (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

User:Eeismail reported by User:Hypnôs (Result: 48 hours)

Page: New Kingdom of Egypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eeismail (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 IP edits with similar content preceded these:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]
8. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

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

Comments:

Hypnôs (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 7 April 2025 (UTC)