Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371
Incidents (archives, search)
1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180
1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186	1187	1188	1189	1190
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
487	488	489	490	491	492	493	494	495	496
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
336	337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Tropical Storm Wutip (2025) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 218.102.129.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 14:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:28, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Extra space removed."
   2. 14:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295733885 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Leizhou peninsula is a peninsula in Guangdong where the storm made its second landfall. Go to the talk page to demonstrate your ignorance in the subject rather than edit summaries."
2. Consecutive edits made from 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 14:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*See also*/ Added missing fullstop."
      • This edit was not a revert. Thanks. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
   2. 14:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*Impact*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Interwiki link for Quốc lộ 49."
   3. 14:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Guangdong -› Leizhou peninsula. Be more specific."
   4. 14:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Wikilinked tropical cyclone naming."
   5. 14:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/ Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Adverb."
   6. 14:26, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/*top*/Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk). Specified the whereabout of the island when it appears for the very first time in the main text."
3. 14:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295730853 by HurricaneEdgar (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 13:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Impact */"
      • This was not a revert. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 15:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
   2. 13:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295615278 by HurricaneEdgar (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tropical Storm Wutip (2025)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

This IP is linked to 218.102.164.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was recently blocked after I warned them. After that, the user began using a different IP address to engage in an edit war with me. However, despite repeated explanations, this IP did not listen and continued mass reverting. HurricaneEdgar 14:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IP addresses are re-assigned on and off. I was not aware of any block until I saw this message of Edgars. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Thank you for the notification. Please refer to the talk page discussion with HurricaneEdgar for more details. 218.102.129.236 (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that talk page discussion, my preference is to just wait a bit and see if everyone can just calm down and resolve to do better in the future. The situation is more complex than a mere review of the history would make it seem. Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hill station
User being reported: User:MSLQr

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:33, 15 June 2025
2. 16:09, 15 June 2025
3. 16:28, 15 June 2025

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

Talk page discussion:[3]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:[4]

Comments:

There are broader issues with this user since he falsely claimed[5] with his first edit that the information is not supported by the sources. He has also refused to self-revert.[6] Orientls (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is now trying to get around his falsification of sources by making another false claim[7] that this version says the term "Hill station" was created during the times of Ganga Dynasty or Tipu Sultan. With this logic (even if his point is considered), wheel wasn't invented before the word "wheel" was coined. Orientls (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Orientls, WP:ANI would be better for reporting falsification of sources or similar non-edit-warring behavior. I'll only check if there's an edit war here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MSLQr and Orientls, WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS both favor the removal of material during a discussion. If you have found a consensus about disputed content, you can restore it. Until then, the article is fine without it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Complete algebraic curve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UtherSRG (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]
5. [13]

To win the dispute, the user is even now threating a block. [14] Is this really an acceptable behavior?? I have at least tried to engage with the editor in the talkpage. (I suppose I myself technically violated 3RR. For that, I apologize. I got too emotional.) -- Taku (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG and TakuyaMurata, honestly...
What is wrong with you? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps as a very first step, can we agree that the edit summary of Special:Diff/1295770220 is not factually correct? Removal of tags is vandalism, really? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I got clearly carried away (and in particular I should stopped at 3RR). But what disturbed me is an suggestion that I should be banned because I have removed a cleanup template. Is that new normal in Wikipedia that I wasn't aware of? Taku (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the {{uw-tdel}} template series. It's unlikely to be helpful in a dispute between two highly experienced editors and almost impossible to have been intended as a threat of the warning administrator performing a block themselves in the given situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. That explains. (I didn't think you can use a block to win a dispute.) Anyway, I think the dispute can use some intervention from outside, as UtherSRG has been so insisting. Taku (talk) 21:20, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you can replace "UtherSRG has" by "we both have", it's almost a good statement. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, that's why we had so many reverts, and I know I should have stopped earlier. But UtherSRG's behavior should also be scrutinized, correct? Including a threat. Moreover, one editor cannot insist on a template. So, if there is a dispute on placing a template, the status quo should prevail, correct? Taku (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.
This section here is a far greater danger to UtherSRG than you. There is no need to worry about their behavior being scrutinized, with my first question being pretty stern towards them, not you.
Regarding the status quo, this is not a good rule of thumb. In general, Wikipedia places the burden of proof or the onus to obtain a consensus on those favoring inclusion of the material (WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE et cetera). If there is a debate about whether something should be in an article, a good general measure is to keep it out of the article until those who want it in have found a consensus for that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But no the dispute isn't about whether some materials should be in the article or not. I explicitly asked if there is some concern about the materials in the article and got no answer. Like said, the dispute is about placing a particular maintenance template (which in my opinion is redundant), and, if there is an objection, one editor cannot insist on it, right? Taku (talk) 21:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You got an answer here, and arguably in the edit summaries of [15], [16], [17] and [18]. The dispute is about whether something should be in the article, in multiple ways (references in the article, maintenance template above the article). If there is an objection, one editor – like you – cannot insist on reverting to their preferred revision again and again. There are few exceptions (WP:3RRNO) and none of them seems to apply. The main purpose of this discussion here is to evaluate whether "I have edit warred, and I have stopped, and I won't continue" is something both editors can say or if administrative action is needed to prevent it from continuing. Which would be completely absurd when two highly experienced editors have edit warred about something as unimportant as a maintenance template.

If I understand your current path of discussion correctly, you're trying to focus on the other user's misbehavior and seek confirmation about them having behaved badly. Don't worry: This is not needed. This was clear at 20:57.

I'm now mostly waiting for a reply from UtherSRG. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...which may have been delayed by a lack of notification on their talk page. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the first time Taku and I have butted heads. We are often at odds with how to handle matters. I do feel that what they were doing was vandalism; if removal of maintenance tags is not vandalism, after being given information on why the tag should remain, why have the {{uw-tdel}} series of warnings? And yup, I carried things too far in my reverts; usually a 2nd revert gets things to end. I feel justified in the block warning, though. They'd previously been warned on an article talk page and that user considered that WP:CIR might be in play. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG, vandalism is defined as intentional damage; not all disruptive editing is vandalism. Trying to improve the encyclopedia by repeatedly restoring a revision is disruptive but not vandalism. It is especially not the type of obvious vandalism described at WP:3RRNO#4. The existence of a template neither allows nor forbids behavior. Having carried things too far is true but has nothing to do with how many reverts other users normally invest into an edit war with you. At the moment, my competence concerns are mostly directed towards you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can say is I acknowledge that interacting with Taku, he gets under my skin in a bad way; that I will be mindful of that and, at worst, grab someone else to deal with I what I see are erroneous actions on his part. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the block warning, as that was a fear voiced above to my understanding, could you clarify that you never intended to place a block yourself? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I would have grabbed someone else to do it. It had the intended effect of getting Taku to stop, which was my only aim. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected
  If, beyond maintenance tags, there is something disputed that should be removed until a consensus is found, please let me know (and/or click here to file an edit request). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The case is closed but just for the record, I do admit recently I have often found myself in disputes with NPP or AfC crowds. I suspect this may be due to the cultural thing. These editors tend to deal with new users, and I noticed they often just throw policies or threat blocks instead of engaging in meaningful discussions. They also tend to emphasize authorship; i.e.., they often say it is the author’s responsibility to show the notability or source the claims, which is *not* true. We as a community are responsible; e.g., how the notability is established matters not who establishes it. Similarly, a word choice like “vandalism” suggests they are not seeing me as a fellow editor. I guess that’s the core of my problem with UtherSRG. I cannot change the culture but at least it explains the situation. —- Taku (talk) 06:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably not worthwhile to continue discussion here. Will follow up at your user talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Punjabi Hindus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Alphamale03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) to 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295721617 by Ekdalian (talk)"
   2. 18:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295766357 by Alphamale03 (talk)"
   3. 19:02, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295767167 by Alphamale03 (talk) I agree that Punjabis are having much bigger shares. The whole GT road belt and district like Yamunanagar, Panchkula, Hisar, Sirsa etc are having children taking second language as punjabi always in schools too. We should not confuse folks with ethnicity vs caste."
   4. 19:03, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1295719770 by Indieraw (talk) I agree that Punjabis are having much bigger shares. The whole GT road belt and district like Yamunanagar, Panchkula, Hisar, Sirsa etc are having children taking second language as punjabi always in schools too. We should not confuse folks with ethnicity vs caste."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Punjabi Hindus."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure that's a violation of 3RR? It appears two of them were Alphamale reverting himself? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MilesVorkosigan, not all edit warring consists of four edits within 24 hours, and not all page protections are purely in response to a specific edit war. In this case here, I protected the page and the need for any other action just vanished. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Dio Brando (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:28, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Dio's hair is long"
2. 02:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Nah Dio's hair is long. Go learn the difference between long hair and short hair."
3. 01:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */ you don't know the difference between normal Dio's long hair and high Dio's short hair?? did you watch jojo? It's totally different haircuts. Dio's hair was always long. different than high Dio's short hair . Many jojo accounts and even jojo wiki confirmed araki meant high Dio's short haircut. https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando araki was talking about high Dio. Why don't you accept the fact Dio's hair is long???? You didn't even jojo ??"
4. 23:14, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */ In jojo wiki they confirmed araki meant high Dio https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando

Also other accounts on Twitter confirmed araki meant high Dio.

Dio's hair is long. What is too hard to understand? High dio has a short haircut. Looks nothing like regular Dio's long hair. Go talk to jojowiki if you don't understand"

1. 21:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Dio's hair is long. Not short and araki was talking about high Dio's form not regular Dio. Source In jojo wiki they confirmed araki meant high Dio https://jojowiki.com/Dio_Brando"
2. 08:55, 15 June 2025 (UTC) "/* Creation and design */Araki was talking about high DIO's haircut form after sucking Joseph blood. Not Dio."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Dio Brando."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Comments:

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Hasan Agha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC) to 16:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 15:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique is indeed meets all the criteria of a valid secondary source."
   2. 16:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Édouard Cat's Mission bibliographique en Espagne: rapport à Monsieur le ministre de l'Instruction publique indeed meets all the criteria of a valid secondary source"
2. 08:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "I have answered all of M.Bitton's perplexities thoroughly, who's demonstrated not to have read my source before hastily deleting what I wrote. The fact that account is closer to the events narrated in it can only be an argument to its reliability, not to its lack thereof."
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:59, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "That's exactly what the source says, see page 81."
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "You were wrong to hastily delete what I wrote: the book which cites the manuscript is from the 19th century, but the manuscript containing the account of Hasan Agha's kidnapping, that is, manuscript V 248, which is cited by said source, is from the 16th century, as clearly explained in page 81 of Édouard Cat's book. It is said that the documents contained in the manuscript were collected by Juan Paez de Castro, who worked for Philip II of Spain during the 16th century, not the 19th, of course."
   2. 18:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC) to 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:55, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 17:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Hasan Agha."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 18:58, 16 June 2025 (UTC) "/* June 2025 */ new section"

Comments:

Being adamant that old primary sources are more reliable than modern secondary scholarly ones is not an excuse for the battleground attitude and the edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]