Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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.

Update this 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:LibStar reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Muscat International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1325483895 by Danners430 (talk) rv disruption to prove a WP:POINT"
2. 08:49, 3 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1325482726 by Danners430 (talk) the source is https://www.omanair.com/en/expanding-our-network all verifiable"
3. 08:35, 3 December 2025 (UTC) "References are available here List of Oman Air destinations. It is WP:POINT to remove valid destinations that the airline obviously flies to."
4. 05:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Passenger */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:50, 3 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Muscat International Airport */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 08:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Addition of unsourced content */ new section"

Comments: Further discussion on my own talk page - it appears the editor is aware of the discussion on the article talk page, but does not wish to engage in accordance with the dispute resolution policy. I am going along with their wishes that I stay off their talk page, aside from posting the notice of this discussion as required by policy. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:05, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Here are 3 reverts from Danners430, [1], [2],[3]. LibStar (talk) 09:06, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the edit warring report ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It now appears to be some sort of campaign against me Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibStar. This investigation will find nothing. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It looks like that other account was an LTA, blocked by @Sugar Tax - I had suspicions because it was a brand new account and the first thing they did was remove this report, but it does look like it was unrelated. In which case yes, nothing will be found. It was opened in good faith because there were suspicions, as you probably would do also if a new account reverted your reporting another user on a discussion page as their first act. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I also note you’re still not replying on the article talk page other than to complain about me pinging you… are you going to discuss this dispute as required by policy or not? Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Disengaging would be a fine alternative. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

LibStar, is there something so unclear about WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS that you need a block to stop? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I will add the citation https://www.omanair.com/en/expanding-our-network when I have time in next few days. LibStar (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

That sounds okay, LibStar, but if that edit is reverted again, you'll have to discuss on the article's talk page or disengage from the conflict. There won't be another warning before an edit warring block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Doxiados reported by User:Stablecoin (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Mir Mohammad Ali Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:33, 3 December 2025 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC) to 07:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
   1. 06:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 07:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 07:23, 2 December 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 05:14, 2 December 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Mir Mohammad Ali Khan."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

instead of discussing, this paid editor keeps reverting every edit that removes promotional content from this BLP… Stablecoin (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:PepGuardi (Result: No violation Fully protected for three days)

Page: The Secret Agent (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martineden83 (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. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [10]

Comments:
My second warning is bellow my first one, the editor deleted the first warning I let on their talk page and then when I went to add the second warning I brought back the fist one and put the second warning following the first one.

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. I see you've reached an impasse on talk ... please take heed of WP:QUO. And it would be good to get some other editors involved and move the discussion towards consensus. Daniel Case (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Daniel Case, we should seriously consider removing that parameter from the template. Neither reports here nor edit warring are limited to 3RR violations, and PepGuardi's response to your message was to continue reverting 20 minutes later. Declining is fine for hundreds of possible reasons, but "no 3RR violation" shouldn't be one of them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Martineden83 decided to wait a little bit longer than 20 minutes, but they're back at it as well. --Onorem (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

What? This guy was not following MOS:FILMLEAD / MOS:FILMACCOLADES / MOS:NOTLEDE, arguing like follow the guidelines were a personal attack against him. Please enlighten me what should have been done. Thank you @Onorem Martineden83 (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - The answer isn't to continue to edit war. --Onorem (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

There's no edit war when he was the one messing up the lead section, creating awards season narrative yet again.

Before trying to block me, take a closer look at The Secret Agent talk page and his talk page, both of them are full of warnings and he is always attacking users. @Onorem Martineden83 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Just a sidenote, he deleted many of them from his talk page Martineden83 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

You are absolutely edit warring. Your edits aren't exempt because of your interpretation of a "guideline." And WP:BLANKING allows users to remove messages and warnings from their own talk page. You were also wrong to restore those. --Onorem (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I know very well how WP:BLANKING works, i reverted because he deleted comments (including mine) from ongoing discussions, hahaha. Martineden83 (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Martineden83, as a belated answer, you may like to have a look at the essay WP:DISCFAIL. It is perhaps the only essay I link to at all; most essays are not worth reading. This one is.

So what should have been done? Not another revert. You have linked some guidelines, but they don't permit edit warring. Edit warring is disruptive even if you are right. And even if the other user's behavior is disruptive too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably left over from the old days when we were stricter about it (after all, we still call the template {{AN3}}. At the very least we should have a 1RR variant. Daniel Case (talk) 21:50, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Page protected In full for three days due to continued edit warring. Daniel Case (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:AlondraVent32 reported by User:Jay8g (Result: Blocked from page for a week)

Page: Eleidin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AlondraVent32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has never engaged on talk pages

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [17]

Comments:
I've tried to communicate with this user for several days, with no response. In this edit to the article in question, the user stated in the edit summary "May I have some time to revise my information added and check my sources." That's the only comment from them.

Aside from a ton of style, spelling, formatting, spacing, and other errors, where the content is sourced at all, the sources are non-English, or largely things like blogs and Fiveable.

The content was also jumbled, cyclical, and contained many-times-redundant wording, such as stating over and over that this substance is found in thick skin. Overall, I did not feel that this user's contributions were vandalism, but were certainly not constructive, which is why I reverted them several times. I'm stepping away now so I don't 3RR myself. Jessicapierce (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week from the page, since the user is a student editor. This will give them every incentive to use the talk page to resolve these issues. Daniel Case (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Osapolo reported by User:Avocado (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Cost segregation study (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:49, 4 December 2025 (UTC) "/* Property asset classification */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC) to 16:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
   1. 16:35, 4 December 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC) "General note: Adding inappropriate external links on Cost segregation study."
2. 16:42, 4 December 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Adding spam links on Cost segregation study."
3. 16:43, 4 December 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Adding spam links on Research & Experimentation Tax Credit."
4. 20:19, 4 December 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Adding spam links on Research & Experimentation Tax Credit."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also at Research & Experimentation Tax Credit. No response to warnings. I just reverted and warned a third and final time, but have little expectation that they'll notice the warnings or comply, given behavior so far. Reporting here before it goes any further. Avocado (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:HistoryofIran reported by User:Idris Shirazi (Result: Stale)

Page: Shahnameh (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. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

Comments:

This dispute is about the picture to use in the Shahnameh page infobox.

HistoryofIran preferred pic

What I added

I thought the below picture, which shows one of the most interesting scenes in the story, would be far better for the infobox than the previous picture. Users thanked me for my change.

Historyofiran disagreed.

I left a message on his talk page to explain my reasoning.

He said "not reading all that"#[21]

He reverted me 3 times (violating the 3RR rule) and then threatened ME with an ANI report if i did anything.

Hes editing his own talk page now to make his argument look more coherent.

He violated the 3RR. Hes telling me to get consensus. Other users in the shahnameh page thanked me. He did not. I left a talk page on his account. He told me he wouldnt read all that.

Help me out this is getting ridiculous and annoying.

I've not violated 3RR, Idris Shirazi. You've been told of WP:CONSENSUS dozens of times, yet you clearly don't care about that (nor other Wiki policies for that matter, can easily be demonstrated if needed), attempting to force your way through, perfectly shown in your own words when you were disregarding MOS:ETHNICITY "you will not find a single soul who agrees with this BS that persian is irrelevant. its everything he is, his religion comes from khorasani mystique school, his language is persian, his blood is persian he is persian, so keep edit warring me if you want, ill die on this hill". --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Is that related to your current violation of wikipedia policy?

Yes, historyofiran, please go through and link every single instance of you specifically targeting me, waiting for me to lose my temper and say something that doesnt read right, and then frame me as if my edits were not entirely in good faith.

Yes historyofiran, ignore the point at hand completely, and say "Ill talk about things unrelated to this specific ANI report"

The point at hand:

I made a change, multiple users thanked me

ONLY YOU DISAGREED

Consensus is for you to establish. And even with that being the case, I left a message on your profile in good faith that anyone can read. You said not reading all that. You cant have it both ways GET CONSENSUS *tries to get consensus* NOT READING THAT Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

GET CONSENSUS *tries to get consensus* NOT READING THAT

Yes, I'm not interested in reading your rants [22], no one is, especially not after having already used several hours to explain Wiki policies to you, only to get ridiculed/attacked by you every time. And you've already been told several times that WP:CONSENSUS is achieved in the talk page of an article (you were literally told this minutes ago too [23]). But again, you don't care.

More examples that you simply don't care about Wiki policies;

1. rv, WP:GS. please provide 16.2 trillion sources per cubic centimeter of pixel space taken up on my talk page or it will have to be reverted unfortunately. (this was after another long attempt to explain Wiki policies to you, dismissing all of it with this "joke").
2. or you can just get some thicker skin ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ LOL i need a academic citation for why that guy is an ignorant chauvinist too? is my talk page gonna be reverted now? (This was after I advised you to not attack another user without evidence (and in general be a bit nicer), resulting in another "joke"). --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

EXACTLY what I expected from you HistoryOfIran. Exactly what I expected from you, link completely out of context messages that make me look bad. But all it reveals is a pattern of you targeting me, me trying to be civil, then you ignoring or berating my attempts to be civil, and finally me losing my temper.

THOSE EDITS WERE ON MY OWN TALK PAGE. And this is EXACTLY what I expected from you. Absolutely NOTHING ADDRESSING your violations, only trying to point back and say "Look how bad faith Idris Shirazi is! Let me ignore the point at hand and frame him with out of context quotes!"

You can't say "no-one is" because I've had productive relationships with editors on here through talk pages and email, Ive only had a problem with you. So speak for yourself, and try addressing your violation about the 3RR instead of Ad hominem as always Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

The point at hand is that you reverted an edit 3 times that others agreed with, then demanded consensus from me, then berated my attempt to get consensus and threatened ME with ANI after YOU violated 3RR.

How about you stick to that point instead of trying to ad hominem and make my look bad with out of context quotes. Again, if anybody reads the edit history, they can see that my edits are in good faith. Your attempt to frame me as a bad faith editor will not work. Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

This discussion thread ends here, replies will be removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris Shirazi, you're running headfirst towards a wall. You're not helping your position with your argumentation and its style. You can stop here, say that you disengage from the conflict and move on. Or end up blocked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

End up blocked for what exactly lol

I spend hours after school making good faith edits and historyofiran does nothing but target me and im the one who should be blocked? for what exactly. i wont disengage because i am done being targeted by this guy Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:17, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

For disruptively editing, specifically failing to get the point. Which is fine if you stop reverting and complaining and release your anger elsewhere than on Wikipedia. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I AM SORRY, but this is not fair and the picture i put IS the consensus, not his

It is finals week and i was already prioritizing wikipedia over school to my own detriment so i got pissed when this guy undoes all my good faith work, im sorry for the anger ill try to work on that honestly but i spend hours trying to make this a better website

The point is that i added a picture, multiple users thanked me, he disagreed, i tried to talk to him, he did not want to talk to me. Idris Shirazi (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Idris Shirazi, I'm neither blaming you for others' behavior nor for your normally-commendable strong interest in Wikipedia. What I'm less happy about is that you have let these things influence your entire behavior, not just your article editing. You currently behave like a drunken choleric in a pub who's about to get dragged away by annoyed police officers.

For your and the Wikipedia community's interests, it would be best if you pause here.

I'm not saying you're wrong in this conflict. I'm not saying your image choice is worse or better.

I personally don't care about the image and I hope you can believe me when I say I really don't care which of these images is displayed. I never heard the word "Shahnameh" or seen either of the images before.

You may like to focus on the finals. I have zero authority over what you do off-Wikipedia; I can't tell you to do this. It's your life. But if Wikipedia affects it negatively, that should be avoided by pausing your Wikipedia editing for a while, and if Wikipedia is affected negatively, that pause may be required. That's the only thing I can decide about: Whether your editing is disruptive enough to justify a block. You thought this thread is about HistoryofIran's behavior. I see edit warring. I'm not saying their behavior is fine. But this discussion here has primarily become one where you demonstrated a hopefully temporary inability to edit calmly and helpfully. And I'd like to close it without action and let you decide yourself how much time you spend on Wikipedia next to the finals week. You can currently easily do so; please preserve this status. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

HistoryofIran, can you agree that the number of reverts you made in the article about the Shahnameh was, while possibly enforcing a needed discussion, edit warring that should ideally have been avoided and wouldn't continue during the next 48 hours from your side even if someone else appeared and changed the image again? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes. I should have been more patient. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

User:~2025-38532-58 reported by User:Coddlebean (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of people known as the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-38532-58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user keeps reverting this article with many temporary accounts without explaining reasons to do so. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_known_as_the_Great&action=history . Coddlebean (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

User:LeChatiliers Pupper reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: )

Page: Pacification of Algeria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC) "Fed up with Sitkah / M.Bitton clear coordination always the same two, likely canvassing they need a topic ban and for this article to be to not be made WP:Undue with excessive focus on a minor POV"
2. 23:38, 5 December 2025 (UTC) "Its fringe not a euphemism"
3. 02:45, 5 December 2025 (UTC) "You never explain yourself, I have set it out very clearly this is a mil history article thats being pov pushed on. Cease."
4. 00:39, 5 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1325718506 by Salmoonlight (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:43, 6 December 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pacification of Algeria."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. The discussion that they ignored "/* December 2025 */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring (reverting 3 editors), refusing to explain their reverts (despite being asked) and uncalled for personal attacks (see edit summaries). M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is the third time the users have worked in tandem, the first time is fine, the second is a coincidence, the third is suspicious and I am within my rights to note it. It is frankly laughable to try and gag me from saying anything about this.

I would suggest M.Bitton learns to tell the time 0:39 5 Dec is more than 24hours away from 2:06. 6th Dec

M.Bitton never pinged me on the discussion, and in previous discussions fails to elaborate often simply using vacuities such as "as per sources", no discussion is ever given, no questions answered. Just circular reasoning, "because I object". There is never textual analysis.

M.Bitton has a history of preventing information being added to articles, even with sources given, even when an argument is made. They fail to provide justification simply saying they object they never engage in discussion. They quote guidelines as if they are policy, they engage in twinkle abuse (not sufficiently explaining revisions).

My objection is on stronger grounds and, the claim that I refused to explain my actions my grounds are available on the talk page which M.Bitton clearly neglected to read beyond posting a comment without pinging me.

I dislike interacting with M.Bitton I have asked them repeatedly to leave my talk page alone they continue to harass me. They harassed me when I was new, he continues to do so.

I have found many wikipedians honest, forthright and generous I suggest M.Bitton moves this to a dispute resolution notice board and in the interim allow the page to stay in its stable state. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

M.Bitton never pinged me on the discussion diffs don't lie. The rest is just more assumption of bad faith and personal attacks.

@Daniel Case: your input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

More canvassing...

You have a history of editing talk pages remember - Talk:Emir Abdelkader: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

And then being angry that nobody saw your edited message as they were on an old version of the page.

As for the ping I never got it, thank you for drawing my attention to it - I would draw your attention to the message above which I assume you have yet to read... LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

•  Note: Their response (another personal attack) to me leaving the "Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion on their talk page". This was done after they commented above. M.Bitton (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Failure to assume good faith and a battleground mentality. Responding like this when notified of this discussion doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2025 (UTC)