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)
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184	1185	1186
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484
485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492	493	494
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341	342
343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Page: Jonathan Keeperman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:18, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1289208256 by Stonkaments (talk): The WP:ONUS is on you to justify these edits, not on other editors to clean up your mess"
2. 03:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289207305 by Gotitbro (talk) Addressed on talk page. BLP says: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
3. 03:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1289206428 by Gotitbro (talk) happy to discuss specifics on talk page"
4. 03:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "Restored revision 1289015719 by Reflord (talk): Revert BLP violations, misrepresenting sources, and numerous copyediting errors"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 04:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "/* BLP violations removed */ Reply"

Comments:

User violated 3RR and bizzarely warned me of a block for edit warring. I realize I have made 3Rs on this page, but stopped right at the limit (the first edits of mine here were not reverts). Gotitbro (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edits were in fact reverts, as clearly noted by your own edit summaries (“restore clearly relevant content…” and “undue?, half our article covers his extremist publishing and clearly the thing he is known for”). Thus you made four reverts, violating 3RR. WP:CLEANHANDS Stonkaments (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will let an admin be the judge of my initial bunch edits on the article, an article I had edited long before you became active on it, almost a day ago before your edit warring. You still refuse to acknowledge that you yourself have unambiguously violated 3RR. Gotitbro (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Exemption #7 of WP:3RR: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." You introduced contentious material that was biased and poorly sourced; how long you have edited an article is irrelevant except insomuch as highlighting that fact indicates a pattern of acting as if you WP:OWN the article. Stonkaments (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Chechen genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:52, 7 May 2025 (UTC) "I already gave a reason."
2. 13:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 21:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC) "The "400.000" one doesn't make sense and cannot be used as an normal source as it is the only source stating that death toll. Plus if 643,000 really did die then the Chechen Population would be low."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Katify#2_May_2025 REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 15:51, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I've indeffed the account at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

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

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

Comments:
I'd like to note that this isn't the editor's first time engaging in disruptive editing. See their edit history in Fall of the Assad regime, Hafez al-Assad, and Arab Cold War. Skitash (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat for the hundred thousandth time, we had a discussion, I had the last word there, and if you are unable to scroll down the list of discussions, it is not my damn problem and not my damn fault. Algirr (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I literally went to sleep 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 04:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

moreover, your pointless claim about Hafez al-Assad is pointless. It didn't reach the edit war, and I attached sources, while my opponent needed several attempts to read the article and find the mentioned details, after which he said that this source, because it is a blog, is not a relevant resource (he didn't even say this since the first his re-edit) Algirr (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on their three messages in that discussion,[17][18][19] it doesn't seem like @Abo Yemen agreed with you at all. Skitash (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, my counterarguments don't have to be taken into account? Algirr (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not joking, I also disagreed with him (what a surprise, right?) and gave my arguments, if you suddenly didn't notice Algirr (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regarding the "fall of the Assad regime". Can you please remind me WHICH and WHOSE collage was approved for posting? And WHO was the first to change and divide it, although they had neither the right nor the justification for this in the form of creating a consensus? Algirr (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • This personal attack speaks for itself. M.Bitton (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The fact that you are responding after the ban, and to the message that was written because of the ban, also speaks for itself. Algirr (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not a ban, it's a short block that you described as an unjustified, bastard behavior on the part of the moderators. M.Bitton (talk) 13:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Department of Government Efficiency (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3
4. 4
5. 5

Comments:

Full disclosure I have also been editing the page and some of these are reverts of content I added. I have also been removing content from the page. I do not think my edits constitute edit warring but recognize my own bias in that judgement.

Pinging some users which may have interest here @FactOrOpinion, AnonymousScholar49, and Horse Eye's Back: Czarking0 (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised edit warring and WP:OWN concerns regarding this article with Selbsportrait before. I advised them to take a step back, they appear to be doubling down instead. That being said this does appear to be more technical edit warring than serious direct back and forth edit warring... The sheer volume of their contributions makes it hard to tell though. I also do not see a warning at Talk Selbsportrait. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added the an3 notice. If you look at the page history you will see he deleted it. Unless that is not what you meant and I am supposed to add something else? Czarking0 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to warn the user that they are violating 3RR, or about to do so, if they continue to revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok maybe I misunderstood something or did not read something I was supposed to? On WP:3RR the only mention of warn I see is in the paragraph that begins If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited given that this is a contentious topic, Selbs is not a new editor, and has already been warned about his conduct on by Horse's Eye on this page, I determined that Selbs was aware that edit warring is prohibited. In that case I understood the guidance on 3RR to mean that I should go here Czarking0 (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, at the top of this page, it says "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." Second, if you follow the instructions on how to create a report, which apparently you didn't, there's a spot for you to provide a diff of that warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't interpret "consider warning them" as "you must warn them." If it's intended to be a requirement rather than a consideration, then the wording should be changed. I also don't see a requirement on WP:EW. It does say "If the edit warring user(s) appear unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy ...," but Selbsportrait is clearly aware of the policy (e.g., their user page says "Talk pages may improve the entries they're meant to improve, but only as a last resort. ... Its main use is to avoid edit wars"). WP:EW likewise encourages talk discussions to avoid/resolve edit wars, and the form here also asks for a "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page." So I understand the decline. That said, I agree with Horse Eye's Back re: "WP:OWN concerns regarding this article ... The sheer volume of their contributions makes it hard to tell" if they're edit warring. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the 3RR? Selbsportrait (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined per above. Daniel Case (talk) 17:18, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mark Odhiambo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Grace1624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC) "My height information"
2. 22:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 20:48, 8 May 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Among others Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 22:26, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this is a bit over the top right now? Nobody posted a conflict of interest notice until now [20]. You also added a death date that was for a different person [21]. I would have suggested waiting to see how they respond to the coi notice. Knitsey (talk) 22:34, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Faster than Thunder, you're possibly one mistake away from a block for disruptive editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How am I close to a block? Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 00:24, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23] "Stop to maniupulate the truth!"
2. [24] "It is not important what the president of a country thinks or says about a historical truth"
3. [25] "Just once mentioning of [Arvand Rud] is enough!"
4. [26] "Please STOP to ignore my Identity!"
5. [27] "“Arvand Rud” is a much older name for that water."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [30]

Comments:
This is not exactly a 3RR violation but it's clearly edit warring and disruptive. The editor is deleting noteworthy sourced content and an alternative name in the lede that was added as a result of an RfC. Judging by their comments,[31] their edits seem to be based on WP:JDL. Skitash (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content, what I removed, was not relevant. such NEWS are not important.

Arvand Rud is Important, because that is part of the history. PayamAvarwand (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked for 24 hours by The Bushranger.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]