Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366
367	368	369	370	371	372	373	374	375	376
Incidents (archives, search)
1188	1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194	1195	1196	1197
1198	1199	1200	1201	1202	1203	1204	1205	1206	1207
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492
493	494	495	496	497	498	499	500	501	502
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:R3YBOl reported by User:Idris Shirazi (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
As you can see above this guy violated the 3 revert rule. This is my first time making an ANI so im sorry if this is clunky.

I am trying to improve Islamic history articles because they suck and are disorganized. But I consistently run into this user reverting me, and I notice it only happens when I happen to mention that someone was Persian.

Abu Hanifa was one of the most important figures in Islamic history because he founded the Hanifi school of jurisprudence which is the most widely followed today. As such, there is a lot of nationalist tension surrounding his identity, but mainstream scholarship and encyclopedias view all list him as Persian.

However, if you read the article in its current state, you would not get that impression. You would leave confused about whether he was Arab, Indian, or maybe Persian. This is NOT a reflection of scholarship, it is nationalist vandalism.

My edit, which you can see in the diffs above, was not even primarily about his Persian identity. I improved the article in many ways by making it far more clear, removing unsourced claims about his life, and more. But the mere fact that I mentioned he was Persian caused this user to revert the entire thing.

I do NOT believe that 90% of an article should be debates about what modern country a historic figure was born in and what ethnicity he was. I believe that should be one or two sentences max unless there is actually a real debate about it in academia.

This guy literally cites an Iraqi nationalist Arab historian who said that "actually, Abu Hanifa was a South Yemeni Arab who fled to Iraq during the Great Flood of Noah and his family stayed there until the Arab invasion thousands of years later" WHAT THE HELL IS EVEN THAT?? As WP:UNDUE says: Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

My approach, which you can see in my edits, was to completely remove all of that YAP dedicated to: "Oh he was born in Afghanistan or Uzbekistan or Iraq or"" and "He was Arab or Persian or" and just simply:

Abu Hanifa was born to a Persian[8][9] family[c] in the early decades of the Umayyad Caliphate, most likely the year 699 CE.[d]↵[1]: 71 [10][11] He was either born in Kufa[1]: 71 or Khorasan[3][1]: 69 ; either way, he spent the entirety of his productive life in the environs of Iraq.

Instead of 90% of the page including the LEDE being a nationalist debate, those two sentences. Two sentences, thats ALL WE NEED! We want to actually read about Abu Hanifa, but nobody reading the article can actually get to his life and actual CONTRIBUTIONS without 90% of the article being a tiktok comment section nationalist debate, its EMBARASSING for islamic history as a whole but this guy insists on doing this for ANY article that mentions Persians. He did it for Abu Muslim's article too and I left a talk message on his page for that, and he never responded to it. Hes not interested in dialogue, Ive tried before, so please help me out.

Signed Idris Shirazi (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Idris Shirazi, why didn't either of you start a discussion about this fact on the article talk page? You were both edit warring. This sounds like a content dispute that would benefit from input from more participants so it isn't a Me VS. You edit war. You could even notify editors on a related WikiProject talk page to participate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said I've tried talking to him before, and he never responded.

Isn't the three revert rule a thing? He reverted three times.

[Conduct-irrelevant part removed; see the box below for the full comment. ~ToBeFree]

Idris Shirazi (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a conduct noticeboard. Discussion about article content belongs to the article's talk page, not here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As I said I've tried talking to him before, and he never responded.

Isn't the three revert rule a thing? He reverted three times.

Even so its a policy violation not a content dispute. A source from an Iraqi nationalist appealing to Abrahamic mythology (noahs ark flood and escape where his bloodline somehow stayed in Iraq for thousands of years and never became Persian) as well as an Indian sheikh saying "He was definitely arab" is not a content dispute its a wikipedia violation, is it not? What is there to debate?

It comes down to us fundamentally disagreeing on what deserves to be shown. My logic is that all encyclopedias and English language scholars and contemporary primary sources agree he was Persian, and I just fundamentally disagree that we should be confusing readers with fringe interpretations about the Great Flood and some random sheikh, because its WP:Undue.

Plus, again isn't the three revert rule a thing or am I confused? Idris Shirazi (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted @Idris Shirazi because they were trying to remove the sources that discussed about origins of Abu Hanifa. specifically, the ones that attributed him as being Arab or Jat. while keeping only the persian attribution.

But the mere fact that I mentioned he was Persian caused this user to revert the entire thing. if you compare the sources cited regarding his origins (whether he is persian or Jat), there are more sources that identify him as a Jat than as Persian. you were insisting on displaying Abu Hanifa's Persian origins in the lead, which goes against WP:ETHNICITY. some users had already warned you about potentially violating WP:ETHNICITY.[5] I also informed you about this.[6] yet you dismissed the sources that attributed him to Jats or Arabs which if you really want to reach Instead of 90% of the page including the LEDE being a nationalist debate I don't understand how is this a "nationalist debate" when it is a dispute about origins? As WP:NPV states:All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV),which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. per WP:NPV, all views must be represented fairly. the sources that identify Abu Hanifa as Persian are reliable sources, as are the sources that identify him as a Jat or an Arab. the attempt to keep only the Persian origins in the article meanwhile many other sources have said otherwise constitutes POV-pushing.A source from an Iraqi nationalist please I don't think you have a right to call whatever source as a biased source, that's not acceptable.Indian sheikh saying "He was definitely arab" is not a content dispute its a wikipedia violation this Indian Sheikh is called Shah Waliullah Dehlawi a scholar in Islam and one of the most important figures of Sunni Islam, I don't think whatever he has said is considered to be "biased" or "invalid" R3YBOl (🌲) 07:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are more sources that identify him as a Jat than as Persian. you were insisting on displaying Abu Hanifa's Persian origins in the lead, which goes against WP:ETHNICITY.

THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM BRO!! That is WP:UNDUE. The fact that editors have added more sources, and more elaboration, of sources about a possible Jat origin than his Persian origin IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM! That is what WP:UNDUE means: Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

All major language English encyclopedias, all major language Arabic encyclopedias and historians, represent him as Persian. For this reason, it MUST be represented as the encyclopedic view. The fact that there are more citations for the Jats is an argument for my point!

some users had already warned you about potentially violating WP:ETHNICITY.[51

This is unfair, dude. Ibn Muqla is a different story than Abu Hanifa. Ibn Muqla, although Persian, was not targeted for being Persian, so it makes sense to exclude his ethnicity from the lede. Abu Hanifa was slandered as a corrupter of the ajam (remember, ajam is a word for Persian). His Persian ethnicity was a big reason why he was attacked by traditionalists, because they saw him as a foreign innovator for the religion,

per WP:NPV, all views must be represented fairly. the sources that identify Abu Hanifa as Persian are reliable sources, as are the sources that identify him as a Jat or an Arab. the attempt to keep only the Persian origins in the article meanwhile many other sources have said otherwise constitutes POV-pushing.

Yes, all MAJOR AND SUPPORTED VIEWS. I don't go on Ataturks wikipedia and write two paragraphs about how Ataturk is actually Jewish just because there are theories about his Jewish origin. Why? Because those theories are not supported by the vast majority of scholarship, and we have to represent scholarship, not whatever views we want to. That is WP UNDUE

please I don't think you have a right to call whatever source as a biased source, that's not acceptable

I dont mean it to offend you but that is literally what that is.

this Indian Sheikh is called Shah Waliullah Dehlawi a scholar in Islam and one of the most important figures of Sunni Islam, I don't think whatever he has said is considered to be "biased" or "invalid"

No, he is specifically an important figure in Salafist Islamic revival, which is known for radical revisionist and Arabizing historical views. And again, he goes against the majority of scholarship which is my point. Idris Shirazi (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz why didn't either of you start a discussion about this fact on the article talk page? isn't he the one who is supposed to start a discussion and discuss the concerns in the article? his only objective is to remove all the other different views of that Person's origins of him being attributed to Arabs and Jats. and only keep the persian origins in the excuse of "nationalist debate" or "your sources are biased" or "I removed them because that's valid for beginner readers" how is that helpful? as neutrality they all should be represented. anyways I will start a discussion and quote the sources that identified Abu Hanifa as a Jat or an Arab. R3YBOl (🌲) 07:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, there is nothing to debate. He was not an Arab, and the Jat interpretation is a minority view that is rarely presented, and when it is, it is presented as a very small possibility. We can add an {{efn|Some scholars have interpreted his nisba to indicate a possible Jatt origin, although tentatively}}, but thats it.

Brother, we do not need an entire paragraph in the lede talking about debates about where he was born, we do not need 6 paragraphs debating his ethnicity. Why? Because THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SCHOLARSHIP ON ABU HANIFA DOES! If he was someone who was known for being a subject of fierce debate in scholarship, then it would make sense. What we are presenting is that he is a subject of fierce debate among WIKIPEDIA EDITORS not SCHOLARSHIP. Do you get my point??

I said my edit is more beginner friendly because it is dude, look at my edit and try to look past the "Persian" part and see how much clearer it is. Idris Shirazi (talk) 08:23, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Shirazi and R3YBOl, whatever your arguments are: You can discuss this at Abu Hanifa or disengage from the conflict. The number of reverts is mostly irrelevant; if you continue reverting without having found a consensus, even just once, you may be blocked from editing to prevent this from continuing, without further warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is over-representing minority positions a conduct or content dispute? I.e., Abu Hanifa is a descendant of an Arab Noah's ark survivor. Is that a content dispute or conduct dispute? Idris Shirazi (talk) 21:42, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Shirazi, I understand your point: Persistently adding unsourced or non-neutral content is a conduct issue, but we're far from the point where this would be evaluated. Please focus on content on the article's talk page and ignore the other user's behavior for now. You're helping neither the situation nor the article by attempting to make this a conduct discussion, and if there was one to be held, that would be at WP:ANI. One day. Not today. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, understood. Idris Shirazi (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hildeoc reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

06:35, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324722315 by AndreJustAndre (talk) See below and talk"
06:29, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324715502 by AndreJustAndre (talk) Provide a plausible rationale!"
05:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324711900 by Mikewem (talk) No reason apparent for violation of WP:R#PLA; also, after careful further consultation, the definite article IS, in fact, required with "Jewry" when referring to the abstract concept of the collective entirety of the Jews"
05:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1324567065 by AndreJustAndre (talk); not "archaic" – confer any major dictionary; also please note WP:R#PLA"

orig edit

09:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC) "←Jewry (per WP:R#PLA); cf., e.g., https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/jewry: "all the people, or all the people in a particular place, who believe in and practise the religion of Judaism""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

05:57, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "/* "Jewry" */ new section"
06:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC) "/* "Jewry" */"
[7]

Comments: Also reverts warnings [8] [9] Andre🚐 06:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Objection: The reporter is himself warring, and has been reluctant to provide a reasonable rationale for his repeated reverts, which, in addition, are in violation of WP:R#PLA, which has been repeatedly pointed out to him.--Hildeoc (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I and another editor both reverted your bold and unsupported change to the status quo. You were warned and are bright-line over 3RR. I explained on talk why WP:RPLA is not being violated. Andre🚐 06:45, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I replied there why your – belated – rationale is spurious. Hildeoc (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale was not belated. It's been there all along and the talk thread predates your 3rd revert. Nor is it spurious. RPLA is not a blanket rule. Andre🚐 06:54, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale came only after several uncommented reverts on your part. Also, your rationale about neglecting RPLA, and alleged "archaism" is unconvincing / unsourced. Anyway, I suggest we may continue discussing the substantial aspects on the relevant talk page, not here. Hildeoc (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I suggest you be blocked and revert yourself for violating 3RR and there is no consensus for your bold and wrong edit. Andre🚐 07:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never made a single "uncommented" revert. You make unfounded aspersions. IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to break 3RR. Andre🚐 07:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Hildeoc (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revert clearly has a summary, was accompanied by a prior warning and prior summary, and was followed within minutes by a talk page post. Try again. You have shown no remorse for breaking 3RR. Andre🚐 07:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User has progressed to personal attacks [10] [11] and is quoting from a webpage that clearly delineates the text as having been written by antisemites [12] Andre🚐 08:07, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you serious? I've provided a whole plethora of academic quotes, and now you're trying to dupe me for a single heavy-handed reference to a quote from an article by a major Australian public broadcaster?! Hildeoc (talk) 08:28, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The part being quoted is literally "These comments reprise the falsehoods contained in the proven forgery and fabrication known as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Online comments of this nature, usually by people sheltering within the coward’s castle of anonymity, are depressingly familiar. Less easy to explain is the decision of ABC moderators to permit such racist comments to remain on its Facebook page." Why you would think it is OK to quote that I have no idea. Andre🚐 08:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Hildeoc (talk) 08:32, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Argumentative, battlegroundy, seemingly unable to follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes)#Other. Mikewem (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc has subsequently self-reverted on a talk page consensus, but I think a bright-line 3RR violation does at least merit a formal warning if not a token block. Andre🚐 17:27, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hildeoc has self-reverted now, explicitly not as an intermediate measure but in response to a talk page consensus having been found. According to WP:ONUS, it was Hildeoc's job to find a consensus for their change instead of waiting for a consensus against it, but that's where we are now. It's highly unlikely that Hildeoc will continue making the same edit.

While it doesn't belong on an article's talk page (focus on content!), Special:Diff/1324769082 appears to be a sadly-accurate summary. I hope that's warning enough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cinephile Yahiya reported by User:HurricaneZeta (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

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

Comments:

Keeps making WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments and has reverted many edits on the page before. Z E T A^C 16:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stair I Contae na Gaillimhe reported by User:DaHuzyBru (Result: Blocked for PA)

User being reported: Stair I Contae na Gaillimhe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC) to 11:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
1. 11:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC) "Even though Ireland was part of the UK, He would still not be British as Ireland wasn't part of Great Britain"
2. 11:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Playing career */"
3. 11:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Reverted here by me, here by me, and here by User:Flibirigit

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Warning from User:Flibirigit at the article talk page regarding "Please stop making reverts until there is consensus and reliable sources provided." User has persisted on edits since then.
I posted at WT:NHL requesting input from the project notice of doing so here actual WT:NHL post here

Comments:

Ignoring multiple warnings and reverts from multiple users, including a 3RR warning from User:Flibirigit. Does not change behaviour, continues to include contested content being actively discussed at the talk page. DaHuzyBru (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Everything was peaceful until you started contesting my edits. I was merely correcting an incorrect edit. Stair I Contae na Gaillimhe (talk) 13:10, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i was also never warned Stair I Contae na Gaillimhe (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned here and here. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:50, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per this comment, user is clearly WP:NOTHERE. DaHuzyBru (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 week for personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:~2025-37734-54 reported by User:Everett Millais (Result: )

User being reported: ~2025-37734-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1325142253 by Everett Millais (talk) I am not the same user. My revert was based on competence and quality of article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Cera Care."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please take a look — the person was previously blocked for editing the page with their account, and now they’re doing the same using their IP address. Even after being warned, they keep making edits. It looks like they may have been hired by someone to update the page. Everett Millais (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:~2025-37734-54 reported by User:Everett Millais (Result: )

User being reported: ~2025-37734-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:00, 1 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1325142253 by Everett Millais (talk) I am not the same user. My revert was based on competence and quality of article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:18, 1 December 2025 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Cera Care."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please take a look — the person was previously blocked for editing the page with their account, and now they’re doing the same using their IP address. Even after being warned, they keep making edits. It looks like they may have been hired by someone to update the page. Everett Millais (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards