VOOZH about

URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI/3RR

⇱ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Wikipedia

Jump to content

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
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

You notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

👁 Image
 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.

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

User:~2026-18717-42 reported by User:Prolabelmaker (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

[edit]

Page: The A-Team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-18717-42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 07:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC) "Obviously not vandalism. I have provided my reasons: that this should be maintained per WP:Preserve rather than simply mass deleted. Why are you refusing to discuss?"
  2. 15:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC) "As previously."
  3. 13:24, 31 March 2026 (UTC) "As previously"
  4. 10:17, 31 March 2026 (UTC) "As previously"
  5. 09:40, 31 March 2026 (UTC) "Restored for reasons previously stated. Please stop edit warring and discuss on talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 13:30, 1 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on The A-Team."
  2. 02:39, 2 April 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on The A-Team."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


See mine and Hippo43’s replies on user’s talk page which were blanked. Prolabelmaker (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

User:Albania1928 reported by User:DrKay (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

[edit]

Page: Leka, Prince of Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Albania1928 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:37 28th January 2026, 12:30 13th July 2025

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 18:50 1st April
  2. 20:25 1st April
  3. 07:52 2nd April
  4. 12:20 2nd April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]


Hello DrKay, you refer to an earlier consensus in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1346690285. Has there been a talk page discussion ending in such consensus or are you referring to the implicit weak consensus that exists until a dispute arises? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

This is an old dispute. Albania1928 previously edited as Special:Contributions/Albpasion. DrKay (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Oh my. Thanks for the context. It's time for this to stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]
  • 👁 Image
     Blocked indefinitely. Thanks for coming here with this.
    That said, DrKay, please don't treat BRD as a policy and have a look at Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing again. Consensus achieved through editing alone ends when it meets with disagreement. There is no consensus to enforce if there's no talk page discussion; an edit that stayed unchallenged for 10 years does not have consensus anymore as soon as it is reverted. Policies that actually prefer specific revisions are WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE. Perhaps there are more but these three seem to be the most relevant. None of them prefers content just because it's old. On the contrary, they all prefer the absence of content. WP:PREFER exists but is limited to administrative intervention with full page protection. Searching through the noticeboard archives yields an old ANI discussion and the more recent thread I had originally looked for. Even when you are right or dealing with very annoying and long-term disputes, please avoid edit warring yourself, lead by example by creating a talk page discussion (even if there is already one on a different article's talk page), invite the other user to it, remind them of the discussion if they keep reverting, revert only one more time if nothing else has helped, and report if that revert is reverted. It's a tedious process that takes weeks but your current approach seems to be bound to lead to a block for edit warring one day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[]

User:Isaiahrichmon367 reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Pblocked)

[edit]

Page: LNER Class J39 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Isaiahrichmon367 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [5] 00:09, 16 February 2026
  2. [6] 15:48, 25 February 2026
  3. [7] 16:18, 16 March 2026
  4. [8] 21:13, 16 March 2026
  5. [9] 03:17, 3 April 2026 with the edit summary Will you please SHUT UP?!



Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: uw-ewsoft, uw-3rr

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


This user has displayed the same behaviour on other pages, including LMS Ivatt Class 4, Caledonian Railway 812 and 652 Classes, GER Class S56, Highland Railway X Class and Highland Railway River class. Given the personal attack in their most recent revert, I'm beginning to suspect they are WP:NOTHERE. Danners430 tweaks made 07:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

User:~2026-19497-98 reported by User:Prolabelmaker (Result: Page protected)

[edit]

Page: Šampita (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-19497-98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:22, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "origin"
  3. 11:12, 4 April 2026 (UTC) ""
  4. 11:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "origin"
  5. 10:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 11:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Šampita."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 11:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "/* Place of origin */Reply"

See also edits on Proja. Prolabelmaker (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]

Prolabelmaker, you restore content lacking a citation in Special:Diff/1347050822, with an edit summary asking for a source. Do you have one? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Same question to Jingiby who did the same in Special:Diff/1347045364. And Cosmic840, who joined the edit war instead of reporting it. You all should know better. So, where is the source? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Perhaps Shadow4ya has a source for the content they restored. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
In addition I did saw the report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism hours before. And the edits by User:~2026-19497-98 were also done, so it is the edit warring of adding uncited content. ~ŤheŴubṂachine-840≈ 17:57, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Yeah, I guess it's not as simple as I thought it was. The word "Serbia" has never been disputed; Serbia being "Former Yugoslavia" is probably also not disputed. So the temporary account's change was adding a more specific place than the undisputed "Serbia", and there was no source for that, so reverting to "Serbia, former Yugoslavia" didn't actually (re-)add disputed information. It's okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Hi, I have checked Google books and realised that this dessert has been described as a Bosnian Traditional Dessert here; Montenegrin dessert here and as a Serbian dessert here. Therefore, I decided that it is not entirely clear whether the dessert is exactly Serbian and it is better to associate it with the territory of the former Yugoslavia until reliable sources are presented. Jingiby (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Yeah, it's all good. Please disregard my concern; you didn't restore disputed material and only removed an addition that lacked a source. I misinterpreted this. Thank you very much, Jingiby. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]

User:~2026-20622-93 reported by User:Asteramellus (Result: Blocked 2 weeks; page extended-confirmed protected)

[edit]

Page: Diet in Hinduism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-20622-93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:07, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1347042117 by Kautilya3 (talk) see talk page and dont WP:STONEWALL"
  2. 08:38, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1347031811 by TryKid (talk) ethnoreligious POV reverted"
  3. 05:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1346958180 by Asteramellus (talk) replied, dont carry out wholesale removal"
  4. 09:20, 3 April 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1346382162 by TryKid (talk) ethnoreligious POV pushing"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  1. 13:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC) "/* Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion */"

# 21:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC) "/* April 2026 */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

  1. 02:30, 3 April 2026 (UTC) "/* This page */ Reply"
  2. 21:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC) "/* Hindu nationalism section */ new section"
  3. 21:36, 3 April 2026 (UTC) "/* This page */ Reply"
  4. 09:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC) on Talk:Diet in Hinduism "/* This page */"

There was already an ongoing talk discussion on the page, where this user posted a reply (which was in response to a question posed to another editor), but still engaged in edit-warring. Continued with reverting even after they were informed by Kautilya3 to stop edit warring - [11] Asteramellus (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]

It is worth noting the editor also gave me a disruptive editing notice. That, despite me having said ahead of time that history should be avoided in the LEAD, a comment that the editor did not challenge anywhere.
I believe this is just mindless POV pushing and edit warring. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]

HistoryofIran POV-Pushing reverts (Result: Nominator blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet)

[edit]

1 I sourced the previous user's edit to prove him right for it's nothing to do with a article that he mentioned, and he reverted without saying anything about it

2 Reverting the Reliable sourced info with unsourced info by saying "restored sourced info". Muhammed Eyüp (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]

@ToBeFree Muhammed Eyüp (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
I was about to reply to the ANI thread you made of me where you made the same claims, not sure if I should address it considering this is the wrong place? But speaking of edit warring Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muhammet Eyüp Çağlıkasap. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Here he threatens a user for violating the "WP:GS/AA" policy on an edit made to a singer named Gogosh (by copying and pasting with the same text) 1User talk:Somonis#c-HistoryofIran-20250619142700-HistoryofIran-20250617164900 @ToBeFree Muhammed Eyüp (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Word for word repeating the blocked user Skywolves (who was heavily stalking me) about a very specific (and random) comment by me in June 2025 [12]. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Thank you very much, HistoryofIran. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[]
Categories:
Hidden categories: