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:SilentRidge907 reported by User:Rambling Rambler (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Chip Ganassi Racing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SilentRidge907 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC) "I appreciate your concern, however, these edits are correct. Undoing this results in an inaccurate webpage. If removing backgrounds from tables is desired, please make those edits independently. Thank you for your understanding."
2. 23:44, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Addition of current team information and season history, cleaned up clerical errors, and made formatting more consistent throughout the page."
3. 20:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Addition of accurate content, NXT is due, and needed backgrounds to tables that need it."
4. 18:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1326384758 by GhostOfDanGurney (talk)"

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

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

Comments:

Repeated refusal to engage despite editor reversions. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

User looks to have changed their name in an attempt to avoid scrutiny. Rambling Rambler (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

The rename seems fine, all good. It's unlikely to be malicious and even if it was, that had no actual effect. Thanks for updating the report. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Skitash reported by User:Idris Shirazi (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Skitash (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. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

I am filing this ANI only because another editor threatened to take this dispute to ANI; otherwise I would have continued attempting to resolve it through talk-page discussion.

I attempted to discuss my edits with User:Skitash on the Talk:Umayyad Caliphate page. I have no issue with being reverted when an editor provides a policy-based explanation, and my edit history shows I routinely accept such feedback. In this case, however, my attempts at discussion were ignored. I was told my edits violated WP:RS, but when I provided reliable sources supporting the content, the editor continued reverting without meaningful engagement. The pattern appeared to involve WP:IDHT and WP:GAME.

After this dispute began, Skitash also started reverting unrelated edits I had previously made on the Abu Hanifa article. I had already been discussing those edits with another user, and although we disagreed, I attempted compromise wording and added attribution to reflect fringe views. Once Skitash entered that discussion, they repeatedly reverted without substantive talk-page engagement.

Across both articles, my attempts to discuss content were met with dismissive comments and accusations of POV-pushing rather than policy-based reasoning. I am bringing this here because the pattern now involves multiple pages, repeated reverts without adequate discussion, and escalating conduct concerns. I would like uninvolved administrators to review the situation and advise on next steps.

Comments:

• There is a related ANI report involving OP. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Idris Shirazi. Borgenland (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, mostly for the edit warring over the article about Abu Hanifa, but sitewide as it wasn't limited to that page as demonstrated above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)
• Nominating editor blocked indefinitely for edit warring while partially blocked for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Nafis Fuad Ayon reported by User:Worldbruce (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: Bangladesh Air Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nafis Fuad Ayon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [6]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7]
2. [8]
3. [9]
4. [10]
5. [11]
6. [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

Nafis Fuad Ayon and Rfakjunkie have been edit warring over whether or not a letter of intent is sufficient reason to include an aircraft in the air force's equipment table. I've tried to stop them with a caution on the article talk page against edit-warring, and CTOPS alerts on both their user talk pages, to no avail. Both are experienced users who've had brushes with edit-warring enforcement before, so they should know better. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours – bradv 16:16, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Glebushko0703 reported by User:Rsk6400 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Anti-Russian sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Glebushko0703 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]
5. [19]
6. [20]
7. [21]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:48 8 December 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Russophobia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. [22]

Comments: Slow edit warring since Nov 30. I think it's really difficult to get into a constructive discussion with them, e.g. I asked them twice about the neutrality problems they see, and got an (unsatisfactory) answer only after mentioning their refusal to answer above at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Glebushko0703_reported_by_User:NebY_(Result:_Partially_blocked_2_weeks). Rsk6400 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing. – bradv 16:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Sumbuddi reported by User:Sangdeboeuf (Result: Parblocked 1 week)

Page: Bonnie Blue (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sumbuddi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 03:23, 8 December 2025

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:33, 10 December 2025
2. 14:19, 10 December 2025
3. 16:40, 10 December 2025
4. 16:45, 10 December 2025
5. 16:51, 10 December 2025

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:40, 10 December 2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 16:33, 10 December 2025

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 17:27, 10 December 2025

Comments:

• User is stubbornly insisting on WP:NONENG sources while removing more reliable English-language ones in violation of WP:BLPRESTORE (once a good-faith objection was known) and WP:BLPSOURCES.
• Claims that "primary sources are preferred to secondary ones" betray an ignorance of basic sourcing requirements.
• Patronizing edit summaries such as "dont be stupid" [sic] and "You don't own the page, so why don't YOU discuss on the talk page" suggest a WP:NOTHERE mentality as well.
• WP:CT/BLP alert has been given. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand your determination to pursue tiresome tittle-tattling instead of actually contributing constructively. The fact is that I added content to the page, which you apparently believe you own, and you repeatedly edit warred by removing my contributions instead of behaving in a constructive manner as other users did by attempting to work together.

You are now reporting me for doing exactly what you did, i.e. edit warring by reverting repeatedly, which demonstrates absurd levels of chutzpah. Your pattern of behaviour of trying to justify every revert war you do with links to random policies is hostile and drives away casual users. I suggest you rethink your attitude.

I apologise for not noticing your belated article talk page message - the fact is that you had repeatedly blanked my content and told me to take it to the article talk page instead of doing so yourself, so I did not notice when you finally made one - I have now responded to it. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 week for restoring contested content to a BLP without discussing first. – bradv 17:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)