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:~2026-40411-61 reported by User:Lordseriouspig (Result: Page protected, content removed)

Page: Jack Messina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-40411-61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "ClueBot, mind your own business."
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC) to 06:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 06:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "I thought we said we're not edit warring"
   2. 06:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jack Messina."

Comments:

• It seems there is a dispute regarding the subject of the article’s Birth year occuring on this page. The reported user has repeatedly edit warred regarding this and much talking has been done in comments in the article and in edit summaries. Lordseriouspig 07:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about the number of times Denniss has restored a disputed birth date with at very least Special:Diff/1364712359 having an edit summary that might describe the edit itself too fittingly, as at that point it seems to have been a dispute of sources vs. sources, and the best way to deal with such situations is to remove the disputed material without adding other disputed material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected, content removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
• For the record - based on behavior, the TA sockfarm behind this is almost certainly User:Polavarian, who was recently blocked indefinitely. --Sable232 (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:El Ouwet el Lebnani reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Julius Nyerere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: El Ouwet el Lebnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364810179 by Chrisahn (talk)"
2. 17:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364765077 by Chrisahn (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Julius Nyerere."
2. 17:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Julius Nyerere."
3. 17:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ If you keep edit-warring, you will be blocked."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Lead image */

@El Ouwet el Lebnani: Stop the edit-warring or you will be blocked."

Comments:

In Talk:Julius Nyerere#Lead image, three editors preferred the old image. El Ouwet ignored the discussion, didn't take part, and instead started an edit-war. Chrisahn (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Arulkash reported by User:Plastikspork (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Susi Ganeshan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arulkash (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-39527-73 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Cargo 200 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-39527-73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364987082 by AriuCH (talk)"
2. 12:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364766483 by AriuCH (talk)"
3. 08:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Viktor Sukhorukov."
2. 12:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Fix warn"
3. 17:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cargo 200 (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• This might be ~2026-30882-10. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi ToBeFree, Thank you for taking action on the report. AriuCH (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Nerd271 reported by User:~2026-40594-57 (Result: )

Page: Voluntary childlessness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nerd271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

It is slightly unnecessarily accidentally complicated case. Nerd271 just keeping to restore their own edit, ignoring a discussion questioning its validity. The sheer amount of their reverts are actually pretty small, only two, as first instance definitely was a good one. But Ellie96s then created a topic in Talk, explaining their actions , while Nerd271 never addressed anything there, simply keeping to restore own version with the less and less engaging summaries instead (from the perfectly valid initial That's not enough. You need more than just someone else's claim (that was eventually addressed in the Talk discussion.) to just Stable version. and Information and reference restored.).

Now to the complication, explaining the low amount of diffs provided. I tried to retry at least one more time, now excessively directly adding the mention about Talk page discussion to the revert summary: Probably it was written too vaguely in the previous summary; adding the wording about Talk. There were a valid points raised concerning it, both in edit summaries and at the Talk page; it is not "stable" one, at least prior they are addressed., and planned to resort to this noticeboard only in case they would continue to keep the same approach as before. But, it suddenly was reverted by Dafootballguy , on a ground of being unexplained deletion without adequately explaining why and without an accurate edit summary. I tried to resolve misunderstanding about it with them; eventually they agreed that it is better to be continued here instead.

In result I cannot verifiable know would Nerd271 still ignore discussion even if would been very directly pointed at without also reverting unrelated revert of Dafootballguy, making it very complicated. So I decided to proceed with it outright, and if the present behaviour from Nerd271 is not enough to warrant it (if only due to all sides there being pretty calm at reverting eachother, not rushing to do so at the first possibility), could it be told how many times is essentially needed to show a pattern of ignoring other editors and restoring own version instead?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] None present, it is not about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, I tried.

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

Comments:

02:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-40594-57 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

List of national anthems - Afghanistan edit warring

Page: List of national anthems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a dispute regarding which government of Afghanistan to include in the list of UN member states section. I brought this up on the talk page, but the page history seems to be in dispute. ~2026-40609-82 (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Adulitanum reported by User:GSK (Result: )

Page: Backrooms (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "Who said anything about reddit? The response is a video published 05-28-26 opening night showing the poster is the theatrical version. Do you have proof that the theater got it wrong and displayed an unofficial poster?"
2. 02:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "Unless you're disputing the video's authenticity, your response is inadequate. The video is opening night at the theater, refuting your claim that the poster is not the theatrical version."
3. 00:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "this poster is the theatrical version in theaters https://www.tiktok.com/@xoxo_santi/video/7645185570326531358"
4. 22:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC) "redid upload to adhere to WP:IMAGERES"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Backrooms (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: