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:~2026-42889-20 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

User being reported: ~2026-42889-20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367783223 by Gatemansgc (talk)"
2. 03:25, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367775621 by MoonsMoon (talk)"
3. 03:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Sources do not support claim. There is no mention of "Wichitwathakan" in any of the sources provided. Please use the talk page to debate your opinion."
4. 02:56, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "This is smearing and is entirely unrelated to the topic in question. The page is about what "Krom" is, not about why person X thinks people who like "Krom" is a bad person."
5. 02:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367770424 by The person who loves reading (talk)"
6. 02:39, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "what's the point of this?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:43, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Regarding edits to Khom (uw-ewsoft)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor repeatedly restoring their preferred version despite multiple other editors challenging. TonySt 17:07, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Gatemansgc has provided no reason beyond the existence of the edit war for joining it instead of reporting it. Others edit warring are obviously not an excuse (and especially not a good reason) for doing so oneself. And as a talk page discussion does exist, that could have been joined by the others.

My bad, I got a reverted notice and was like uhh... I'll make sure to stick to 1RR in cases like this where it's not a vandal. Others can do the reverting then end up in a WP:BRD cycle with emphasis on the discuss ): Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 03:46, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

All good, thank you very much!

Doesn't have to be 1RR that strictly, but if the edit warring is really the only reason for the revert, that's just fuel into the fire. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That said, ~2026-42889-20 seems to be RedCheekshavingfoodtoeat continuing a disruptive journey, so the account and the temporary account are blocked for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Rod Liddle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "doesn't appear to be an allegation of racism"
2. 20:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "these aren't sourced as controversies."
3. 16:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "rv. unsourced controversies. if this is to be a section on his "Writings" instead, it would need serious expansion"
4. 16:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "controversy not sourced. Ash Sarkar posted a tweet that could be presumed to be criticism. that's all that these sources say"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC) to 13:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 12:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "no reference to controversy on this"
   2. 12:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "no allegation of racism sourced"
   3. 13:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Not sourced as controversy. Other than some tweets mentioned as critical"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "/* August 2026 */ Liddle"
2. 21:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "/* August 2026 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "/* If the material isn't being portrayed as controversies, then stop deleting it on specious grounds */ new section"

Comments: Fair enough. The article seemed to be attracting lots of claims of controversial or unpopular writing, because Liddle was pretty divisive, rather than because this was reflected in sources. So I tried to keep it out of a section about "Controversies" if there wasn't good sourcing for it actually being a controversy. I'll stop. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You were meant to stop after being informed about already having breached 3RR. No participation in the talk-page either. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a talk page discussion open. My bad. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not a satisfactory response.

When you reverted at 22:52, Nomoskedasticity had already warned you for edit-warring (at 21:02). Further, Launchballer had previously reverted you (at 20:46) saying in the edit summary: Revert edit warring. Aside from the fact that WP:CSECTIONs are forbidden, this material has been restored by multiple editors. We can do this at the talk page or we can do this at a noticeboard. Your call.

Two points thus arise.

Firstly, any reasonable editor in these circumstances would have checked the talk page before reverting again (where the discussion, started at 19:52, would have been visible). So if you really didn't check, that can only be because you were being wilfully blind to any such discussion.

Secondly and more fundamentally, even if there had been no talk page discussion, you should have started one (rather than continue to edit-war). Your response implies that you consider it acceptable to edit-war provided that no-one has started a talk page discussion complaining about it. That is, I'm afraid, completely misconceived. ~2026-43430-09 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess I can save the warning and close this as "Warned" already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have also observed this editors's use of edit-warring, and refusal to engage in discussion, to attempt to force through their preferred text, . To be clear, I ended up behaving as badly, so the episode reflects no credit on me either, but it may indicate something of a pattern. KJP1 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  ToBeFree - Just wanted to be sure you had reviewed the previous block history for edit-warring before you decided a Warning was the appropriate response, . KJP1 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oh no, I hadn't seen that. I'd have noticed if I had considered blocking, as I do check the block log then. Thank you very much.

  Hippo43, if you weren't on the side removing disputed content from a biography of a recently deceased person, with WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:3RRNO#7 possibly strengthening your position, you'd be writing an unblock request instead of article content at the moment. I assume you have read the warning above and accept it as possibly final. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Kongbeliever2024 reported by User:ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Bumblebee (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Transformers (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kongbeliever2024 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1300922862
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1301433551
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers_(film_series)&diff=prev&oldid=1301433726
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bumblebee_(Transformers)&diff=prev&oldid=1367811703
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bumblebee_(Transformers)&diff=prev&oldid=1367918842
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bumblebee_(Transformers)&diff=prev&oldid=1367924288

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKongbeliever2024&diff=1367937640&oldid=1367923950

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABumblebee_%28Transformers%29&diff=1367937511&oldid=1367128644

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKongbeliever2024&diff=1367938061&oldid=1367937640

Comments:

• ArtemisiaGentileschiFan, you have overstepped the line to edit warring yourself in the article about Bumblebee (Transformers). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:KCD-2026 reported by User:Tipcake (Result: Partially blocked 1 year)

Page: Owain Glyndŵr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KCD-2026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None, another user edited the page back to its original form which this user then reverted twice.

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

Comments:
This account was blocked from editing this page some months ago, objecting to the fact that the page described Owain Glyndŵr as Prince of Wales 'in pretence', following the terminology used in various academic publications. This account has recently become active again, with the same bugbear as the only focus of its edits. I and another user have reverted the disruptive edits, only for them to be reverted again (three times, at the time of writing). Tipcake (talk) 16:17, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

The majority of editors in the talk page agreed with me, yet you enforced your preferred terminology regardless and then accuse me of edit warring. KCD-2026 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Enooooough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 year ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-43317-84 reported by User:Beatpoet (Result: Page protected)

Page: Jimmy Shankly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-43317-84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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:

• Thank you very much for coming here instead of reverting again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Zirthes reported by User:~2026-41404-95 (Result: Moved to ANI)

Moved to an ANI thread. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Ldavid1985 reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Larry David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ldavid1985 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 12:59, 26 July 2026 (UTC) "" (reverted Denniscabrams's edit, see below)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368149001 by Chrisahn (talk) This edit has been reverted by two editors who have only been editing for literal MONTHS. And the "don't edit-war" remark? Coming from an editor who's been editing for less than one year and yet has MULTIPLE warnings for edit-warring on his talk page. Stop edit-warring. See Wikipedia:EW Wikipedia:BRD etc."
2. 08:19, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368145290 by Chrisahn (talk) Stop using an unflattering photo of Larry David that makes him look like he has Alzheimer's."
3. 07:33, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "" (reverted Mr roadmanofshrek's edit, see below)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:27, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Larry David."

Diffs of edits by other users:

1. 22:13, 27 March 2026 (UTC) @Denniscabrams: "updating 15-year-old lead image"
2. 07:11, 6 August 2026 (UTC) @Mr roadmanofshrek: "Fixed unexplained image change." (reverted Ldavid1985's edit)
3. 07:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC) @Chrisahn: "WP:EW" (reverted Ldavid1985's edit)
4. 08:26, 7 August 2026 (UTC) @Chrisahn: "We can of course talk about the photo, but two editors have reverted your changes. You have to start a discussion. Don't edit-war. See WP:EW, WP:BRD, etc." (reverted Ldavid1985's edit)

Comments:

The report template has a section omitted here, "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page". There have actually been such attempts by two other editors, but the discussion hasn't been edited for over three months and you both should probably join it.
Anyway, thanks for coming here instead of continuing to revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42770-84 reported by User:IntentionallyDense (Result: No action needed)

Page: Baggio–Yoshinari syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-42770-84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1367738330 August 4th

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. August 5
2. August 5
3. August 5
4. August 5
5. August 5
6. August 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1367940265

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Permalink/1368189387

Comments:
Last revert was done after I warned user, although the edits they kept reverting did end up being sockpuppets, the user did not know this at the time and continued to revert. Not sure if the warrants any action but considering the sheer number of reverts made I thought I would bring it to admins attention. There are other reverts to but I just linked the big ones. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It may not technically fulfill strict definitions of "knowledge": I can claim to "know" tomorrow's lottery results, but even if I guessed them correctly, I wouldn't have known them.

But the reverts' edit summaries refer to sockpuppetry, and sockpuppetry was actually what happened. Not block evasion, but sockpuppetry in exactly the described way.

I don't think any action is needed at this time. It was an edit war, yes. The report is not wrong. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• No action needed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-43539-09 reported by User:Jackjd0 (Result: )

Page: U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-43539-09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368192685 by ~2026-43031-00 (talk) is this your alt?, also it’s true, look at edit history and talk page of sc 21 article"
2. 15:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368192363 by Imzadi1979 (talk), just make a discussion in talk page of the sc article"
3. 15:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368191926 by Imzadi1979 (talk), the about section was shortened, so people can go to main article to see more detail of route. Also the expansion note was added, to make the description more detailed. Even other editors and admins were fine with."
4. 15:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368190278 by Imzadi1979 (talk), even the WP:other stuff says having this article is fine, also the previous admin Enćenćecasïdća, and people from help in the talk page were fine of this being a article. Also added more fixes."
5. 14:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368183274 by Imzadi1979 (talk) the wikipedia:SIZE does not match what it’s said, also US Routes 3,4,5, 7, 9, 97, 99, 101, 150, 180, 250, 431 existed only in three states, but have article per state, basically three own articles for three states."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

im not involved with this and dont have the time rn to review it 100% and send in everyone involved- but there is an edit war going on here and wanted to make yall aware. possible sockpuppetry as well. Jackjd0 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)