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:Leo1pard reported by User:LittleJerry (Result: Warned user(s))

Tiger: Tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Leo1pard: Leo1pard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17 June 2026
2. 17 June 2026
3. 18 June 2026
4. 30 July 2026
5. 1 August 2026

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See also the entire Talk:Tiger#Tiger_sizes section.

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

Comments:
I would also point out that Leo1pard likes to bring up old disputes of mine to taunt me , . LittleJerry (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

LittleJerry keeps on WP:vandalising Wikipedia, he would remove what others like @BhagyaMani and Roy Bateman: and me put, then if we try to put our work back on, then he would accuse us of edit-warring, when that is exactly what he has done himself! For example, in this edit of his, he removed a whole section with WP:reliable sources, so my friend BhagyaMani had to restore some of the content, and that is not all! In June, he said that Tiger was going to be reviewed by the FTA, so I agreed with him that I would not edit articles like Tiger before the FTA review on the 29th of July, and even my friend BhagyaMani advised me not to make major changes before that, so I waited till the 30th of July to make a major change to Tiger, but as soon as I edited this and another article on the 30th of July, LittleJerry vandalised this and the other article again, as well as playing with the Talk:Tiger! Leo1pard (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

That removal was literally an accident. BhagyaMani stated I re-added the short version of the previous description which LittleJerry – accidentally ? – deleted and I said Yes, deleting that part was a mistake. Leo1pard is being disingenuous. The edit he did to lion is just another verison of what he's doing to tiger. LittleJerry (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello Leo1pard, you have repeatedly used the term "vandalism" for what appear to be good-faith contributions from a highly experienced writer. Please stop doing that even if you don't want to assume good faith in this case here, as your public accusation of bad faith is completely unhelpful and distracts from the discussion topic.

Hello LittleJerry, absouletly ridiculous and Keep your fanboy debates away from Wikipedia is not exactly ... constructive, is it?

Does any of you genuinely believe that administrative action (beyond perhaps a warning) is going to resolve this situation? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for that, but this user has a habit of making unconstructive edits to big cat articles. In addition, whenever I have a dispute with them, they bring up past conflicts I had, which is WP:HOUND. They did it again just above. LittleJerry (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I fear that if they are let off the hook, they will continue to do the same thing. I think my links have shown a clear case of edit warring. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to wait for their response; they haven't edited since (21 hours ago). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

LittleJerry, perhaps in the meantime, you could clean up / update the revert list above so it contains only diff links of reverts made by the reported user, not edits from other users. Please also ensure that the list doesn't contain two successive edits by the same user that just count together as one revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Still no edit; I have now added a message on their talk page () to ensure that the main issues have clearly been explained to Leo1pard, leaving little room for interpretation or excuses in case the edit warring or the accusations of vandalism continue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Psephguru reported by User:Honeydewdrop (Result: Both blocked: 2 weeks, 31 hours)

• Psephguru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 77th FIFA Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

See 77th FIFA Congress. Honeydewdrop (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Honeydewdrop, you should consider self-reverting that most recent revert which put you beyond the WP:3RR TonySt 21:33, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I have left te page in the original state before my edits. Just with a tag and an talk page message. for consensus.Psephguru (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks to match last block, blocked HoneyDewDrop 31 hours for edit warring as well. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

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: )

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:

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: )

Page: Daughter from Hell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Petal (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zirthes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Zirthes's reversions: Daughter from Hell / Petal

This report is formatted unusually because the user's behaviour on these two articles is only problematic due to additional context.

I reported Zirthes for edit-warring on 29 July over continuously reverting me and refusing to compromise. Their responses to the report were very long, contained several misrepresentations of me, and seemed designed to be overwhelming to respond to. The responding admin (who had, in June, blocked Zirthes from a specific article for two weeks over edit-warring) determined Zirthes had edit-warred, told them not to do it again, didn't tell me to behave differently, and granted a page protection request Zirthes had filed; the request mostly pointed to edits unrelated to the edit war.

I told the admin on their talk page that I was worried their decision being so lenient would motivate Zirthes to continue. Despite me getting slightly heated over what I considered a dismissive initial response, they ended up telling me that they gave it another look over and decided to stick with their decision, which I thought was fair enough.

Within a day, Zirthes had denied an edit request I made on the newly-protected page and followed me onto another user's talk page to tell me to shut up and not discuss an unrelated topic. I went to AN/I and reported them for hounding. Two days into the thread, they made their own AN/I thread about me in which they painted me as a villain and quoted every single WP:SHORTCUT they could think of, which another user merged into my thread as a subsection. The 12000-byte post contained several misrepresentations. Just one example: they claimed that I continued to add a source to articles after its reliability had been challenged on a talk page I was involved in; the timestamps showed that it was the other way around.

Zirthes's most recent comment on the thread (4 August) is to ask me that I never directly interact with them again. Since then, they have continued to interact with my edits; on 5 August, they reverted thousands of bytes of sections mostly created by me across three different articles, including Daughter from Hell and Petal. These reversions came with aggressive edit summaries (e.g. "lazy editing") with questionable interpretations of several policies. Remember, I can't discuss these reversions with them because they don't want me to interact with them any more, so I can't defend the thousands of bytes of work they're getting rid of.

They seemed to move on, so I tried to add some stuff back this evening, which they re-reverted very quickly. (Notice in the second one that they quote a policy while claiming it says something ["needs fully new songs"] it doesn't - Zirthes does that a lot.) I know that you usually shouldn't be reporting the same user on two different boards at once, and my AN/I thread is technically still "active", but it's a slow-moving 44-comment behemoth mostly consisting of me being dog-piled and responding to as many misrepresentations as I possibly can, which hasn't inspired many editors to wanna jump in and give their thoughts. Meanwhile, I'm not able to defend my edits on several articles.

I just wanna be left alone, man.

~2026-41404-95 (talk) 01:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

If you want to be left alone, just follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines that have been explained to you countless times (

). It's really not difficult. Zirthes (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

I reverted the reversions you made on Daughter from Hell and Petal because the only reason you gave is that the previous version was the "last good version" when it has already been explained to you by myself and another editor who are both highly experienced in editing album articles why that is not the case.

Because most of you report has nothing to do with edit warring and I know for a fact I did not edit war, I will clarify what actually happened regarding these two articles.

• I made changes to Petal (album) on 5 August at 12:36 UTC where I removed the redundant album versions from the "Release history" table, clearly explaining my reason for doing so in the edit summary.. You added these back on 6 August at 23:54 UTC for no apparent reason. I reverted this edit on 7 August at 00:04 UTC which is my first edit on that article since 5 August at 12:36 UTC. After this, you restored the previous version, after which the user Camilasdandelions reverted back to my edit again.
• I made changes to Daughter from Hell on 5 August at 16:33 UTC where I fixed multiple issues that I clearly explained in the edit summary.. On 6 August at 23:15 UTC you reverted my edit. I reverted this back to my edit on 7 August at 0:02 UTC which is my first edit on that article since 16:49 UTC on 5 August.

In total I reverted two of your edits on the two separate articles with a 24 hour period (clearly explaining why both times), while you reverted at least four edits on the two separate articles within the same period, which is what you need to be worrying about.

Zirthes (talk) 02:22, 7 August 2026 (UTC)