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:~2026-43870-64 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Underlying IP blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: ~2026-43870-64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC) to 16:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Channels */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC) to 15:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 15:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Channels */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC) to 15:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 15:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Top News."
2. 16:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on DigitAlb."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent unsourced content and vandalism. Also note: ~2026-43455-05 — previously used by ~2026-43870-64, blocked for 31 hours due to disruptive editing on 7 August 2026. See , and for similar editing pattern. AriuCH (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I was redirected here per their talk page notice. Found an indefinitely blocked TA. As of now, a similar new TA has literally done the same kinda edits.‎ — B.J (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The underlying IP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hm. The easiest way to block a temporary account's underlying IP(s) is to block the temporary account for 24 hours. The autoblock conveniently has the same duration. There's no reason to spare the account and to make the excuse "I didn't notice I was blocked" in case of an IP change credible.

That said, as there seems to be sockpuppetry involved, I have just blocked the account indefinitely and we'll see if there's an appeal or further block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

The problem with this is that there is as yet no option to block the associated temporary accounts indefinitely when blocking the IP short term. When there is, I will gladly check that box.

And as for IP changes, it's usually easy to tell from even a few edits whether the TA is associated with a portable or mobile device. TAs that clearly aren't (situations where several accounts resolve to the same /64, for instance, telling you someone's, say, just switching boxes in a cluster or rebooting on a machine with Deep Freeze or some similar utility involved) are effectively stuffed by just the IP block (which IIRC will show up to them when they try to edit from the blocked device?).

It also might be nice if there was some notice visible to admins and those users with TAIV that would alert you to a TA having previously within some period edited or attempted to edit from a now-blocked IP or range. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

If the temporary account is blocked indefinitely, that results in the following:

• The IP address(es) used by the account are autoblocked for 24 hours and whenever they attempt to edit (I thought reading triggers this too, WP:ABK seems to say otherwise)
• The person behind the account is forever prohibited from editing unless the block is manually removed.

If these two are what you want, I think you can just block the temporary account indefinitely. Additionally manually blocking the IP address might have some advantages (longer duration possible, block log entry). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and if you block the temporary account instead of the IP address, you will conveniently be able to click a checkbox that applies the same block to all the linked TAs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

aarr.. I don't mean to intrude, but just leaving a note here that ~2026-43983-11's 31 hour block has long expired and they have resumed the same disruption. Just now.‎ — B.J (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Aaand re-blocked. Thanks for the notification! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Awesome, happy to help.‎ — B.J (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, please also review ~2026-43455-05 and ~2026-42653-51. Both were blocked for 31 hours and showed editing behavior similar to the recently blocked IP accounts. Thank you in advance. AriuCH (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42212-00 reported by User:CodeTalker (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

User being reported: ~2026-42212-00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:16, 12 August 2026 (UTC) ""
2. 06:07, 12 August 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 05:56, 12 August 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 05:54, 11 August 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Special:Diff/1368533981

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been edit warring to add the same material to Roku since August 7, despite being reverted and warned by 4 different editors. They are doing a similar thing on Fox Corporation. They have not responded to warnings and have never edited a talk page. CodeTalker (talk) 07:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
• If this continues, please treat and report it as block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:09, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-44306-53 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

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

User being reported: ~2026-44306-53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC) to 21:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 21:02, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Orders of Sufism */"
   2. 21:04, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Orders of Sufism */"
2. 20:51, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Orders of Sufism */"
3. 20:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Orders of Sufism */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:50, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tariqa."
2. 20:53, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "Notice: Using multiple accounts of User:Berty12352."
3. 20:54, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sufism in Punjab."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

If you look at the article histories, the user repeatedly relies on multiple temporary accounts. This pattern indicates block evasion by Berty12352. AriuCH (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello AriuCH, edits made before a block can't be block evasion, but I assume you refer to other, then-already-blocked accounts or mean something else: Behaviorally, this does at least seem to have been sockpuppetry by a user editing logged in and logged out, disruptively. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi ToBeFree, Thank you for the clarification and for reviewing this case. Your note on the distinction between edits before a block and block evasion is very helpful. Also If you have time, please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Berty12352/Archive where I had referred to block evasion in connection with that case. AriuCH (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

Ah, block evasion of ~2026-43977-85 and ~2026-41712-33 by Berty12352 and ~2026-44306-53. I didn't technically check, but that's surely possible! Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Pappyjoel reported by User:R.L (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Missouri Tigers football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:10, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368230020 by R.L (talk)"
2. 16:36, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368235431 by R.L (talk)"
3. 21:21, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1369045878 by Glman (talk)"
4. 13:45, 12 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1369033159 by Glman (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC) on User talk:Pappyjoel "/* August 2026 (Edit Warring) */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 21:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC) on Talk:Missouri Tigers football "/* 1960 national championship */ new section"
2. 22:08, 12 August 2026 (UTC) on Talk:Missouri Tigers football "/* 1960 national championship */"

Comments:

Continued edit warring over the 1960 national championship at Missouri Tigers football. I have discussed the dispute on the article's talk page and contacted the other editor directly. Another editor, User:Glman, subsequently intervened, restored an earlier version, and warned the editor on their talk page to stop edit warring. Pappyjoel then reverted Glman's restoration, restoring the disputed version. I have not made another revert following Glman's warning. I am reporting the continued edit warring rather than alleging a 3RR violation. R.L (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I note also that the editor has never once communicated on a talk page or even wrote an edit summary. This is a collaborative project, WP:Communication is required, and this editor is not collaborating. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely (for now). I'm open to unblocking, but I want to see an unblock request on their talk page explaining a newly-gained understanding of the problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Rockyragz reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: Both blocked)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:57, 13 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1369160151 by Kailash29792 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC) to 06:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 06:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 06:34, 13 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:35, 13 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   4. 06:37, 13 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   5. 06:42, 13 August 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 06:30, 13 August 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 17:02, 11 August 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:01, 13 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on DC (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuously changes the film's response to mixed. This source clearly states the response was favourable. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:15, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Sid Ahmed Benmesli reported by User:Nassimdz03 (Result: )

Page: JS El Biar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Sid Ahmed Benmesli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:32, 13 August 2026 (UTC) "Manual revert"
2. 23:33, 10 August 2026 (UTC)
3. 04:20, 6 August 2026 (UTC) "This is the official logo of JS El Biar"
4. 16:45, 4 August 2026 (UTC) "Update logo, high quality"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:00, 13 August 2026 (UTC) "Edit-warring warning concerning the JS El Biar logo"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute:

1. 17:58, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Official logo of JS El Biar"

Comments:

There is an ongoing content dispute concerning the current/official logo of JS El Biar. The reported editor has repeatedly replaced the logo with a different version.

I attempted to resolve the dispute directly by leaving a message on the user's talk page and providing the club's official Facebook media archive as a source for the logo currently used by the club:

Official JS El Biar Facebook media archive

I asked the editor to provide a reliable source from the club supporting the alternative logo and invited them to discuss the matter and reach a consensus based on reliable sources and Wikipedia policies.

The dispute nevertheless continued through repeated changes and reversions. I have now stopped reverting the page and am requesting administrative assistance rather than continuing the revert cycle.

I am not asking administrators to determine which logo is correct; I am requesting assistance regarding the repeated reverting/edit-warring behavior and, if appropriate, protection of the article while the content dispute is resolved.

Nassimdz03 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2026 (UTC)