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:ChristopherBashirov reported by User:EducatedRedneck (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Aleksandr Bashirov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChristopherBashirov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ante bellum version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1376369567
2. Special:Diff/1376386197
3. Special:Diff/1376407400
4. Special:Diff/1377704461
5. Special:Diff/1377711732

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1376408937 (After first two reverts)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Exchanges at Talk:Aleksandr Bashirov#Please check the cited sources

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:diff/1377717391

Comments:

The article is a BLP, and so unverified material should be removed. This was explained. Also explained was WP:ONUS.

Based on username, the reported user appears to be a relative. I have asked, on their user page and on the article talk page, multiple times, what their relationship is. I have not gotten any answer.

I believe the reported user has not exceeded 3RR only because after their 2nd revert I paused for some time to see if they'd respond to my post on the talk page. They did not. I reverted again, and they resumed the edit war.

Given that ethnic issues can be contentious, I feel it's important we adequately source any statements on it. The source the reported user keeps readding is from a personal webpage, and those not a WP:RS. This was also explained, and ignored. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Cartoon News reported by User:Inanimanitatist2021 (Result: Both blocked 24 hours)

Page: 2025 in animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Cartoon News}}

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1377849725

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1377459975
2. Special:Diff/1377848122
3. Special:Diff/1377849725
4. Special:Diff/1377865560

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:
Edit warring based on forced, personal assumptions and clearly not listening to me nor allowing me to explain the reasons behind my (intentionally noble) edits.

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

User: Mbappe111 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: British Mirpuris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mbappe111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1377734090

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1377735904
2. Special:Diff/1377830952
3. Special:Diff/1377865519
4. Special:Diff/1377868661
5. Special:Diff/1377870180

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1377869298

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1377870378

Comments: Has reverted four different editors to their preferred version

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-50211-91 reported by User:HypnoBlader (Result: Page protected)

Page: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-50211-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:21, 1 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ I’m gonna lock the page if you keep doing this"
2. 13:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */"
3. 18:53, 30 September 2026 (UTC) "/* */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 01:31, 1 October 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2."
2. 22:47, 1 October 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:58, 1 October 2026 (UTC) on User talk:~2026-50211-91 "Warning: Edit warring on Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2."

Comments:

User apparently vandalizing the page by removing "and final" at the lead. This isn't true because there were no updates since 2023 when the creators announced that they made a script of the third film. User was warned by an admin by the way. HypnoBlader (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello HypnoBlader, even if the removal of these words is vandalism, it's far from the obvious vandalism required for WP:3RRNO#4. And whether it have been three or four reverts, you have been edit warring there and shouldn't be the next person to revert again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Jmtwgpad reported by User:IrisChronomia (Result: No action needed)

Page: User talk:Grapesurgeon (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1377985224 by IrisChronomia (talk)"
2. 07:22, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Dismissing something as nonsense without any basis and sending provocative messages amounts to vandalism"
3. 06:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Revert warring on someone else's talk page after the subject user has acknowledged the message (e.g., by responding at the AN/I page). 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 07:43, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

06:10, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Notice */ new section" This message serves as a notification made in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Issuing this notification does not constitute a revert. Jmtwgpad (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Edit warring whether or not the notice can be on my talk page is not in accordance with Wikipedia rules. I had already seen the message and had been replying to your ANI post, so the message had served its purpose. It does not need to stay up afterwards.

So yes, this is edit warring. I have the right to decide what appears on my talk page. I was ok with irisChronomia removing the message, otherwise I would have told them not to do so or redid the edit. But Jmtwgpad kept edit warring it back. grapesurgeon (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

To begin with, isn't it highly problematic for a third party to unilaterally edit someone else's talk page? I posted a notice as part of a necessary process on Wikipedia. Yet, the very act of deleting it—while dismissing it as "nonsense" or making other incomprehensible remarks—is the real issue here. it was the other party—not I—who initiated the edit war; after all, it was they who removed my notice. How can I be accused of starting it when I was not the one who deleted it? Furthermore, making comments like "nonsense" or sending baseless, provocative messages indicates that the problem lies with the person making the report. Jmtwgpad (talk) 09:51, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Ok I'll remove the post then grapesurgeon (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

I have also verified it, so I will proceed with deleting it Jmtwgpad (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Note to admins: be aware that related discussions are ongoing at WP:ANI. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 08:35, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• No action needed I have closed the WP:ANI report concerning Grapesurgeon's conduct; I see no reason to impose a brief block on Jmtwgpad, who might have been acting in good faith here, believing that he needed to notify grapesurgeon of the ANI thread, and who may well receive a much stronger sanction as a result of the ANI thread about them. So, I'm closing this thread without action, and, if I may, I'd like to add that parties are advised to chill... Salvio ^giuliano 10:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-53260-88 reported by User:Gommeh (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: It Depends (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-53260-88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:46, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Restoring "trap" genre"
2. 16:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Restoring "trap" genre"
3. 16:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Restoring "trap" genre"
4. 16:38, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:39, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Message about your edit on It Depends (level 1) (AV)"
2. 16:44, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Message about your edit on It Depends (level 2) (AV)"
3. 16:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "/* October 2026 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:57, 2 October 2026 (UTC) on It Depends "Reverted 1 edit by ~2026-53016-61 (talk): Genius is considered unreliable here for genres"

Comments:

TA User:~2026-53016-61 also made a similar edit at the same page at Special:Diff/1378044578; no idea if they are the same person or not since I do not have TAIV, but thought it should be mentioned here at least. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Summary: Two TAs (unsure if related) edited the article inserting trap into the genres section. On 53260-88's talk page they referenced the song's entry on Genius, which is unreliable for genres per WP:RSP#Genius. Subsequent reversions indicate they may or may not have read what I told them (WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU). And the 61 TA made another edit at Special:Diff/prev/1378045250 while I was typing this, reverting it back. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 17:05, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

That's the same person indeed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Now that the multiple-temporary-accounts-don't-care-about-process issue is solved, rollbacker Gommeh would need to provide a little explanation about making five reverts over a relatively meaningless content issue though ... ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, I had not realized I had gone over WP:THREE until afterwards, and when I did I wasn't sure how best to word it. The main issue was that the content was an unsourced addition to genres (WP:GWAR), so I don't think it should be classified as 'meaningless', or at least not in my book. That was my bad. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  I meant WP:3RR instead of THREE, what is with me today?... Anyhow, I believed it fell under exception 7 to 3RR (granted this is not a BLP but still, genres can be pretty contentious and must be sourced, so I applied it anyway) In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 18:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

  The exception clearly doesn't apply and edit warring about genres and other inherently non-objective characterizations is rarely done with the intention of damaging the encyclopedia, and usually done with the intention of improving it (against the known will of others whose edits are perceived as damaging). As long as it doesn't happen again, all is good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-53118-26 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page: Poultry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-53118-26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/1378059002

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/1378064306
2. Special:Diff/1378065661
3. Special:Diff/1378066085
4. Special:Diff/1378066372
5. Special:Diff/1378067944

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1378066017

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1378067016

Comments:
User trying to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS.

• Blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Dudeyourewrong reported by User:Plasticwonder (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: One Piece season 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:08, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1378039875 by Simonm223 (talk)"
2. 13:30, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1377968744 by Plasticwonder (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:09, 2 October 2026 (UTC) "Notice of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user broke 3rr considering also the contribs of the TA account here. Also has been levying childish personal attacks. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 23:17, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

It seems to be a upset user, thinking that TmDB and season watcher are gospel. Not acceptable behaviour unfortunately.Techie3 (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week without talk page access. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-52220-60 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Both blocked already)

Page: Arizona bark scorpion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-52220-60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ reinstating valid information in honour of my brother. Rest in peace bro I love you so much"
2. 13:04, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ please stop removing valid edits thanks"
3. 12:57, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ recalibrated an edit into a more subtle and agreeable format to create a satisfactory compromise for a dissatisfied user."
4. 11:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ inserting valid cultural information"
5. 11:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ undoing some trolling where a troll removed a valid edit"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Arizona bark scorpion."
2. 11:42, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* October 2026 */ re"
3. 11:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
4. 11:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "re"
5. 11:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "re"
6. 13:55, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "Final warning notice."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:09, 1 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Should it be mentioned that the Bark Scorpion is a featured enemy in Fallout: New Vegas? */ Re"
2. 11:40, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Should it be mentioned that the Bark Scorpion is a featured enemy in Fallout: New Vegas? */ re"
3. 11:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Should it be mentioned that the Bark Scorpion is a featured enemy in Fallout: New Vegas? */ re"
4. 11:58, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Should it be mentioned that the Bark Scorpion is a featured enemy in Fallout: New Vegas? */ re"
5. 13:54, 3 October 2026 (UTC) "/* Should it be mentioned that the Bark Scorpion is a featured enemy in Fallout: New Vegas? */ Re"

Comments:

TP editor that insists on adding trivial information. WP:GAMECRUFT, unnecessary "in popular culture" nonsense. The Arizona bark scorpion appears in the video game Fallout New Vegas and they believe it deserves a mention in the lead. After a long discussion, including a personal attack towards me, they still fail to get the point. They are using their familial history as an argument (New Vegas is their deceased brother's favorite game and they were an entomologist, so that's why!). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:14, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

They changed temporary addresses (see User talk:~2026-53144-26) and made another personal attack. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

And made an ANI report as Barkscorpion2281 (talk · contribs). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:35, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked already; I have now also placed blocks on two temporary accounts immediately obvious as the reported user. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Bubba6t3411 reported by User:~2026-53127-47 (Result: Both blocked indefinitely, Bubba6t3411 from articles only)

Page: Battle of Lens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bubba6t3411 (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:
The user has been repeatedly forcing an author into the sourcing since November 2025. It's almost like he's promoting the author's book. ~2026-53127-47 (talk) 15:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

And you have been edit warring with them for months and have now made a report about it from a cloud hosting provider. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked indefinitely, Bubba6t3411 retaining the ability to request edits on article talk pages and to report sockpuppetry at WP:SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Come on bro reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: Checkuser blocked)

Page: Stranger Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Stranger Things season 5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Come on bro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Stranger Things

1. 07:16, 21 September 2026 "Why does The Boys article state that the series received critical acclaim throughout its run, while Stranger Things previously only mentioned positive reviews? Stranger Things has also received critical acclaim and is listed among Wikipedia’s greatest television shows, which seems worth mentioning in the introduction."
2. 05:36, 29 September 2026 ""
3. 18:42, 3 October 2026 "Undid revision 1377415684 by Alex 21 (talk)"

Stranger Things season 5

1. 06:55, 21 September 2026 ""
2. 05:11, 28 September 2026 ""
3. 10:41, 28 September 2026 ""
4. 18:43, 3 October 2026 "Undid revision 1377328297 by Alex 21 (talk)"

List of awards and nominations received by Stranger Things

1. 13:47, 2 October 2026 "Undid revision 1377988134 by Alex 21 (talk), restoring the season 5 awards data for consistency with previous seasons. If individual IMDB citations violate WP:CITINGIMDB, they should be updated with reliable primary source links rather than removing the entire verifiable entry completely."
2. 18:41, 3 October 2026 "Undid revision 1378087337 by Alex 21 (talk)"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Stranger Things season 5#Critical reviews in the lead

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

Comments:

1. Long term edit-warring by the user, long-term refusal to discuss. They have reverted multiple times over the Stranger Things articles, despite being linked to the discussion at Talk:Stranger Things season 5#Critical reviews in the lead that does not support their edits; they were pointed to this discussion here.
2. At the awards and nominations article, the editor mass added IMDb "reviews" (despite the URL only being the IMDb homepage, and even modifying the Deadline Hollywood cite to just its homepage rather than the specific source . In this revert, they were aware of their actions, but expected others to fix it instead.
3. Further: AriuCH recently warned them on their talk page for the use of multiple accounts, specifically Thatt one guy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with the diffs and , in which you can see identical diffs for the former two articles. -- Alex _talk 21:16, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• While the undisclosed accounts without overlapping chronological edits were uncool at best, Come on bro logging out to create and load up multiple sleepers is a fairly blatant violation of WP:SOCK. Come on bro, Thatt one guy, Mehraba 18 and Boys 1678 all Confirmed and blocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• From the behaviour I'm guessing these are all Raaaffff and will be tagging as such.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:37, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for the report, Alex 21, and thanks to Ponyo for looking into this and taking action. AriuCH (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

  Much appreciated from both of you! I remember reporting Raaaffff, I'll be more expecting for their sock edits from now on. Good job team. -- Alex _talk 21:51, 3 October 2026 (UTC)