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: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)

User: Gotitbro reported by User:~2026-53445-93 (Result: No action needed)

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

Previous version reverted to: good

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1378294335
2. 1378397019
3. 1378399070
4. 1378394406
5. User%3A

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

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

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

Comments:
A disruptive edit warning was issued for restoring the same type of content without choosing to avoid an edit war prior to making multiple reverts. Both users need to be blocked or one who violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. ~2026-53445-93 (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• No warning was issued, as none needed to be. Both editors resolved the dispute (after single reverts by either side) on the Talk:Kabaddi#Copyedit after addressing mutual concerns regarding MOS and WP:FRINGE. Followup edits addressing editorial concerns certainly don't constitute an edit war or disruption but how enwiki works. A bizarre report by an entirely uninvoled IP (likely a sock) for a WP:CT/SA article. Gotitbro (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Magentic Manifestations, can you confirm that the dispute was resolved? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:35, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, This is a bizarre reporting particularly coming from an unrelated IP address. User:Gotitbro made a set of changes, majority of which were fine. Regarding the particular point in the etymology section, there was a disagreement which has been resolved through dialogue. So, all is good for now. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:24, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you both very much for the quick clarification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• No action needed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

User:AcadHistRsr and ~2026-53394-91 reported by User:~2026-52879-28 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

Page: 2026 Brazilian general election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AcadHistRsr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Comments:

• I think both of these users should be blocked for edit warring, AcadHistRsr and ~2026-53394-91. I reported AcadHistRsr because he started reverting the other user. ~2026-52879-28 (talk) 22:39, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I reverted the post because he blatantly and intentionally misrepresented what the cited sources discuss (the cited sources are about the Supreme Court, whereas his claim is about the electoral process). The fact that the anon IP created 4 accounts to insert this statement into the lede for an ongoing election is a blatant astroturfing attempt. Reverting WP:VANDALISM does not fall under edit warring. AcadHistRsr (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Worth noting that other established users agree the insertion of this into the lede is not appropriate. I'd back off and start a discussion on the talk page if there's even a single legitimate account supporting the insertion of this edit, but right now it's literally just an IP who created 4 anon accounts in short succession and makes bad-faith edit summaries. AcadHistRsr (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I can see you reasoning well, but WP:3RR exemptions are about obvious vandalism, and the entry - though inappropriate to be in the lede - are not obvious vandalism. You should have stopped on the 3rd revert and let other editors deal with it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 22:55, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• I would have to add that the IP editor creating this report is likely a WP:SOCK, seeing that AcadHistRsr has been dealing with multiple IPs on the aforementioned article. The IP editor creating the report never edited anything else outside the conflict in the Brazilian election case. My comment didn't defend AcadHistRsr conduct at all, but I think the report is not made in good faith. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 22:50, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  You can check my edit history and see that most of my edits are only concerned about Moroccan politics. This is my first time editing anything related to Brazilian politics. Assume good faith ~2026-52879-28 (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  I apologize. ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 23:02, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  It's all right. ~2026-52879-28 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

  Not a sock of a conflict party, I think. But if there's evidence of block evasion, please report it at WP:SPI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-53646-59 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result:TA blocked indef )

Page: Maidstone United F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-53646-59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:38, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ Name"
2. 12:35, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ Name"
3. 12:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "/* */ Name"
4. 12:31, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Name"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:37, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Maidstone United F.C.."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

TA blocked indef. This is obvious vandalism, so there's no need to make a report here for this. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:23, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User:Mvcg66b3r reported by User:BlueboyLINY (Result: )

Page: WWOR-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Mvcg66b3r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:17, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Fixed typo"
2. 04:34, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1378596716 by BlueboyLINY (talk)"
3. 00:21, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision 1378064899 by Mvcg66b3r (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"
2. 13:00, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation (UV 0.1.6)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Mvcg66b3r has self-reverted after, and possibly because of, this report. If we can get a quick overview of what happened from Mvcg66b3r's perspective, I think this can be closed already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

I was correcting some typos ("transfered" → "transferred") and doing some rewordings. But BlueboyLINY made a personal attack on my talk page saying I "owned" the article. He said he was ready to apologize before he saw my last edit. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-53536-06 reported by User:Plasticwonder (Result: )

Page: Duluth model (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-53536-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:55, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Edit warring is forbidden, restoring back to (approx) the version approved by the relevant moderator, moderated in NPOV prior to 30 June 2026"
2. 19:28, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Edit warring is forbidden, restoring back to (approx) the version approved by the relevant moderator, moderated in NPOV prior to 30 June 2026."
3. 19:10, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "adhere to WP:BRD; take this to the talk-page to seek consensus before changing the stable pre 5 november version of text, edit warring is always forbidden"
4. 17:25, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "adhere to WP:BRD + "the Duluth model have failed most of the persons that it is intended to help [...] cloaked in the pseudoscience [....]" is literally in the source"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:53, 5 October 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: