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:GregariousMadness reported by User:Eritr (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: 15 (software engineer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GregariousMadness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
Despite my efforts, the editor who filed this report (User:Eritr) does not seem to understand that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. They have given zero evidence of the claim that the subject did not attend their stated alma mater, while multiple WP:RS from 2020 and 2021 state that they did ([9] [10] [11]). The editor has yet to procure a single reliable source to support their claim, and despite being asked multiple times to provide evidence, they have refused to do so and continued to revert. To the closing admin, please see the talk page. I suspect that WP:BOOMERANG might also apply here. Please also note that the diff of the 3RR warning above was posted after they violated 3RR, after I posted on their talk page. –GM 21:22, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The editor has tried to sneak in another edit here, despite the consensus on the talk page. They have shown a consistent lack of communication in good faith, and I suspect this is just vandalism at this point. –GM 16:19, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Someone please look at this notice. I don't have the patience to continue doing this, as this editor either just doesn't get how Wikipedia works, or purposely WP:POVPUSHING. –GM 07:20, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

They have now violated WP:3RR twice. They have yet to give any evidence of their claim and they simply refuse to understand how Wikipedia works, with a flagrant disregard for its policies. At this point, I am convinced that they are trolling. [12] [13] [14] [15]. –GM 07:31, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

The matter is very simple: this anonymous subject who goes by '15' cannot be found in the official MIT alumni database.
That being said, GregariousMadness's behavior seems excessive and intolerant, as they aren't allowing any other user to edit the article or even add a tag. Eritr (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

You have not provided any evidence of your claim despite being asked to do so multiple times, especially on a BLP article. You are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia's policies, even as they were pointed out to you multiple times. A random editor's claim with no evidence whatsoever does not supersede the multiple WP:RS that support the claim. –GM 07:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, as disruptive as the path here may have been, the verifiability of this content about a living person has been challenged in good faith. The burden to provide evidence and the onus to obtain a consensus for including the content is on those favoring inclusion (WP:BURDEN, WP:ONUS), and I'm not impressed to see that the current sourcing in such a dispute boils down to "the subject said so themselves". You can now start an RfC to obtain the required consensus for re-adding the disputed content. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: With all due respect, I believe this is a huge mistake. I never violated WP:3RR; the first two reverts were for the template at the top, and the other two were for the inline tag. And second, the person challenging the claim still has not provided any evidence. You are taking their completely unfounded claim as equally sound as one that is actually supported by multiple WP:RS. This is like removing the statement "The Earth is round" because an editor insists that the Earth being round is not verifiable, and that because a single editor believes it to be flat, it should be removed altogether. –GM 10:23, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, the burden of evidence isn't on them. They don't need to provide reliable sources to disprove statements in a biography. The existence of good-faith concerns (acknowledging that you don't view them as good-faith and there's a chance they're actually trolling) alone is reason enough to remove material for now and to require a consensus about what should be in the article. And if the matter is as obvious/clear as it seems to be to some of the discussion participants, then finding a formal consensus about this should be easy. I'm not yet sure what a good RfC question would be; I guess it could have two parts: Whether the part sourced to multiple references (having been at MIT) should be restored, and whether the self-claims of having received three degrees should be included with attribution to the subject.

Regarding the block itself, you have clearly edit warred. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: the burden of evidence isn't on them. They don't need to provide reliable sources to disprove statements in a biography. I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that I can just take any BLP article, pick a statement that's already supported by multiple RS's, then add a "Dubious" template and insist that this statement is incorrect without providing any evidence, and that alone is enough of a justification to remove the statement? That seems very backwards and not at all how I'm familiar with Wikipedia. Surely something like that would be considered WP:POVPUSHING or WP:UNDUE? –GM 10:37, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

GregariousMadness, that would be a good example of what WP:POINT is about. Yes, you can do so, but your imaginary example doesn't happen in good faith. Whether the sources for the statement in the current given case are actually as strong as you imply they are, I wouldn't be so sure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: To clarify, I would never do that to prove a point, as I respect Wikipedia too much to do something like that. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of being able to do so if I, for whatever reason, was looking to vandalize an article of a subject that I didn't particularly like. I'm not convinced at all that this editor was acting in good faith, because I've asked them multiple times to provide evidence (which should be rather easy since they claim that they have access to this database that others don't), and yet they continued to outright ignore this request. If the editor disputing a claim presented some amount of evidence supporting their stance, then I see that being perfectly valid, but I don't see how it makes sense for the editor to simply be able to refuse to provide the evidence of their claim, and still be taken seriously. I don't think it's fair that I'm being punished equally as the other editor for trying to prevent what is ostensibly vandalism. –GM 10:44, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that you'd actually do that; it was clearly a thought experiment. If I understand correctly, the claim of having access to MIT's alumni database isn't inherently absurd as, at least according to a quick Google search, that seems to be a service actually provided to all alumni of the university. Eritr isn't a new account registered solely for besmirching the article subject's reputation; they've been on Wikipedia for over 2 years and made 200 edits before the dispute. They made a few newbie mistakes on their way but they hadn't been accused of vandalism until you decided that their actions must surely be malicious. I don't think they are. I'm not sure which kind of "evidence" you are looking for, either negative evidence of the article subject's MIT claims which is extremely hard to obtain just like disproving conspiracy theories is often impossible, or copies from the MIT Alumni database to prove their access, sharing non-public personal information that would need to be oversighted afterwards. Assuming that the concerns are valid, you're asking for something impossible, and that's why WP:BURDEN works the other way around. I'm not much impressed by an anonymous individual claiming to have graduated from MIT with degrees in three disciplines and sources not known for their meticulous editorial oversight relying on what the individual says for a quick introduction before going into the technical specifics of their work, the actual subject of the linked sources.

Again, I don't know what a good RfC question for this would be, but I think you need one. This is neither a case for waiting for protection/block to expire, nor a case that can be solved by arguing about the block itself or Eritr's motivations. What the article talk page discussion currently needs is more input from uninvolved editors, and an RfC is a good way to invite them.

(And the harm done to the article by making it not contain currently-disputed claims is minimal, also compared to placing a well-visible "disputed" sign next to their biography statements. Temporary removal is a perfectly fine and safe approach, and the content can simply be restored as soon as a consensus is found.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Your analysis seems very balanced. Eritr (talk) 08:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: the claim of having access to MIT's alumni database isn't inherently absurd as I wasn't saying that this specific claim was absurd. I was pointing to the absurdity of being able to use the claim that one has the access to vandalize a subject's article. or copies from the MIT Alumni database to prove their access, sharing non-public personal information that would need to be oversighted afterwards. Assuming that the concerns are valid, you're asking for something impossible That's not what I was asking; simply a mere screenshot of the alumni database indeed showing that the subject isn't in the database would have been good enough, which isn't difficult to provide at all. And further, they are still edit warring over at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni despite the item not even containing the more contentious claim of the degrees and is supported by multiple reliable sources. After all the previous WP:HOUNDING I've had to endure over the last few years, I'm sick and tired of trying to make improvements to Wikipedia only for my efforts to be punished in the same way as the vandals I'm trying to fight are. I stand by my opinion that being given the same punishment as the initial edit warring editor was unjustified, considering that I have ever only acted reactively to the vandalism. –GM 21:06, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not a place for fighting, and you weren't fighting vandalism. I had sent Eritr a stern warning in response to the edit you refer to ([16]). You have now continued to "fight" in what you have already identified to be another edit war. Your rollback permission is revoked. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:36, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: I don't understand this. You even said that Eritr overstepped the line, and so when I saw that you hadn't reverted that change and decided to do it myself because I happened to have the rollback privilege after years of editing Wikipedia, this is considered "fighting"? I wasn't even trying to be confrontational here, I was simply doing what I believed would make Wikipedia better. –GM 21:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

You don't understand that continuing to edit war while blocked for edit warring may perhaps be an issue? Where in the edit warring policy is an exception for reverting others who have edit warred? If you thought I have forgotten to revert something, asking for clarification wouldn't have been an option? You may be 100% right about the content issue but you can't repeatedly restore disputed content in edit wars. It's simply not an option. It is incompatible with WP:EW, WP:ONUS and to a degree WP:BLPRESTORE. Whichever related policy you look at, these things need to be discussed and reverting helps noone. I'm astonished by having to deal with edit warring performed by editors blocked for edit warring while the edit warring noticeboard report is still actively being commented on. This is highly unusually absurd. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: As I understand it, I was blocked for edit warring from a single article for two weeks, not to all articles on Wikipedia. And further, I did read the blocking policy before making that edit, and as I understand it, blocks are not supposed to be punitive. I understood this to mean that as long as I didn't touch the original article, and stayed within the boundaries of WP:3RR, that it would be fine. If this is a misinterpretation of that policy, then I apologize, but I was acting in good faith despite admittedly being frustrated by the situation. –GM 21:54, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

While you had indeed violated the three-revert rule in the edit war that led to this report (diff links: see list at the top) as it explicitly also applies to reverts of "different material", I thought that your position was that you had never violated WP:3RR. I didn't correct this in my response because I generally don't count reverts. An edit war is an edit war even if the reverts have been over a span of 26 hours or there have been "just" 3 reverts, whatever, it's all a form of edit warring. So up until now, to my understanding, the state of the discussion was that you're blocked for what was not a 3RR violation but still edit warring.

Either you have changed your opinion about not having violated 3RR in the meantime, or you must have been aware that a lack of a 3RR violation doesn't imply a lack of edit warring.

It is correct that the block only applies to one specific article, no other page, not even its talk page. But if someone is already partially blocked to prevent a disruptive behavior in one place, and then suddenly continues the same behavior elsewhere, then chances are that the block will be modified to be site-wide. This is because the assumption that the disruptive behavior was limited to one article has then been proven false.

Doing something in response rather than just looking at the new situation helplessly was probably my motivation behind revoking rollback, and I'm relatively open to re-granting it when all of this is over. What I didn't want to do yet seriously considered was changing the block to sitewide or the article namespace to stop this chaos for a while.

Now I see a sockpuppetry investigation has been opened and I'm thankful for that because if it's correct, that would be quite a significant discovery. Even more chaos perhaps but a step in the right direction in that case.

What a day. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

(And regarding faith: I don't think either of you two is acting in bad faith. If BrocadeRiverPoems turns out to be involved in this, they would probably be the bad-faith actor here. I understand your assumption of bad faith on behalf of Eritr; it doesn't come from nowhere and we can disagree about that. That's okay. But if anything I say or did seems to have implied an assumption of you editing in bad faith, that's an incorrect impression and there was no such assumption.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: To be honest, I very rarely have had issues with edit warring, so I just assumed that WP:3RR and edit warring were interchangeable (i.e. if I haven't violated 3RR yet, then I'm not technically edit warring); I see now that this was wrong, and I apologize. I'll stay away from that topic for now, because I realized that I had found the smoking gun for the SPI, which puts all this into perspective. I think my frustration was compounded by the fact that I was blocked from an article that someone was actively making worse, and I was helpless to just watch as they did so. But now that it's clear that this person was the sock that has been hounding me for almost years, I understand that they only want me to feel that way, so I won't give them the satisfaction. I'm sorry for the drama and trouble. I hope when everything is cleared up, you'll be willing to restore my rollback privileges. –GM 23:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

I will. No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: Meanwhile, I suggest addressing this article too: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni Eritr (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing the article directly, as the edit warring had continued while the report was open. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:VanDeer2 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Blocked for now)

Page: Cognitive warfare (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: VanDeer2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:13, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "yes"
2. 14:50, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "I still do"
3. 14:00, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "Chronologically relevant to the topic"
4. 13:17, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Relationship to other types of warfare */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Djflem reported by User:Danners430 (Result: )

Page: Newark Liberty International Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1365844485 by Danners430 (talk) the difference between an AFD discussion and this page has been excplained on the talk page. They are not the same, do not confuse or conflate."
2. 19:38, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1365840072 by Danners430 (talk) AfD determined article was not notable for a stand-alone. The redirect outcome presumes that when a reader is redirected to the EWR it will be mentioned in the EWR article. For it not to be, what is the purpose of the redirect if the ithe brief mention cannot be found here.?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:43, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Newark Liberty International Airport."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:45, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "/* United Airlines Flight 169 inclusion */ Reply"
2. 20:01, 24 July 2026 (UTC) "/* United Airlines Flight 169 inclusion */ Reply"

Comments:

Editor leaves a comment on the article talk page, where attempts are underway to gain a consensus - You are edit warring. STOP. and then immediately reverts again, restoring their preferred version of the page. It’s obvious they’re not trying to discuss in good faith, since they’re telling others to stop warring then immediately restoring their preferred version in the middle of the discussion. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:05, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Note - I’ve disengaged from the discussion for now, as I see no point in encouraging this editor’s seemingly battleground behaviour (for which I note they’re already pblocked). If they start actually discussing constructively then I’ll happily discuss, but this isn’t what’s happening at the moment. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:09, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

They’ve also started adding bad faith edit warning warnings to my user talk - they added one earlier, which is absolutely fair enough, but have now added another, after not a single edit has been made to the page in question. I’m struggling to see how this is anything but retaliation. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:25, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Just to note they’ve left messages on other involved editors’ talk pages instead of coming here. I would argue it’s not canvassing, as they’re simply inviting involved editors to contribute to the discussion, but felt it should be noted. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 21:04, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

Djflem, you're practically on probation at least while that partial block has been recently placed, and restoring disputed content twice is unwise. If that's a habit of yours, you'll need to remove it or end up blocked site-wide in a month or two at the current rate.
Danners430, I'm not sure if you are aware that ... you have been edit warring there? With more reverts than the reported user? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

There’s been effectively two waves of disputed content on that article about this subject (and I’m discounting the one occasion when a mention of the incident was added without sourcing, as that was the primary reason for removal that time) - the first when the incident had its own article, and there was an AfD discussion about it (which I didn’t even know about until the talk page discussion). Cubnorth noted the AfD on the article talk, I voted in the AfD, and that was that. The AfD has now ended, and a second wave has started. In both instances I’ve been trying to discuss on the talk page, the first time with Cubnorth was absolutely fine, but this time I’ve simply been met with a brick wall in Djflem in the sense of their mentality. That’s why I’ve disengaged, despite their repeated attempts to push me on my user talk.

I would say that these are the same content, but there’s a reason (the AfD) why there’s two distinct “waves” of activity. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 22:30, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

A deletion discussion ending in the deletion of X doesn't necessarily preclude X from being mentioned in a list; there should just be no redlink towards the intentionally non-existent article, and the content needs to have reliable references of course, which often don't exist for deleted subjects. But if they exist and there is a local consensus on a list's talk page for including something, that would be perfectly fine and stronger than the then-mostly-irrelevant AfD.

But that all aside, there's no way this report would be closed with any stronger action against Djflem than against you, and I'd prefer no action at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2026 (UTC)

That’s what the discussion is trying to achieve - decide whether it should be included or not. However I can’t see how a constructive discussion can be had with how Djflem is currently behaving - telling others to stop warring, then immediately perpetuating said war by reverting again, leaving (what can only be) a bad faith warning on another editor’s talk page, and borderline battleground conduct. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:07, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

As I said above, if the conduct changes then a constructive discussion can be had… so if they do agree to change their methods which I hope they do then I would agree, no action is needed. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:14, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

It is a little concerning that they’re continuing to edit without addressing the concerns about conduct raised - that’s what this boils down to at the end of the day, trying to resolve an issue with conduct Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:28, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-27023-11 reported by User:Jackjd0 (Result: )

Page: Ya Liu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-27023-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Reverted unnecessary changes."
2. 06:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Political attack by editors"
3. 05:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision. Same revision resulted in Protected "Ya Liu": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy; requested at WP:RfPP 1365917423 by Jackjd0 (talk)"
4. 04:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1365391376 by Jackjd0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:58, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
2. 05:18, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
3. 06:47, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Final Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ new section"
2. 06:11, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"
3. 06:17, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"
4. 06:28, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"
5. 06:31, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"
6. 06:34, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"
7. 06:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"
8. 06:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "/* law record inclusion */ Reply"

Comments:

has continually removed well sourced content, including reverting the same edit 4 times in the past few hours, as well as blanking talk page discussions of the legal issues. attempts at consensus building seem unproductive. im open to the possibility of being wrong here- just say the word and i drop it- but this seems like a npov issue and possible illegitimate blanking and yeah. Jackjd0 (talk) 07:02, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-27023-11 reported by User:IrisChronomia (Result: )

Page: Ya Liu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-27023-11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:04, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "3 (not 6) citations and removed under, “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."
2. 06:56, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Reverted under “ Do not add content cited only to tabloid journalism”"
3. 06:51, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Reverted unnecessary changes."
4. 06:46, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Political attack by editors"
5. 05:01, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision. Same revision resulted in Protected "Ya Liu": Violations of the biographies of living persons policy; requested at WP:RfPP 1365917423 by Jackjd0 (talk)"
6. 04:57, 25 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1365391376 by Jackjd0 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:BreadAndHumus reported by User:Piccco (Result: Warned user(s))

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

Previous version reverted to: Last stable version

Total edits in article: 37 (as of now), see also article's history

Times user has been reverted until today:

1. July 17
2. July 18
3. July 19
4. July 20
5. July 22
6. July 23
7. July 24

• A currently open SPI investigation exists, where more information about their activity and article's history can be found.

• Language, such as ""if this continues and you don't provide when evidence reverting my future edits, finding obvious excuses, things will escalate" on July 23 is, in my opinion, a WP:NOTHERE indicator.

• 3 edits on the exact same text on July 25 alone:

1. 08:57, 25 July 2026
2. 18:41, 25 July 2026
3. 20:12, 25 July 2026

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notified twice (POV warning, Edit-war warning) in TP (July 22), besides the many edit-summary warnings above.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: After prompting from another editor, user started two TP discussions, where they did not find consensus.

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

Comments:
I'm just following Wikipedia's rules. I make an edit. If someone disagrees I create a section in the talk page like here [17] and here [18]. If there is no consensus I escalate to DRN like here [19] BreadAndHumus (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

And what exactly is the purpose of "Times user has been reverted until today:" and "Total edits in article" stated above? Is there any rule that forbids an editor from being reverted 7 times in 7 days or any rule that limits the total number of edits an editor can make?BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

Also Piccco has taken a sentence of mine out of context. He wrote "Language, such as if this continues and you don't provide when evidence reverting my future edits, finding obvious excuses, things will escalate on July 23 is, in my opinion, a WP:NOTHERE indicator"

when the my full post is "I have the feeling you are just finding excuses to exclude me from editing. If you have issues with WP:MOS you can tweak the sentence without changing the meaning, not delete it. You have reverted all my edits in Byzantines as if nothing was constructive even for your taste. You continuously ignore to present evidence about scholars disagreeing with ANY of the statements in the paragraph about self identity. I will repeat to you that all the statements are not controversial and supported by the majority of scholars. If this continues and you don't provide when evidence reverting my future edits, finding obvious excuses, things will escalate."BreadAndHumus (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

The number of daily reverts, combined with the total engagement, in a certain high-visibility article is relevant as it verifies the daily disruption caused and indicates that a recently-created account, who also appears a bit suspiciously familiar with WP, is likely POV-driven, as even after the reverts and lack of acquiring any consensus, continues being disruptive. This article's stable version, in particular, has been the result of a very long and large process that took into consideration the sections' content, sizes, languages, and cannot be arbitrarily re-written. Piccco (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

My suspiciously familiarity with WP can be as simple as asking an AI model for advice. Try it. BreadAndHumus (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

No, it's the usual half-knowledge and bad advice that makes people end up at noticeboards after proving the existence of the Dunning-Kruger Effect or whatever it is. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Warned. The page has been protected for now. To answer BreadAndHumus's question about which rules forbid their behavior, WP:OWN comes to mind and edit warring is not limited to violations of the three-revert rule. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Justin1211 reported by User:AirshipJungleman29 (Result: Already blocked)

Page:  

User being reported: Justin1211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring to insert pseudo-historical images across a large swathe of articles, now using TAs as well: Special:Contributions/~2026-41401-13. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:26, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Emiya1980 reported by User:Anonymsiy (Result: No action needed)

Page: Battle of Guilford Court House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Emiya1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House&diff=prev&oldid=1366133356

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House&diff=prev&oldid=1364226456
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House&diff=prev&oldid=1365387932
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House&diff=prev&oldid=1366024422
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House&diff=prev&oldid=1366133174

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Guilford_Court_House#Discussion_Concerning_Result_of_Battle

Comments:
Not sure if it really counts as an edit war but it needs to be resolved nonetheless - anonymsiy.user - (talk) 19:22, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

This report is moot. The edit war being reported at issue has long since ceased and a discussion is underway to resolve the underlying dispute.Emiya1980 (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

As that message came hours after the last revert and Emiya1980 doesn't have the latest revision, there seems to be no need for action. Just for the record, Emiya1980 has of course edit warred and it could of course have led to a block from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

• No action needed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Grokupdadtor11 reported by User:Sumanuil (Result: blocked indefinitely)

Page: Ben Way (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Grokupdadtor11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:21, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "EDIT IT - Undid revision 1366283442 by TonySt (talk)"
2. 04:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366283319 by TonySt (talk)"
3. 04:18, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366282982 by Axolitl (talk)"
4. 04:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Seems to think Wikipedia needs to be "in line with Grok".  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 04:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• I have blocked them indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

User:WAHIDLONE reported by User:Adakiko (Result: )

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:25, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366317359 by 45dogs (talk)"
2. 09:02, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366314267 by 45dogs (talk)"
3. 08:43, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366313729 by Adakiko (talk)"
4. 08:36, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366312853 by Adakiko (talk)"
5. 08:27, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "/* */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:16, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Message re. Khiram (HG) (3.4.14)"
2. 08:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Khiram (HG) (3.4.14)"
3. 08:41, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ re, Khiram, ew notice"
4. 08:54, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:26, 27 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Unsourced content */ re"

Comments: