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:Zirthes reported by User:~2026-41404-95 (Result: Page protected)

Page: Music, Fashion, Film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zirthes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. I update the critical reception section
2. Zirthes removes one of the review aggregators from a template, which I had added before this incident, saying that it's not a reliable source
3. I found out that this aggregator was deemed "unreliable" prior to this incident and had already started a discussion about it over at WikiProject Albums, so I went to Zirthes's talk page and informed them that they might be interested in the discussion
4. I remove the content that Zirthes is disputing from the article prose, tagging them in the edit summary and gently reminding them that they forgot to remove it
5. Zirthes makes an additional edit, not only changing the formatting but removing citations (which they don't mention in the edit summary)
6. Zirthes introduces factual error (31 is the number of reviews on the aggregator THEY removed)
7. After two more tiny edits from Zirthes I'm skipping (feel free to check them), I restore and ask in the edit summary for at least a justification of the citation removals
8. Zirthes responds with a questionable interpretation of WP:CITEVAR and something about the scores that I don't even understand, while not addressing why they removed citations
9. I go back to their talk page and lay out why their edit warring doesn't make sense. I admittedly did call the sentences they were reverting to "worse" (bit heated), but I also said in very clear terms that I was going to leave all their reversions alone except the factual error they introduced and the removal of citations, which they still haven't explained.
10. I correct the factual error and put the citations back, even changing the format of the citations to how Zirthes is saying they think they should be formatted.
11. Zirthes responds on their talk page, misrepresenting basically everything I said
12. Back at the article, Zirthes removes a couple of Wikilinks and just cites WP:OVERLINK in their edit summary, leaving out any mention of the fact that this edit also removed the citations yet again
13. I respond at their talk page

For what it's worth, Zirthes then immediately went on to have a little mini-edit war with another user at the article.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I didn't warn them with a template, but rather in my talk page message (see above)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See talk page diffs above

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1366707452

Comments:

Wall of text ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

One thing I've learnt in about a year of editing this site regularly is that if you're an unregistered editor, some people with accounts WILL find an issue with your edits. You can literally revert your own changes that you think should be in the article because they clearly would want it gone but missed it, and they'll still get angry at you for daring to edit "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" while being "anyone" ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

This is highly unnecessary, and further proves your apparent naivety when it comes to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. An edit war does not constitute reverting one edit - according to WP:WAR an edit war is "when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions". Reverting one edit by a user, with a clear reason given, who didn't raise any objection to this does not constitute to a "mini edit war" or an edit war at all.

In regards to your edits, your initial edit I made an adjustment to based on the consensus represented at WP:ALBUMAVOID which clearly states that "Album of the Year" is not a reliable source. After this, I cleared up the citation format you used which deviated from the established citation style in the article, which I had to repeat twice over because you submitted a conflicting edit during this process (while also tagging me for no apparent reason). You then proceeded to restore the incorrect wording of "Any Decent Music" (which should be worded as AnyDecentMusic? as generated by the template at Template:Music ratings) and the incorrect citation style which I had just corrected. After this came my first and only reversion of your exact edit giving my reason for doing so supported by the guidelines at WP:CITEVAR. You then added unnecessary references supporting the claim that the aggregate scores are weighted, despite this being already stated in the ratings template "aggregate" (which literally means a collection or sum of). I corrected this specifying MOS:OVERLINK as you also added a Wikilink to the word weighted which is not needed for the same reasons - none of these things make any difference to the understanding the reader will have of the prose. If anything, citing how Metacritic and ADM weigh their scores and Wikilinking to an irrelevant article (in this case) causes a distraction from the prose and disrupts flow.

You started a discussion almost immediately on my talk page, tagged me multiple times, and have done the most to justify your edits - and when I have tried to educate you on the correct policies and guidelines - you have blatantly ignored me. I do not have an issue with you contributing to Wikipedia, however in these instances you are clearly overlooking the facts, and are instead letting your personal bias cloud your judgement. Moreover, I have already requested page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection due to persistent disruptive edits from temporary users including yourself which is detailed over there. Zirthes (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to this almost-gish-gallop-level of misrepresentation of every single point I made in my report. I just wanna point to one specific thing because I think it's a good microcosm of that fact that Zirthes here seems to have an issue with admitting they've misunderstood something:

supporting the claim that the aggregate scores are weighted, despite this being already stated in the ratings template "aggregate" (which literally means a collection or sum of).

A review aggregator's average rating is not necessarily a weighted average. The Rotten Tomatoes average rating, for example, isn't. It's literally just the actual mathematical average. Clearly, the "irrelevant" Wikipedia article about weighted averages might have helped someone's understanding after all. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest that if you are going to report a user, try not making personal attacks towards them on their talk page as you did here [2] accusing my English language skills of not being "up to par" for editing English Wikipedia. The points I have raised are based on actual policy and guidelines that I have consistently brought up throughout this debate with you, while you have admitted yourself that you're not "pouring through all 90,000 bytes of WP:CS" which implies that you are content with including inaccurate formatting. You have also made a point of saying that I have violated WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL by referring to other album articles using the template for ADM (which you were clearly not aware even exists), however you have just brought up Rotten Tomatoes which actually is a WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL violation, and has nothing to do with album or song articles. I'm sensing a lot of hypocrisy here.. Zirthes (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to respond to each and every point of your comment just once.

I would suggest that if you are going to report a user, try not making personal attacks towards them on their talk page as you did here [19] accusing my English language skills of not being "up to par" for editing English Wikipedia.

I implore whoever ends up looking at this mess to click on that talk page diff and read it. I have told you several times, in very plain words, why I'm including citations for Any Decent Music and Metacritic. Not only are you still not getting it, but you are telling me that I'm saying the exact opposite of what I'm saying. There comes a point where the question of your ability to understand the conversations you're in needs to be asked. It's baffling because my point is so simple to understand.

while you have admitted yourself that you're not "pouring through all 90,000 bytes of WP:CS" which implies that you are content with including inaccurate formatting.

I'm almost stunned at this. This is a real "I like puppies" "So you hate kittens?" moment. Also, good job cutting out a snippet of the sentence to remove what that meant.

You have also made a point of saying that I have violated WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL by referring to other album articles using the template for ADM (which you were clearly not aware even exists)

Not only can you find countless examples of me using the ADM parameter within the edit history of this very TA, but I even posted a talk page question about that very parameter back in March 2026, which to this day no one has responded to. I just decided recently to stop using it because it displays the name of the website with an outdated stylisation that's not used in the website's text any more.

however you have just brought up Rotten Tomatoes which actually is a WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL violation

You say we don't need to reference that Metacritic and Any Decent Music use weighted averages because all review aggregators use weighted averages, I point out that Rotten Tomatoes doesn't, and you think that's a WP:OTHERSTUFFGENERAL violation. I'm actually speechless. I don't know how to respond to that.

The next long comment you post in which you misrepresent every single thing I say, I won't respond to. As I said, I decided I'll do it just this once. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 19:19, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

To be honest I don't particularly care to reply to you, however this is a report that you made about me so I have the right to argue my case. If you haven't noticed you are the one who has instigated these various discussions. My only intention was to briefly correct a disruptive edit on the Music, Fashion, Film article. Somehow that has resulted in a report being made against me as well as numerous other baseless claims and insults. Before this even happened I already requested protection to the article because of all the disruptive editing going on, which hopefully gets approved. Because this whole situation literally proves my point of what I was saying on that request. Zirthes (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Here is the temporary account's last known TA, for historical purposes. Mike Allen 21:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Zirthes has followed me to an article's talk page to either troll or show a shocking lack of reading comprehension, showing once again that I was completely justified in questioning their English abilities ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

🥱 Zirthes (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello Zirthes, you do appear to have violated the three-revert rule by reverting more than three times in 24 hours:

• [3] removing content previously in the article (inherently a revert)
• [4] removing the words "Any Decent Music gave" added one edit before ([5])
• [6] explicit undo
• [7] removing a link to "Weighted arithmetic mean" and references added one edit before ([8])

Do you understand that this is prohibited and will you not do so again? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for that, it was not my intention to do so. I'm aware that it is prohibited and I will make sure to not do so again. Zirthes (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42239-72 reported by User:Czello (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Oswald Mosley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-42239-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. as ~2026-42216-72
2. As ~2026-42135-56
3. 08:24, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1366797986 by Czello (talk)"
4. 08:20, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Restored revision"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:23, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Oswald Mosley."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is just from a 24 hour period - this has been going on for longer. — Czello ^(music) 08:37, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42349-34 reported by User:Adakiko (Result:Blocked)

Page: Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-42349-34 (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 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) to 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
   2. 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
2. 21:39, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
3. 21:34, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
4. 21:29, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."
5. 21:28, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "The information is inaccurate and inflammatory."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:31, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Message re. Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra (HG) (3.4.14)"
2. 21:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "Level 2 warning re. Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra (HG) (3.4.14)"
3. 21:35, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "ew notice"
4. 21:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ Adhai Din Ka Jhonpra"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Doesn't like. Adakiko (talk) 21:42, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Note: indef by Drmies. Adakiko (talk) 22:54, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Oppufc reported by User:Fróis (Result: Both partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Cambodian–Spanish War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oppufc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [16]

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this article only.~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

User:EarthDude reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Both warned)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "WP:CLEANUPTAG: A tag such as this cannot simply be placed just to declare that you disagree. You haven't even made clear what specifically is it that you are disputing"
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC) to 16:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "Please stop edit warring here; POV inline is not an appropriate tag to be used here and discussion is ongoing"
   2. 16:23, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "Per talk"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) to 07:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 07:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "This section of the article comes from a talk page discussion already. Please stop edit warring here"
   2. 07:46, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "More in line with the sourcing"
4. 06:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC) "You were a part of that discussion. Please don't edit war here for the sake of edit warring. Jaffrelot does not counter what's given here"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Consecutive edits made from 09:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC) to 07:51, 31 July 2026 (UTC) on Talk:Hindutva

Comments:

This is the oddest edit war I have seen, where the editor can't even tolerate POV tags. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

You have violated 3RR by making 4 reverts[17][18][19][20] under 24 hours and did not justify tagging. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:13, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Placing a tag is not a revert. Not that counting reverts matters much, but placing a tag is not a revert. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Kautilya3, EarthDude, is this about the word "affiliated" vs. "associated"? That's the dispute? And selectively reverting that is too difficult so the whitespace around the headings must be reverted too? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:31, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I really don't know what this dispute is even about. Kautilya3 has repeatedly placed a POV inline tag asking for a scholar named Christophe Jaffrelot's point of view to be added to the opening statement of the second paragraph in the lead, which says, Borrowing ideas and concepts from European fascism, the Hindutva movement was affiliated with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany during the interwar period and the Second World War. The issue is that in all major scholarly works by Jaffrelot, the scholar never talks about any of this. I later asked Kautilya3 if they have some other scholarly journal article by Jaffrelot, which I don't have, in which the scholar states his position on the issue[21] but instead Kautilya3 replied by accusing me of POV pushing and then attacked me by saying, And why do you expect that he would "deny" that it was "affiliated" to the European fascism, which is just something you cooked up for POV pushing, with your school boy English?. When Kautilya3 argued that the term "affiliated" was not present in the given source, I proposed that we instead replace it with "engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with" to resolve the issue.[22] They didn't engage with the proposal and only replied with, Your understanding of the word "affiliated" is plain wrong. You better consult a good dictionary. Everytime I interact with this editor, they either accuse me of POV pushing, refuse to actually engage with anything I say, or be extremely condescending towards me and keep attacking me. I believe the reason they made this edit warring noticeboard post in the first place is because of grudges from a previous feud we'd had which ended with AE telling us to work together (I think this because they even reverted whitespaces I had added in section titles). I even ended discussions on some disagreements we'd had to abide by the AE conclusion,[23] but Kautilya3 then chose to edit war in the exact same article I ended such a discussion over a completely different issue.[24] In a completely unrelated AE, in which I was not involved at all, Kautilya3 shoehorned me, by linking a basic RfC I had opened (which I had opened after consulting an admin[25]) as an example of POV pushing.[26] This is so exhausting, I really don't know how to work with this editor. — EarthDude (Talk) 04:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

ToBeFree, that sentence that I tagged as {{pov-online}} is UNDUE. It is a minority, uninformed view, which is not endorsed by authoritative scholars. EarthDude has been trying to railroad it for months now and has even rufused POV tags through edit warring. It has been going on for months and similar disputes at other pages have been going on for over a year. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to add that whenever a quality template such as {{pov-online}} or {{POV}} is placed, a discussion should take place and a consensus should be reached before the tag can be removed. The latter even contains explicit warnings, saying Please do not remove this message until the conditions to do so are met. Even a single revert of the template without consensus constitues edit-warring in my opinion. Doing it four times within a day is quite extreme. It is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

EarthDude has been trying to railroad it for months now and has even rufused POV tags through edit warring. The statement in question was introduced in the article as the resolution of a talk page discussion, with the statement being supported by many reliable scholarly sources (several of which were provided in the discussion). You were a part of that discussion and, at the time, said nothing against the statement. Then suddenly, over five months after that discussion had concluded, you decided you didn't like it anymore before blanket reverting my edits and then accusing me of POV pushing. And as for the POV tag, its conditions literally cannot be met. In the POV tag, you called for Jaffrelot's position on the issue to be added; how is that supposed to be followed if Jaffrelot never discussed the contents of that statement in the first place? I have asked you for clarification several times and have also asked you if you have access to some of his lesser known scholarly works which may include such a position, to which you brought up a completely unrelated quote of his before accusing me of POV pushing. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:39, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

at that time, said nothing against the statement. How does that give you a license to edit war? You presented a source, which I took time to study. When I came to the conclusion that it doesn't outweigh the predominant sources, I placed the pov-inline tag.

More importantly, why did you remove the POV template in your fourth revert, which has explicit instructions on what you were supposed to do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Don't engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT now. I've already talked about both of these in the reply above. — EarthDude (Talk) 10:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTTHEM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you have edit warred. Your behavior is part of the discussion topic as well. Template instructions are not policies. Get off your high horse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:34, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment I can't see any discussion which was started when the tag was originally placed (or indeed removed for the first time), only the existing one which started after it was being edit-warred over. Black Kite (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  "Oddest edit war" is not a bad description (superlative debatable but odd it is).

  I'm wondering if "stale" or "both warned" is a better summary for what this can hopefully be closed as. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

• EarthDude and Kautilya3 have edit warred. A consensus about the content could perhaps be found in a request for comment on the article's talk page. It would not depend on whether there's a maintenance template in the article or not. Edit warring about maintenance templates is not justifiable by the template's instructions. If the article needs a maintenance template, it should probably not be added by Kautilya3 for a while, and if it has a template, that should probably not be removed by EarthDude for a while, and of course reverts of the disputed content itself would be a completely bad idea until a consensus has been found, and neither EarthDude nor Kautilya3 would be in a position to determine such a consensus. They are both Warned. If the dispute itself really needs further discussion between its most involved editors, the dispute resolution noticeboard exists, but it can't provide a binding ruling on what the content should be, and I personally don't believe you'll find a consensus by just discussing this further between yourselves. What you need are outside opinions, and these usually come from RfCs. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  ToBeFree, I am free to be warned and I am thankful for all the work that you admins do.

  But you just ruled that the so-called "bright-line rule" is not so bright any more. You just ruled that POV templates can be removed willy-nilly with no resolution whatsoever. I don't see how this is going to get Wikipedia to become NPOV at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  POV tags can always be removed if a discussion is not started by the person who places the tags (or indeed if a discussion is started but has no merit). Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  The bright-line rule makes clear that more than three reverts in 24 hours are always clearly edit warring. The bright-line rule was violated by EarthDude as demonstrated above (4 reverts).

  The bright-line rule does not say that reverting less than four times is not edit warring.

  As you have both edit warred, the edit warring is not very recent anymore and you are two experienced editors who dropped an unnecessary in-article fight in favor of dispute resolution and discussion steps, a block is probably not necessary. It is not strictly required for 3RR violations or edit warring to result in a block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42708-27 reported by User:Jthekid15 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: 2026 Greater Manchester mayoral by-election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-42708-27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:00, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367160133 by POLARIS183 (talk) reapplied the literal definition of a substantively democratic mandate"
2. Consecutive edits made from 10:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC) to 10:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 10:56, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367159691 by Jthekid15 (talk) the politically partisan nature of the removal is clear"
   2. 10:57, 1 August 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 10:52, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367159471 by Jthekid15 (talk) for tendentious objection to description of substantive democracy and it's relation to this election, you are showing your colours by removing this."
4. 10:49, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367158981 by InUsername (talk) reapplied relevant description of substantive democracy that has been tendentiously removed."
5. 10:41, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1367156256 by Sumbuddi (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:50, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on 2026 Greater Manchester mayoral by-election."
2. 10:53, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on 2026 Greater Manchester mayoral by-election."
3. 11:01, 1 August 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on 2026 Greater Manchester mayoral by-election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

List of films based on DC Comics publications

I noticed there is an ongoing edit war between editors over the past few days at List of films based on DC Comics publications. No one is backing down in any apparent way. I request an administrator to check out the situation to decide a best course of action. CANthony0125 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Leo1pard reported by User:LittleJerry (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [27]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [28] 17 June 2026
2. [29] 17 June 2026
3. [30] 17 June 2026
4. [31] 18 June 2026
5. [32] 18 June 2026
6. [33] 18 June 2026
7. [34] 30 July 2026
8. [35] 30 July 2026 revert to consensus as argeed at the talk page here [36]
9. [37] 1 August 2026

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39] [40] See also the entire Talk:Tiger#Tiger_sizes section.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [41]

Comments:
I would also point out that Leo1pard likes to bring up old disputes of mine to taunt me [42], [43]. 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 [44] [45] 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)