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: Zenhighwayman reported by User:~2026-50399-42 (Result: Nominator blocked 24 hours indefinitely)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadan&oldid=1375550130
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hadan&oldid=1375504903

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:~2026-50399-42

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zenhighwayman&oldid=1375602173

Comments:
This person has for some reason decided to keep reverting my changes on an minor village in Iran. I am updating information added by my cousin a few years ago. They insist on a citation, which is nonsensical as the original claim had no citation either, and is coming from the same anecdotal source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-50399-42 (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

There was a citation issue, which I have attempted to address. I have no knowledge of the underlying topic. Zenhighwayman (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

They once again reverted my changes. This person is refusing to address the point that a claim made without a citation, can be changed without a citation. Context also matters, there is no Iranian census that tracked the information, so there cannot be a valid source beyond what people who actually live there (my family) say. ~2026-50399-42 (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

After the way they responded to the block on their talk page, NinjaRobotPirate has extended the block to indef with talk page access revoked. Daniel Case (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Funnaile reported by User:GlowstoneUnknown (Result: Already blocked)

Page: Left Party (Sweden) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Funnaile (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 neglected or refused to self-revert their WP:4RR on the page and is continuing edit-warring behaviour (within 3 reverts) on Die Linke, whilst refusing to participate in the WP:BRD cycle. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:47, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Note: their behaviour has continued on this page again with another reversion. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:54, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

You are the one reverting everything based on your own opinions. Funnaile (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Second note: they have now explicitly violated WP:3RR on Die Linke as well:

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 05:59, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Regarding Die Linke, I think important context is being omitted here. This is not a case of me repeatedly inserting an unsupported personal classification against an established consensus.

The political-position wording has been discussed extensively on Talk:Die Linke, and multiple editors have explicitly supported "left-wing to far-left". The discussion also contains numerous reliable and academic sources which explicitly describe Die Linke as far-left. My edits were therefore based on published sourcing and an existing, active content dispute over how those sources should be reflected in the infobox.

I continue to support "left-wing to far-left" and do not accept the implication that the sourcing for that wording is deficient simply because another editor disagrees with its inclusion. The present disagreement is about how reliable sources should be weighted and summarized, not about whether sources describing Die Linke as far-left exist.

I also dispute the claim that I have refused to participate in WP:BRD. I have participated in the talk-page discussion and have repeatedly explained the sourcing behind the proposed wording. If the existing discussion is considered insufficient to establish consensus, then an WP:RFC or other dispute-resolution process would be a more appropriate way to resolve the content question.

The WP:3RR issue is separate from the merits of that content dispute, and ANEW should assess the conduct issue on that basis rather than treating the reverted wording itself as unsupported or contrary to an uncontested consensus. Funnaile (talk) 06:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

There has been extremely minimal consensus-building discussion recently of the political position to be listed on Die Linke, and no RfC, despite an editor's suggestion, a far cry from The political-position wording has been discussed extensively on Talk:Die Linke, and multiple editors have explicitly supported "left-wing to far-left", as you say. This noticeboard is not the forum to discuss or justify your edits, so talking about what content you continue to support for the page is irrelevant. I've already explained your misapprehensions about the WP:BRD process, so I won't repeat that here, and I'd like to point out that WP:3RR is a bright-line rule against WP:DISRUPTIVE WP:EDITWARring which you have unambiguously violated. I re-assert that you have failed to engage in consensus-building behaviour based on your actions, and you are in violation of Wikipedia's WP:PAG. – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Third note: the user is now up to WP:6RR on Die Linke.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:24, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed several editors who were previously uninvolved in this article entering the same dispute in a short period of time. I am concerned there may have been canvassing or coordinated recruitment. I am not alleging this based on the editors' personal identities or political views; my concern is specifically the pattern of participation and whether editors were selectively invited to influence consensus. Could an uninvolved administrator review the relevant contribution histories and notifications under WP:CANVASS? Funnaile (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Fourth note: 7RR.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:38, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Fifth note: 8RR.

– GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:55, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion that I have refused to participate in discussion. I opened the relevant discussion at Talk:Left Party (Sweden) and provided multiple academic and news sources concerning the classification.

I continue to support the wording "left-wing to far-left". I am not withdrawing that content position: my view is that the cited reliable sources justify including "far-left", and that question should be resolved through the article's talk-page consensus process.

I recognise that ANEW is concerned with editing conduct rather than deciding the underlying content dispute. I will therefore continue making the case for the wording through discussion and, if necessary, further dispute-resolution processes rather than treating repeated reverts as a substitute for consensus.

I also dispute the statement that I have refused to participate in the WP:BRD process; I have been actively participating in the relevant talk-page discussion. Funnaile (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Your edits were the WP:BOLD ones, after a WP:REVERT, that is what is supposed to trigger the WP:DISCUSSion. In lieu of that process, you have twice violated WP:3RR and used WP:ACCUSATIONs/WP:PERSONALATTACKs on an article's talk page when I explained an issue with your edit(s). – GlowstoneUnknown (Talk) 06:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Shahinshah121 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Jeffery D. Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shahinshah121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Jeffery_D._Long#Long's_politics_and_scholarship

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

Comments:Note that in the discussion, multiple users objected to readding the awards material using the material he was using, and none concurred. Editor thought that sufficient to readd it anyway. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Support report. It is out of scope for this noticeboard, but I see a long history of tendentious editing here. In addition to Jeffery D. Long, I am concerned as to whether Hindu American Foundation represents a WP:NPOV. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

User:UiquepediaEhComedia reported by User:Cinderella157 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Empire of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: UiquepediaEhComedia (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]

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

Comments:

It might be appropriate to check the IP making this edit and to consider ECP protection. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Extended confirmed because there's disruption from temporary accounts and one aged 23 hours with 8 edits that had zero when this started? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay, there's more; Nobunagabrasilia and UiquepediaEhComedia are technically and behaviorally too likely to each other for this to be a coincidence. Still, semi-protection would have prevented it all. Extended-confirmed protection is normally restricted to cases where semi-protection has been proven to be ineffective. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Danners430 and User:Aviationwikiflight reported by User:GreenLipstickLesbian (Result: Page protected )

Page: List of United Airlines accidents and incidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Danners430 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Previous version reverted to: / (ish)

Diffs of Danners430's reverts:

Diffs of Aviationwikiflight's reverts

1. (just a partial revert)

Though nobody has breached 3RR, this is clearly edit warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I have not personally warned the editors about edit warring, but Danners430's did just after they hit their third revert.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aviationwikiflight#September_2026 not from me personally, but the discussion has reached the point that my elementary school peer mediator teacher would refer to as 'unproductive'.

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

Comments:
Warning somebody against edit warring during an edit war is interesting. I'm reporting both parties as they're both experienced editors who should know better than to get edit war, even if they're staying just under 3RR. Little things like 'non-ASN sources to the Bureau of Aircraft Accidents Archives' are also getting wholesale reverted w/out discussion, which is damaging to the encyclopedia. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 06:43, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

It's worth saying there's a discussion on @Aviationwikiflight's user talk regarding this, and I have requested full protection. I'm just awaiting agreement from the other party (now that I'm back at a keyboard) to restore the undisputed parts of the edits. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 06:46, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Page protected for 48 hours by The Bushranger. I'd personally have done a partial block of that article for both editors, but that's a minor difference. Just to add that when the protection expires, if there's no agreement about the sources being used, follow the usual dispute resolution procedure. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:55, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

User:Marval4787 reported by User:~2026-41404-95 (Result: Declined/Resolved)

Page: The Life of a Showgirl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Marval4787 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Context: For a long time, the article has had a length of 41:40 in the infobox and track listing template. This was also in prose, citing a Capital FM article from before the album's release, stating that the album is 41:40 "according to Spotify". Spotify says the album is 41:45. For comparison, Tidal says 41:46.

Diffs:

1. I correct the total length
2. Marval4787 reverts
3. I restore
4. Rfl0216 reverts, claiming the edit isn't justified via edit summary
5. I post a substantial justification on the talk page
6. I restore
7. Marval4787 reverts, claiming in their edit summary that they will accept the change if either a) consensus forms on the talk page or b) I provide a reliable source
8. I restore along with putting a direct citation of the Spotify page in the track listing template
9. Marval4787 posts an edit-warring notice on my talk page
10. I ask what the justification for the warning is since I did what was directly asked
11. Marval4787 replies
12. I reply
13. Marval4787 replies
14. I reply
15. Marval4787 replies
16. I reply
17. Marval4787 reverts back at the article

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1376350542

Comments:

Please note that Marval4787 has responded on their talk page. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. It's hard to follow what happened as far as allegations of edit-warring, and really when your diffs are predominantly interactions between the two of you this is more appropriate for AN/I, if the discussion on your talk page is any indication. Daniel Case (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm aware of the typical AN/EW template, but I often find that it isn't very useful for complex situations, so I modified it a little. All of the diffs I've provided are in chronological order. I also really don't want to go to AN/I because there's a ridiculously strong and blatant anti-TA bias there. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, in that case, I will have to tell you that what you have reported here doesn't meet the definition of actionable edit warring on this page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

So I can add the correct and sourced information back? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

(No, you should obviously not do that.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The situation is already resolved. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Okay? What was the solution? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Another editor removed the Capital FM source and added two other secondary sources that list the length as 41:40; unlike the Capital FM source, these ones don't falsely claim that that length comes from Spotify, which was the core issue. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the report and for the update. I had just typed the following:

Hello Marval4787, if I understand correctly, you have repeatedly restored content someone else had disputed. The idea seems to be that others' reverts have created a consensus strongly enough to justify edit warring. This idea is wrong.

If there is a consensus on the talk page already, please provide a link to it. If not, please don't revert before one is found.

As the matter is already resolved, this doesn't need a reply anymore and is just for everyone's information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is not the place for this, but I feel I need to say something about this issue.

The issue was indeed solved because another editor (and the third overall) supported the information/content I repeatedly restored in the first place (that the album's length is 41:40, not 41:45 as @~2026-41404-95 kept changing at least four times). So the other editor provided two other/new sources to support this information. But the "original" information I kept restoring was correct all along.

I also want to mention that @~2026-41404-95 did not wait for your answer here but immediately went back to the article and reverted the information/content again (five minutes later to be exact) and without waiting for a proper discussion to happen on the article's talk page. And even after stating here that they don't want to use the article's talk page.

After the edit was reverted by the said editor, I commented on this revision and @~2026-41404-95's previous action on their talk page. But they immediately deleted my comment and threatened to report me again. On top of that, @~2026-41404-95 went to the other editor's talk page and described me as an "in-the-wrong editor who struggles with comprehension".

So, yes, the situation is solved but with a personal twist to it. Marval4787 (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

The other editor acknowledged that the runtime is 41:45 on Spotify. The fact that you still don't understand why the time is different on Spotify and Tidal, despite repeatedly explanations, proves that you do, indeed, struggle with comprehension, or you're pretending to not understand. Either way, the other editor saw with their own two eyes that it says 41:45 on Spotify, which you repeatedly denied. And yes, I did go to the other editor's talk page and warn them that the timing of their edit is likely to embolden you. Five minutes later, you returned to my talk page to boast about how you had been proved right because another editor "agreed" with you, showing that my read of your personality was 100% correct. I'm a very good judge of character.

If you want to clutch pearls over that, let's point out that your first reversion was accompanied by the snarky edit summary Deleting the source and not changing the length/playtime of the indivdual songs doesn't make the album's standard edition any longer. The songs length/playtime adds up to 41:40, not to 41:45 (this is basic math). Or, you could drop the stick and we could all move on. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 21:24, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-45329-89 reported by User:Bneu2013 (Result: Underlying range blocked from page for a week)

Page: Tennessee State Capitol artwork, monuments, and memorials (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-45329-89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:17, 23 September 2026 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"
2. 15:43, 22 September 2026 (UTC) "/* Controversies */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Tennessee State Capitol artwork, monuments, and memorials."
2. 18:34, 22 September 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Tennessee State Capitol artwork, monuments, and memorials."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Several temporary accounts that appear to be operated by the same person have continued to make unsourced changes to this article without discussion. This is despite multiple warnings and repeated requests that they bring it up on the talk page. See also the page history and the following diffs: , , , , , . Bneu2013 (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Underlying range, from the page. Daniel Case (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

I have now also blocked the accounts. Especially when there might be multiple people editing from the same address, and if the same temporary account uses multiple IP addresses (both applies here), I don't think blocking the underlying IP address is a solution on its own. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2026 (UTC)