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:Arulkash reported by User:Plastikspork (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Susi Ganeshan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Arulkash (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:

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

Comments:

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-39527-73 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Cargo 200 (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-39527-73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:40, 19 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364987082 by AriuCH (talk)"
2. 12:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364766483 by AriuCH (talk)"
3. 08:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Cast */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "General note: Adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons on Viktor Sukhorukov."
2. 12:03, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Fix warn"
3. 17:42, 19 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Cargo 200 (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• This might be ~2026-30882-10. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi ToBeFree, Thank you for taking action on the report. AriuCH (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Nerd271 reported by User:~2026-40594-57 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Voluntary childlessness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nerd271 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

It is slightly unnecessarily accidentally complicated case. Nerd271 just keeping to restore their own edit, ignoring a discussion questioning its validity. The sheer amount of their reverts are actually pretty small, only two, as first instance definitely was a good one. But Ellie96s then created a topic in Talk, explaining their actions , while Nerd271 never addressed anything there, simply keeping to restore own version with the less and less engaging summaries instead (from the perfectly valid initial That's not enough. You need more than just someone else's claim (that was eventually addressed in the Talk discussion.) to just Stable version. and Information and reference restored.).

Now to the complication, explaining the low amount of diffs provided. I tried to retry at least one more time, now excessively directly adding the mention about Talk page discussion to the revert summary: Probably it was written too vaguely in the previous summary; adding the wording about Talk. There were a valid points raised concerning it, both in edit summaries and at the Talk page; it is not "stable" one, at least prior they are addressed., and planned to resort to this noticeboard only in case they would continue to keep the same approach as before. But, it suddenly was reverted by Dafootballguy , on a ground of being unexplained deletion without adequately explaining why and without an accurate edit summary. I tried to resolve misunderstanding about it with them; eventually they agreed that it is better to be continued here instead.

In result I cannot verifiable know would Nerd271 still ignore discussion even if would been very directly pointed at without also reverting unrelated revert of Dafootballguy, making it very complicated. So I decided to proceed with it outright, and if the present behaviour from Nerd271 is not enough to warrant it (if only due to all sides there being pretty calm at reverting eachother, not rushing to do so at the first possibility), could it be told how many times is essentially needed to show a pattern of ignoring other editors and restoring own version instead?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] None present, it is not about 3RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes, I tried.

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

Comments:

02:11, 20 July 2026 (UTC) ~2026-40594-57 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Dafootballguy's revert seems to have been ... I don't know, "misinformed"? The revert reason makes no sense; I have undone that and replied to their talk page warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:05, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  (Same user as a filer)

  Many thanks for fast response and solving it. In no way I want to question the decision, but a block for two weeks for two reverts on the article of very low importance looks harsh? I hoped that merely pinging those two mentioned users would untie the complication on it's own, or that some warning would work at worst. Nerd271 is definitely a good editor overall, this is something accidental. You do know better anyway for sure.

  Thanks for bother.

  As the third editor from the article seems to be very inactive lately, maybe it would be better to be moved in dispute resolution by third opinion overall? ~2026-40813-93 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  Three reverts, not two.
  Nerd271, who edits infrequently and might not even notice a shorter block, has a long history of such issues including an earlier unanswered message about uncollaborative editing in yet another article. This needs to end. I hope a two-week block already helps; deciding to set an automatic expiry at all wasn't an immediate decision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:49, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  I didn't knew it is not a first issue of that kind, and of course you're know that you're doing. Just wanted to say that was a good one, Ellie96s hadn't provided valid evidence justifying their edit yet; it happen only later, and Nerd71 couldn't knew in advance it would happen.

  I noticed that I messed up with a notice, somehow it mangled and doubled. Looks like I put that template as a title of it too (what should be used as a title there?). It would be wrong if I will edit other person's Talk page to fix it, or better leave it to them? (Sorry, first time ever I notified anybody, turned out it's more complicated than expected.) ~2026-40813-93 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, that was already a bad edit. When verifiability is questioned in good faith with an explanation of why, a discussion should happen before restoration, even more so if the removal is already done by pointing to a disagreeing source (which is not even required). Applicable policies are WP:BURDEN and WP:VNOT.
  Regarding the notification, don't worry. I have fixed the heading syntax and removed the duplicate now. You are generally of course welcome to do this too, but all is good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

List of national anthems - Afghanistan edit warring (Result: Declined: Malformed report)

Page: List of national anthems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is a dispute regarding which government of Afghanistan to include in the list of UN member states section. I brought this up on the talk page, but the page history seems to be in dispute. ~2026-40609-82 (talk) 07:28, 20 July 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. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:11, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Adulitanum reported by User:GSK (Result: Blocked from the article namespace for 2 weeks)

Page: Backrooms (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "Who said anything about reddit? The response is a video published 05-28-26 opening night showing the poster is the theatrical version. Do you have proof that the theater got it wrong and displayed an unofficial poster?"
2. 02:54, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "Unless you're disputing the video's authenticity, your response is inadequate. The video is opening night at the theater, refuting your claim that the poster is not the theatrical version."
3. 00:37, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "this poster is the theatrical version in theaters https://www.tiktok.com/@xoxo_santi/video/7645185570326531358"
4. 22:23, 20 July 2026 (UTC) "redid upload to adhere to WP:IMAGERES"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 03:10, 21 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Backrooms (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked from the Article namespace for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)
• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:13, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Rapidfirreee reported by User:Peripteros (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: latest sable version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. initial revert
2. second revert
3. third revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: final warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: instructions to take to talk page

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

Comments:
This editor has an established history of edit warring against multiple editors. Reporting for Italian Riviera given it's the most recent but extensive edit warring on Gianni Infantino. Please see editor's talk page for summary of cautions. Given the nature of their edits and behavior, I believe user is WP:NOTHERE. Indeed, they threatened to edit war "until 2030." Peripteros (talk) 04:06, 22 July 2026 (UTC)