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:Snokalok2 reported by User:Barinto (Result: Page protected)

Page: Genspect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snokalok2 (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:

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

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

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

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

Comments:

Very competently posted. Anyway, this is a revenge filing because despite a 4-1 talk page consensus in favor of inclusion, this IP kept blanking the content because he didn't like it. I filed an ANI thread, he's filing this in retaliation. Under WP:3RRNO, I am allowed to revert more than three times in cases of vandalism - which this is. Snokalok2 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Link to the ANI thread if anyone wants it [6] Snokalok2 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

I will also note this new account seems to be *very* well versed in wikipedia policies and procedures, and wonder if this isn't an old user socking Snokalok2 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

it is not vandalism. you're adding entirely unsourced information and you've been edit warring it all day. Barinto (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's sourced to a report by Amnesty International, which consensus agreed to include. You do not get to override a 4-1 consensus for inclusion simply because you disagree. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Which is a Primary source that was withdrawn and stated to not meet their standards by the publisher Barinto (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Because JK Rowling threatened to bankroll a lawsuit against them. The talk page was 4-1 to include the report, the fact that it was withdrawn, and the circumstances under which it was withdrawn. (Tuned down on TBF's request) Snokalok2 (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

none of the secondary sources mention genspect. Consensus does not overide verifiability Barinto (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Snokalok2, please tune this a few degrees down. You do not get to bindingly evaluate the consensus of a discussion you participated in. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

As you wish Snokalok2 (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Oh sorry. Snokalok2, my (language) mistake: I didn't mean to ask you to edit your comment. Which is not a problem and of course a kind gesture but I just wanted to make clear that I just meant "for further messages in this thread". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

This is not the type of "obvious vandalism" exempt from the edit warring policy, no. It's a form of stubbornness for sure, but one with an intention of improving the encyclopedia. Misguided perhaps. Not necessarily requiring a block in response to your edit warring. But not exempt from the policy, no. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

So what do you believe the optimal action is when an IP keeps blanking against consensus Snokalok2 (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

If it's an obvious problem, it doesn't require one specific editor to edit war with the only disagreeing editor. If there's a large agreement, we shouldn't have one single editor edit warring with another single editor. There are numerous approaches including requesting page protection if the consensus is so clear, starting an RfC to get a clear consensus evaluated by someone else, asking at a noticeboard et cetera. If something clearly needs to be changed in an article and there's a group of people agreeing about this, you shouldn't need to be the sole defender of what you perceive to be a position strongly held by others who could do the same. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

Fair enough reasoning. Honestly I didn't even realize I'd touched three until he said so, but even when that happened his work still read to me as vandalism given the clear IDONTLIKEIT and the fact that the entire thread was against him on it. Regardless, clearly I erred in this regard, and for that I apologize. Snokalok2 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

It's all good. I don't count reverts much, three, four, whatever. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-39855-56 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-39855-56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:58, 16 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364432543 by McSly (talk) It's overly long, redundant, and politically biased"
2. 13:27, 16 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364294433 by Roxy the dog (talk)"
3. 16:09, 15 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364274509 by MrOllie (talk) it's still an irrelevant political opinion"
4. 16:04, 15 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364264030 by MrOllie (talk) The summary is overly long with its inclusion. Even then it's still just an unsourced redundant political opinion."
5. 14:47, 15 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364263561 by MrOllie (talk) Then it's redundant as the subject of the paragraph already has it's own section"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:06, 15 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:07, 15 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Lead section */ new section"

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:TylerBurden reported for edit warring on Serbia page (Result: Multiple editors blocked)

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

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

Diff on user being notified on this report: [[7]]

TylerBurden has been engaged in an ongoing edit war on the Serbia article. Although they appear to have stayed just below the bright-line 3RR limit in 24 hours they actually made 5 reverts in the last 34 hours concerning the same disputed content, using open threats and treating that page as WP:own concerning the same disputed content.

Relevant diffs:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

TylerBurden has already been warned about edit warring on their user talk page but continued reverting. They have not attempted to seek consensus on the article talk page, and the dispute has instead continued through edit summaries. Two different editors have reverted them during this dispute.

This appears to be a continuing edit war rather than an effort to resolve the content dispute through discussion. I am requesting administrative review to determine whether further action or sanctions, is appropriate. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll just respond that this seems to be another retaliatory action by Theonewithreason, as they posted this within minutes of my own report of them, which should speak for itself. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Even disregarding obvious policy like WP:ONUS on a WP:CTOP, which Theonewithreason seems to repeatedly ignore. TylerBurden (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

Being reverted by 2 editors and you still continue to edit war is actually an issue you should be concern about. Theonewithreason (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• TylerBurden and Palatinosunriser Partially blocked – for a period of 24 hours, Theonewithreason Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks due to recent recidivism, and also personal attacks evinced here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

User:Don nco reported by User:MoonsMoon (Result: Page protected)

User:Don nco

• Article nearing edit war: Sampot
• Attempt to discuss on Talk Page: Talk:Sampot#Discussion_of_possible_lead_photo_edit_warring

Editor timeline

Don nco has continually replaced the article's long-standing lead photo that depicts a style and textile not represented in the article with a blurry, far-away, and redundant image of a style and textile already in article body. Myself and multiple other editors reverted their changes and provided an explanation in our edit summaries, and I also added a topic on the Talk Page to understand their edits and come to a consensus. The editor ignored the consensus and the Talk Page discussion before once again adding the poor-quality, redundant photo. Their edits are spaced out and this is becoming a slow-motion edit war. I have left their edits in tact to avoid falling into an edit war myself. I posted an edit warring warning on their Talk Page and also informed them of this discussion.

Diffs

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sampot&diff=prev&oldid=1363774270 (7/12)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sampot&diff=prev&oldid=1364216992 (7/15)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sampot&diff=prev&oldid=1364246564 (7/15)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sampot&diff=prev&oldid=1364406495 (7/16)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sampot&diff=prev&oldid=1364570218 (Last 7/17)

MoonsMoon (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)
• Hello MoonsMoon and Don nco, if discussion on the article's talk page doesn't help, you may like to request a third opinion (but only when all arguments have been presented already and the discussion has come to a standstill), or start an RfC to find a consensus for any specific lead image. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The discussion in the Talk Page isn't helping because the editor ignored it and edited the page again anyway. There's also already a consensus but Don nco ignored it and edited the page again anyway. MoonsMoon (talk) 20:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, MoonsMoon. You have added a lot of content in November and someone is now objecting to an aspect of it. The "presumed consensus" you refer to has ended.

  An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.
  — Wikipedia:Consensus § Through editing

  Now, as there is no consensus for either image on the article's talk page, none of the images may be re-added until a consensus has been found or one of the editors gives up their objections. The essay WP:DISCFAIL may help in case Don nco really refuses to discuss. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just want to clarify the timeline and also the context to clear up some things:

  • Consensus: My comments referred to the existing consensus between myself and the two other editors re: the specific photos added by Don nco were blurry/long shots/redundant/didn’t depict a sampot in an article titled Sampot. Not a presumed consensus. It’s in the edit summaries.
  • Re- lead image choice: I didn’t introduce the photo Don nco replaced, I simply restored it because the replacement lead photo (of devatas carved onto Angkor Wat) was, again, redundant. This was in February, not November. I never implied I’m somehow locked into any specific image, especially one I didn’t even choose. I’m the one who opened a discussion on the Talk Page to discuss the issue.

  MoonsMoon (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

  MoonsMoon, the situation has reached a point, which you have correctly noticed and which is why you came here, where edit summaries had been proven insufficient for discussion. Everything else – which image(s) you prefer if any et cetera – is good content for the article's talk page. If Don nco truly refuses to join the discussion and continues edit warring instead of disengaging, then I'd block, protect, revert, whatever. We're fortunately not there yet. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:18, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-40411-61 reported by User:Lordseriouspig (Result: Page protected, content removed)

Page: Jack Messina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-40411-61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:53, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "ClueBot, mind your own business."
2. Consecutive edits made from 06:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC) to 06:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC)
   1. 06:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "I thought we said we're not edit warring"
   2. 06:49, 18 July 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 06:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 06:52, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jack Messina."

Comments:

• It seems there is a dispute regarding the subject of the article’s Birth year occuring on this page. The reported user has repeatedly edit warred regarding this and much talking has been done in comments in the article and in edit summaries. Lordseriouspig 07:09, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm not too happy about the number of times Denniss has restored a disputed birth date with at very least Special:Diff/1364712359 having an edit summary that might describe the edit itself too fittingly, as at that point it seems to have been a dispute of sources vs. sources, and the best way to deal with such situations is to remove the disputed material without adding other disputed material. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected, content removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:38, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

User:El Ouwet el Lebnani reported by User:Chrisahn (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Julius Nyerere (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: El Ouwet el Lebnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 17:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364810179 by Chrisahn (talk)"
2. 17:11, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1364765077 by Chrisahn (talk)"

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]
5. [17]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:41, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Julius Nyerere."
2. 17:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Julius Nyerere."
3. 17:13, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ If you keep edit-warring, you will be blocked."

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 11:40, 18 July 2026 (UTC) "/* Lead image */

@El Ouwet el Lebnani: Stop the edit-warring or you will be blocked."

Comments:

In Talk:Julius Nyerere#Lead image, three editors preferred the old image. El Ouwet ignored the discussion, didn't take part, and instead started an edit-war. Chrisahn (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2026 (UTC)