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:StatsFreak reported by User:Bluesatellite (Result: Blocked 24h; page protected)

Page: List of highest-grossing concert tours (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: StatsFreak (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]
6. [6]

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

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

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

Comments:
Where's the admin? Why is this user is not blocked yet? He has violated WP:3RR. He undid others' edit for 6 times in less than 24 hour. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Admin Ivanvector has also protected the page. Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Czarking0 reported by User:ErnestKrause (Result: Stale)

Page: Project 2025 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Czarking0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [7], 17 January 2026
2. [8], 28 January 2026
3. [9], 31 January 2026

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None provided. The form field was re-labeled to "user talk page" by the reporter as if that was a suitable replacement, pointing to [10]. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments: User:Czarking0 appears to be reverting multiple times for fully sourced material on the Project 2025 page. The use of tables and list of names and subjects is common to Wikipedia which is not limited to Prose expression alone. The list being added is fully cited.

Persistent disruption and edit warring by editor, despite being warned on 31 January 2026. The editor has reverted without starting Talk page discussion or contacting me on my Talk page. I've tried to point out that other Wikipedia pages also use lists, however, User:Czarking0 continues to revert without starting Talk page. I then started Talk on his Talk page after adding the full citations for each of the names added in the list, however, Czarking0 continues to revert without starting Talk page on the article Talk page or answering Talk page explanation provided on his User Talk page. Requesting my edit to be restored to the article as fully sourced from a Princeton University Press citation. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello ErnestKrause,

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
— Wikipedia:Verifiability § Build consensus

Were you unaware of this policy or is there something unclear about it?

Please start a discussion on the article's talk page, Talk:Project 2025, arguing for the addition of the material and inviting Czarking0 to it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-47034-7 reported by User:PrinceArchelaus (Result: Page protected)

Page: Katie Pavlich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-47034-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC) ""
2. 14:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC) "There was clear backlash from viewership on X regarding her comments. This needs to stay published and it’s a wonderful example of “Political Commentary”."
3. 23:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:52, 31 January 2026 (UTC) ""
2. 04:03, 1 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been warned numerous times to use independent reliable sources to demonstrate potentially controversial comments in question has received significant attention. The user has not done so, and has not discussed their edits on the talk page. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-71039-0 reported by User:MakaylaHippo1998 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Dick Stanfel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-71039-0 (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:

Evasion of 3 revert rule (four reverts within six minutes). MakaylaHippo1998 (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as vandalism-only account (see edit-filters). DMacks (talk) 05:29, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Tygrieve28 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked p-blocked for 31 hours)

Page: Tiffany Stratton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tygrieve28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:09, 2 February 2026 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC) to 08:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
   1. 08:05, 2 February 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC) ""
3. 08:01, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Does this reach your standards?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC) to 07:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
   1. 07:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "2026 Royal Rumble"
   2. 07:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC) ""
5. [11]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Note"
2. 08:08, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tiffany Stratton."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Follow up: my assessment of the user is that they are well-meaning, but clearly aren't getting it. Although they have passed 3RR, I don't think a block is necessary if they stop reverting now; I have tried to explain the issue with their edits several times, so perhaps an admin could have a go with the message that they're already eligible for a block. — Czello ^(music) 08:44, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Though perhaps not; user is continuing to edit war. — Czello ^(music) 19:35, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of p-blocked for 31 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-71224-7 reported by User:Czello (Result: No action per discussion)

Page: WWE Raw premiere on Netflix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-71224-7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. first edit outside of 3RR window
2. 12:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC) ""with the event averaged 2.6 million..." "Also is 116% higher than..." "and this was a highest watched Raw since...." You look beyond intelligent reverting this back. And even not mentioning the laughable broken-english, it's still factually/objectively/inarguably illogical to compare viewership on a paid streaming service to live cable ratings, hence why the ratings are "up" 307% (even though they're clearly not whatsoever)"
3. 12:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336169778 by Czello (talk) I don't need the talk page, i've already factually proved it. Stop reverting broken-english nonsense."
4. 02:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336035716 by Czello (talk) Sourcing doesn't change the factual truth of everything already stated."
5. Partial revert

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:43, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on WWE Raw premiere on Netflix."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Explicit refusal to participate on the talk page by this user ("I don't need the talk page"). Pro wrestling articles are under CTPOS. — Czello ^(music) 13:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Section has been updated with actual coherent/non-broken english and factual/logical information regarding viewership. ~2026-71224-7 (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

You have still deleted sourced information while explicitly refusing to use the talk page. What you consider to be "logical" is a matter of your own opinion. — Czello ^(music) 13:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

It's a factual non-relevant, apples to oranges non-comparison.

And anyone can source an article from any site, if someone links an article that claims Santa Claus was responsible for 9/11 then I remove it are you going to revert that because "it's sourced" ? ~2026-71224-7 (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

That first sentence is, again, a matter of your opinion and something you should be getting consensus on. — Czello ^(music) 13:28, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Fine. I'll restore the section with the original links and only update the incorrect grammar. ~2026-71224-7 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your cooperation and am happy for any admin to close this thread without further action. — Czello ^(music) 13:40, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for the miscommunication. ~2026-71224-7 (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• CommentPer discussion above, closing with no action. It's refreshing to see something worked out here, it doesn't happen often. Acroterion (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User: Bluesatellite reported by User:StatsFreak (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: List of highest-grossing concert tours
User being reported: Bluesatellite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]

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:
Not sure why this user was not banned from editing as they have violated WP:3RR multiple times as recently as yesterday and after page protection and warning by Admin @Ivanvector:.StatsFreak (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User:0waleshistoryedits reported by User:Tipcake (Result: Indeffed as NOTHERE)

Page: House of Mathrafal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 0waleshistoryedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]
4. [21]
5. [22]
6. [23]
7. [24]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25]

Comments:
This user, first as an IP, and later as a new account, seems to have opposed to my request to move the article and as such reverted the article to one from last year, removing the work I have done bringing it up to date with more modern academic sources. This user also disrupted me with reverts as I was adding information to it this evening. Sorry for the notification not being posted correctly first. Tipcake (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely as NOTHERE. Pretty clear-cut here Daniel Case (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

User:EmmaRoydes reported by User:Hemiauchenia (Result: blocked 72 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: 23:43, 2 February 2026

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:54, 2 February 2026
2. 00:01, 3 February 2026
3. 00:05, 3 February 2026
4. 00:07, 3 February 2026
5. 00:46, 3 February 2026

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 00:35, 3 February 2026

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

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours – Muboshgu (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

User:EmmaRoydes reported by User:Onorem (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:46, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "rv 'actual' vandal who has a history of being blocked, at times "indefinitely", for this sort of disruptive behavior. See his block log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jon698 You are obviously WP:NOTHERE to contribute meaningful to this page."
2. 00:43, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Multiple meatpuppets and editors with a history of being blocked for disruptive behavior have vandalized this page, trying to thinly conceal it by WP:GAMING the rules, also a form of disruption and vandalism, have reverted, you, in an edit war. The WP:ONUS is actually on you to gain consensus on information that flies in the face of the consensus of press sources that says otherwise. Get your consensus first on the talk page, then we will talk."
3. 00:38, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336297441 by Marval4787 (talk) The opposite is the case. This is obvious meat puppetry, which is blatant vandalism. If you honestly feel this way about such a controversial claim, then you must build a consensus for this given the consensus of sources in the press is universally against this claim. The WP:BURDEN is on you, sir."
4. 00:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336296330 by Jon698 (talk)rv 'actual' vandal who has a history of being blocked, at times "indefinitely", for this sort of disruptive behavior. See his block log: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jon698"
5. 00:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336295778 by Jon698 (talk) rv disruptive unexplained changes from an editor who has a history of being banned "indefinitely" for this behavior."
6. 00:15, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Untrue. I don't see any RFC or vote taken that demonstrates a consensus by wikipedia editors to call this, or other propaganda films like it (see: 2000 Mules for instance) a documentary film. The opposite is the case here. We let the sources stand, which clearly call this a propaganda film UNTIL you get a clear consensus on this talk page saying otherwise. You are just being disruptive."
7. 00:07, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336294087 by LesRoutine (talk) rv unexplained disruptive editing"
8. 00:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1336293475 by Jon698 (talk) rv disruptive editing of explained reverts by an editor who has been blocked "indefinitely" at times for said disruption."
9. 00:01, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Clean version? Mmmm, kay. How about restoring the version that isn't a WP:NPOV violation. The consensus in the press is that this film is a "propaganda film""
10. Consecutive edits made from 23:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC) to 23:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC)
    1. 23:54, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "The consensus of sources certain call this a "propaganda film". See WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. I will leave out "right wing" for now but will restore what the press consensus reflects. To those political biased editors coming to disrupt this page for political purposes, how about you take your outrageous claim to the talk page and debate it there?"
    2. 23:57, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "Reverting ACTUAL disruptive edits.lol To those politically motivated editors coming to troll this page, you can go to the talk page and debate it there. However, WP:CITE and WP:UNDUE demand we report on this accurately, I left out "right wing" for now BUT included "propaganda" film which is the actual verbiage."
    3. 23:59, 2 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Critical response */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:35, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Melania (film)."
2. 00:41, 3 February 2026 (UTC) "/* Melania (film) */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 72 hours – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2026 (UTC)