Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
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.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.
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.
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.
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.
 | Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
User:FrimaireFroid reported by User:Walther16 (Result: Page protected)
[edit]User:FrimaireFroid began a disruptive editing on the article Human height by country from this edit, when he reverted the entire article I was working on with the help of @Quantum Mechanical Engineer: without a clear consensus. Suspected of sockpuppetry, he opened an ANI against the undersigned and Quantum Mechanical Engineer, another editor who was working hard, with the undersigned, on the article and who discovered dozens of sock puppets that had been abusing the page for years. ANI opened by the User was archived. The same happened for sock puppets accusations. From then, it seems he began to disagree with several sources and eliminated them here, and here despite written by scholars (Insta Publishing is a scholars Indian publishig house, its books are for universities), with precise references and open to a plurality of viewpoints, as should be the case on Wikipedia. I dare say it is not a mere edit war but a precise opposition to the work the undersigned and Quantum Mechanical Engineer are trying to do to improve the article. I would like to highlight that, together with the Community, I brought the article "Statura" (Stature) to "Featured Article" status on the Italian Wikipedia --Walther16 (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- I will respond briefly to the major claims:
- ANI: The referenced thread is here: The topic was them repeatedly insinuating I was a sockpuppet. I do not think it is relevant to this instance.
- Sockpuppetry: This was already brought to Sockpuppet Investigations. The conclusion was "Frimaire is unrelated." I also do not think this is relevant.
- Insta Publishing: Listed as a self-publishing source on their Instagram here . Note the name, address, and URL are the same as that listed in the book, so this appears to be the same company. I could not find any other references as their website seems to be down.
- I reverted this edit the first time because it added a seemingly self-published source and a large amount of text that is not directly relevant to the topic of the article (which I later realized was copied directly from , compare "The total sample size [...] BMI-for-age curves" versus the second and third paragraph of Sample Description). The second time, I tried to compromise by editing the copied content to remove irrelevant material and ensure the wording was not copied (although I still removed the self-published source). I would have brought this to the talk page next had we not ended up here.
- I have to go to sleep, so I will respond to any further messages tomorrow. FrimaireFroid (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Instagram is not a source, overall sources have to be read concerning what they are about, and who wrote them: 3 scholars: 1) Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, Rabindra Bharati University; 2) Master of Science Faculty Member at Bhairab Ganguly College, Kolkata; 3) Research Scholar at Lovely Professional University.
- The content of an academic study might be read before deleted.
- It should be added that a subsequent 2024 edition of the same substantial volume was published by another large Indian publishing house founded in 1990. Obviously volumes of over 800 pages are currently being printed on request (students, scholars) due to high costs. The fact that it is available in Ebooks and also with large portions of text on Google Books allows the reader to get an idea of the solidity of the work. Therefore these edits in edit war which insist on "self-publishing" as if it were a blogger's job are particularly biased and demonstrate, as has already been noted, a very incomplete and problematic understanding of the topic covered. Inserting "self-publishing" is also an abuse of the editing summary with an attempt to discredit the sources.
- Several discussions with the User in the talk brought no to concrete results, due to the fact the edits by the User seem to bring again the article to the previous, obsolete POV that socks tried to build (this is said without implying that the User has been accused of being a sockpuppet).
- The revert of the entire work we were doing was disruptive.
- The revert I quoted as diff was not only on the academic source at the point one, but concerned a large number of studies and several information.
- "Large amount of text that is not directly relevant to the topic of the article" is a POV without sources.
- The insistence on deleting sources the User does not agree with or does not like is precisely the edit war.
- This edit in edit war by the User was particularly biased: not only did it remove a fundamental sentence, namely that the WHO data are by their own admission based on samples from the 1970s, specifically 1977, to which more recent smaller size observations were added, but it also hypothesized that there had been a violation of copyright where it was, inevitably, a few lines taken from the study that the User claimed to cite as "absolute" without contextualizing the data in a "relative" way.
- I also kindly suggest reading the copyright guidelines: quoting short passages, using "quote" template and citing the source, does not constitute copyright infringement.
- Walther16 (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Paulthemazing reported by User:Linkin Prankster (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
[edit]Page: Keanu Carver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paulthemazing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
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 Paulthemazing has been edit warring for three days now. He keeps showing wrestler Keanu Carver is still signed by WWE even though he has been released. He insists Carver isn't released because it hasn't been officially announced and WWE didn't move him to alumni section. I tried explaining on the talk page Talk:Keanu Carver that it is nothing unusual as similar case happened with Velveteen Dream and Brock Lesnar, Carver's release is backed by a reliable source PWInsider.
User:Untamed1910 also opposed his claims on the talk page and multiple users have reverted his edits on the article, which anyway aren't even grammatically correct.
The user was previously temporarily blocked over editing and changing comments of others as well as repeatedly uploading images under wrong licenses and committing copyright violation. He only desisted once he was blocked after a complaint.
Now he is back to edit warring. He has stopped discussion on the talk page and does what he want, even though all other users oppose his edits. I request that he be blocked for edit warring. Linkin Prankster (talk) 09:01, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- He's still edit warring, despite also being told by user Czello to stop and discuss first, . Linkin Prankster (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Last time this user was blocked, they've tried to create a sockpuppet, and then either noticed that doesn't properly work, or reconsidered, and switched back to the main account. I think we should see an unblock request instead of an automatically expiring block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:07, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
User:J20026 reported by User:UtherSRG (Result: Blocked indefinitely)
[edit]Page: Superconducting quantum computing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: J20026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 16:42, 9 October 2026 (UTC) "/* History */"
- Consecutive edits made from 16:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC) to 16:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- 16:01, 8 October 2026 (UTC) "/* History */"
- 16:03, 8 October 2026 (UTC) "/* History */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring, then immediately resumed such when block expired. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Dreune reported by User:Dolpina (Result: Both partially blocked)
[edit]This user Dreune is edit warring in the article Igbo regalia and headdresses Dolpina (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
Both editors blocked from editing this article only. Dreune had only been edit warring recently and is blocked for 24 hours; Dolpina had been edit warring with multiple other editors before and is blocked for 2 weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2026 (UTC)
User:Livelikemusic reported by User:~2026-54538-50 (Result: No violation)
[edit]Livelikemusic was banned a week ago, and has already returned and done 3X on many artist and albums articles in the last week including That's Showbiz Baby!, Perrie (album), Jade Thirlwall, Bite Me (album). As well as various TV series and character pages and summaries ~2026-54538-50 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2026 (UTC)
No violation I don't see any 3RR violations, though I do suggest Livelikemusic be careful when reverting. Also noting that the TA did not provide the required notice to Livelikemusic. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2026 (UTC)