Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

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.

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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359
360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368	369
Incidents (archives, search)
1164	1165	1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173
1174	1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481	482	483
484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491	492	493
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Objectiveanalysis reported by User:Bon courage (Result: Blocked from article 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

11:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Fix typo (pseudosientific). Add peer-reviewed secondary sources (systematic reviews and meta-analysis) aligning with WP:MEDRS, WP:FRINGE and WP:FRIND. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chromotherapy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Chromotherapy for the discussion."
00:08, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282045621 by McSly (talk) The pseudoscience claim is from old books that are several years behind the current state of evidence and directly in conflict with the requirements of WP:MEDRS on 'Books'. No reliable evidence from recent secondary peer-reviewed sources supports this claim."
23:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282043761 by McSly (talk). Please see the discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chromotherapy). The sources added below meet WP:MEDRS, and the ones in introduction are for the term 'Chromotherapy' only."
22:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Add peer-reviewed sources that not in WP:CITEWATCH and are WP:FRIND. Add secondary sources including systematic reviews as well."
12:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Added peer-reviewed journal articles and randomized clinical trials on the effects of chromotherapy."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

12:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Include references to peer-reviewed journal articles */ Reply"

Comments:

User is repeatedly removing or watering-down the pseudoscience description in the article's lead. Bon courage (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from Chromotherapy. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have also put a CTOPS notice per WP:CT/CAM on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dolphinlover0987 reported by User:Anerdw (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Dolphinlover0987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

15:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282138228 by Anerdw (talk)"
15:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Unwanted information about the user"
15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282136206 by Unit Mango (talk)"
15:31, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ removed"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent UCR of "Controversy" section past final warning. User:Instainkllc is also involved and has been reported at AIV but did not receive sufficient warning for an EW report beforehand. Anerdw (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, Dolphinlover0987 has been disruptively editing the Erick Jones article since March 6, 2025. the 🥭 man (the 🥭 talk) 16:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked + User:Instainkllc, who is another recent sock/meat puppet. There are others, and I may start an SPI, but for the moment I've put the article on my watchlist and will protect it if needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:NinosDg reported by User:User623921 (Result: No violation)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1
2
3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [2]

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

Comments:
NinosDg has a history of having changed articles for POV liking it seems, see this with multiple warnings. --User623921 (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Daniel Case (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ortaq reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:

That's not even including the personal attacks [10] [11] [12], silly accusations of sockpuppetry [13] [14] [15] and very poor attempt at WP:GAMING [16] [17] [18] (basically accusing others of the violations they are doing). Back in November 2024 they were already warned to stop randomly throwing the word "vandalism" [19]. This should really be taken to WP:ANI, but I am very bit busy/tired, so I guess this will do. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bbb23! HistoryofIran (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ratgomery reported by User:Belbury (Result: Stale )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed without consensus or support."
10:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282093605 by Belbury (talk) it's properly source and Tesla Takedown is mentioned by name. Talk page did not include polocy based reason to exclude."
23:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Mobilization */ Source directly mentions Tesla Takedown in the same paragraph."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tesla Takedown."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

08:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* NPR source linking Tesla Takedown to violence and vandalism. */ Reply"

Comments:

Myself and another editor are reverting each other over whether it is correct to suggest that the peaceful Tesla Takedown protests "took a violent turn" in late March, on the basis of a single disputed source. I myself have reverted or rewritten this multiple times under WP:EXCEPTIONAL for it making a very surprising-if-true claim about a group that has prominent, named supporters and organisers. (I also reverted User:Sjö who restored Ratgomery's paragraph, but from their edit summary of not at all a fringe theory or exceptional claim that damage has happened and that people are charged they misunderstood my underexplained objection: that the damage happened is not an exceptional claim; that it was a result of the named Tesla Takedown movement taking a "violent turn" very much is.)

Ratgomery has suggested taking this to the EW noticeboard, so here's a report. Belbury (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stale The edit warring has died down (and is less than over 3 reverts per 24 hours), plus talk page discussion is ongoing. So this doesn't need immediate administrator attention at this time. Also, Ratgomery specifically asserted he was "trying very hard to avoid an edit war here". Similarly, I don't think a boomerang is relevant as your edits are citing apparent consensus from the talk page. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:87.116.177.191 reported by User:Updating Edits (Result: Semi-protected one month)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:
Hello, specified unregistered user with IP address 87.116.177.191, 188.120.100.217, 188.120.100.138 is believed to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit and edit warring. The user is purposely vandalising the Wikipedia article of Belgrade and it's main photography and keeps reverting other users edits, particularly the ones who are changing the Belgrade's Main photography. Username PajaBG has opened a conversation on Talk page regarding the change of Belgrade's main photo, and supported my opinion that pictures are preferred not to be panoramic view of city and that Belgrade's waterfront is not the most prominent part of Belgrade and it's often connected with crime, corruption and other problematic views of that. There are other pictures and attractions to use, but whatever other users put, the anonymous IP user will revert it and comment "revert to stable version, stop edit war". The page was once restricted due to his reverts. If you could protect the page and investigate the problem, that would be great. Thank you for your help.

Semi-protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Consuela9890 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 31 hours)

User being reported: Consuela9890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:55, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282331982 by Soetermans (talk) Correct, but that was before I provided the source, which is understandable, I should've have provided here in the first place, but that doesn't take the fact that the nature of the edits are constructive non-controversial and most importantly, supported by sources or some known fact. You are quoting rules that doesn't take into consideration the context"
19:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282326689 by Remsense (talk) All of those edits are constructive non-controversial ones, therefore discussions are not needed, the only edits that were made was ortographic corrections and added some important info about the concept of sovereignty at the time, nothing controversial about that. What you are proposing goes well beyond the rules currently in place and is over zealous"
Consecutive edits made from 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC) to 19:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282322235 by Teixant (talk) Wrong, the correct Portuguese spelled name is Samora not Zamora: https://digitarq.arquivos.pt/details?id=3908043"
2. 18:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 19:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""
17:45, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Corrected misspelled name"
16:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User keeps edit-warring, despite warnings. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:01, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by User:SarekOfVulcan for edit warring across multiple articles. Aoidh (talk) 08:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:2605:8D80:480:7ED:B199:177F:CC49:ED41 reported by User:Lolzer3000 (Result: Rangeblocked)

User being reported: 2605:8D80:480:7ED:B199:177F:CC49:ED41 (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:

21:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Two IP's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2605:8D80:480:7ED:89BF:8352:44D5:41DB and this one have both been engaged in activities such as personal attacks and edit warring, I believe the two are closely related as they made reverts to my edits on the same article. This IP specially made unwarranted remarks and personal attacks on me after I nominated the above page for deletion. Lolzer3k 21:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

couldn't take the facts, so you go to the administrator board, good job buddy and happy 5th birthday 2605:8D80:480:7ED:B5DD:A63C:F6E3:D0E1 (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know who this is; now checkuser rangeblocked.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:53, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:97.112.197.204 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for 3 months)

User being reported: 97.112.197.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "It is not a redundant acronym. Try going to the talk page and explaining how I'm wrong. If you can't then you're tacitly admitting I'm right and you don't care about factual accuracy."
13:55, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "There are also 'sources' that say the earth is flat. DC comics is not a redundant acronym, period. Go to the talk page before reverting my edit and I'll explain it to you"
13:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "But it's NOT a redundant acronym. Jesus Christ, stop read and let it sink in. DC is the company. Comics are a product they sell. Therefore DC comics are the product 'comics' from the company 'DC'. Just go to the talk page before reverting again"
13:40, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "DC comics is STILL not a redundant acronym. 'Detective Comics' is the company name while 'comics' are a product they sell."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

13:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on RAS syndrome."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

13:59, 26 March 2025 (UTC) "/* DC comics is STILL not redundant. */ Reply"

Comments:

Thanks for your report. I also reported the IP at WP:AIV. WP:LTA WP:EDITWAR on RAS syndrome. Previous IPs: 97.112.198.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (1 week block in 2021), 198.70.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (multiple blocks, 1 year in 2023), 184.1.1.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). — Chrisahn (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also 97.112.208.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) — Czello ^(music) 14:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked by Jauerback for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lionel Cristiano reported by User:VictiniFan360 (Result: Declined)

Previous version reverted to: [29]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictiniFan360]

Comments:

--VictiniFan360 (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting into a edit war, nor do I want to. Let’s work together to find a solution that respects Wikipedia’s guidelines and maintains a collaborative editing environment. Looking forward to your input. How right is it that you came here after this message? Leo^talk 15:58, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Declined I see no effort to discuss the content dispute, which should take place on the article Talk page. Both of you are edit-warring; neither has violated 3RR. Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards