Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

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

User:Binksternet reported by User:Davejfudge (Declined as malformed)

I originally altered an edit by User:Binksternet on Whomp That Sucker that cited a source that I saw as unfit for direct inclusion on a music review infobox because the rating that has no justification in the source material; I also later removed, as part of my another source added by User:Binksternet that had the same problem. I moved the first citation to the dedicated notes section for historical context, but didn't remove it, and I removed the second citation (starting with my first reversion) because it sorely lacks coverage.

He has now reverted my edit 3 times, and I have reverted twice. He now accuses me instead of reverting three times while we refuses to wait for concensus in the talk page, violating WP:ONUS. I am also accussed of WP:NPOV because the reviews I moved/removed coincidentally have lower reviews, despite that I have history of adding less-than-favorable reviews to albums I like better than the one in question (e.g. In Outer Space Sounds review). Davejfudge (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about racking up three reverts. One was from yesterday evening which I thought was longer ago, and it fooled my count. I'll stick to the talk page discussion you started at Talk:Whomp That Sucker#Ratings that lack justification. Binksternet (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of the time frame, I have not reverted your additions three times. The first edit you consider a revert was not a revert because I did not remove what you added. Davejfudge (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2025 (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. Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Vegan Camp Out (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A00:23C7:8EED:4D00:64F3:8AE7:96A0:33F1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Simply patience 405 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Consecutive edits made from 19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC) to 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
   1. 19:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281993755 by Pigsonthewing (talk) Undone as disruptive evidence. Not 'advertisement' - Previous editor referenced their source where they should. These are standard festival facts as seen on other festival Wiki pages - please visit for reference"
   2. 19:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281993089 by Pigsonthewing (talk) Undone as disruptive evidence. Not 'advertisement' - Previous editor referenced their source where they should. These are standard festival facts as seen on other festival Wiki pages - please visit for reference"
2. 17:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1281978059 by Insanityclown1 (talk) I have undone this revision as these points about the event are more than reasonable and backed up with references. They are similar to information listed on other event pages"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Pretty sure that this is the user simply patience 405 editing while logged out. The user has been taken to ANI, but the behavior is continuing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Vegan Camp Out, not ANI. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Simply Patience is at ANI. Pretty sure they are the same person @Pigsonthewing Insanityclown1 (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:Davejfudge (Result: Page protected)

Page: Whomp That Sucker (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Binksternet (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. [diff] 03:41, 23 March 2025 "restoring All Music Guide rating. This rating was given by the book's editors, not Ned Raggett""
2. [diff] 16:31, 23 March 2025 Reverted 2 edits by Davejfudge (talk): Rv... The 2-star book rating came from the editors Woodstra, Erlewine and Bogdanov. The 3.5 star review came from the later website, with no attribution. They are two different ratings and are both valid.
3. [diff] 16:34, 23 March 2025 Reverted 1 edit by Davejfudge (talk): Rv per WP:NPOV

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 11:56, 23 March 2025

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Whomp_That_Sucker&oldid=1281940158

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

Comments:
Binksternet added two sources to the music review infobox. Both ratings linked to sources that never discussed the album in any length, where the All Music book reference was context for how the current AllMusic website had a different rating. I moved the first one to the notes section without removing the citation, and updated both sources to have more properly cited credits (e.g. wrong publisher), writing in the edit comments that I was unsure of the validity of the second source's inclusion. No reversion up to that point. I additionally mention my skepticism of the inclusion of the Encyclopedia of Popular Music source on the talk page, waiting for concensus instead of removing it for the time being.

Two days later (important), Binksternet reverts the All Music Guide book rating back to the table, giving a justification that my previous edit addressed already.

I restored my previous edit and removed the Encyclopedia reference since Binksternet didn't reply in the talk page, but still inviting him to reply.

Binksternet reverts this, then going to the talk page to accuse me of bias (specifically WP:NPOV), assuming I acted out of bad faith, of "jumping through hoops" because the ratings in question coincidentally happen to be lower, despite the justifications I gave (See my addition of the Sounds review for In Outer Space, the same artist). I really don't care about listing a bad review. I just care about not including sources that give less than a passing mention to the material unless, in the case of the first AllMusic rating, it is a small piece of context for the modern review that just needs a tweak to how it's incorporated.

I revert this, then Binksternet makes his third reversion.

Sorry for the long explanation, but it feels so demoralizing because I thought that I tried everything I could to get concensus or a dialogue, but my reversions were met with accusations and assumptions that I acted purely out of bad faith, and that the music rating template's lack of specificity on what constitutes a reasonable source, rather than a policy, was justification enough for everything. On my talk page, Binksternet also told me I could be banned. To be clear, I don't know if I technically violated the rule myself, because by the time by last reversion came, although Binksternet reverted three times within 24 hours at that point, my penultimate reversion was done in two smaller chunks. I'll accept whatever decision comes my way and I apologize if I've done any wrong here myself. == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Davejfudge (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  What of the accusations that I edited in bad faith? I thought that wasn't tolerated on this site. Davejfudge (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Davejfudge, you may be looking for WP:ANI in case talking to the user on their talk page doesn't help. Make sure to include diff links of the specific behavior you're discussing there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. Sorry if I sounded frustrated. Davejfudge (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:Yadomii reported by User:216.58.25.209 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: 2025 Turkish protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yadomii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1281969026

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None before report. [10] at Amakuru's request.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [11]

Comments:

216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for a clear 3RR violation. All parties need to resolve this on the talk page, however.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

User:2601:240:C601:F8C0:7981:8FAE:8AFE:7A70 reported by User:Insanityclown1 (Result: Blocked 1 month)

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

User being reported: 2601:240:C601:F8C0:7981:8FAE:8AFE:7A70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 05:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 23:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "Listen, you greens and whites. Chinese is the local language of Penang. Before the Anglos and Muslims, the Hans had already lived here."
3. 20:21, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "White🐷"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Racist editing. Insanityclown1 (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 month Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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:

1. 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."
2. 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."
3. 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."
4. 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."
5. 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:

1. 18:10, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "notice"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 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)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours from Chromotherapy. Acroterion (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  I have also put a CTOPS notice per WP:CT/CAM on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Page: Erick Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:

1. 15:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282138228 by Anerdw (talk)"
2. 15:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Controversy */ Unwanted information about the user"
3. 15:33, 24 March 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1282136206 by Unit Mango (talk)"
4. 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)

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)

• 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)

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

Page: Defence of Iwardo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NinosDg (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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

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)

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)

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:

That's not even including the personal attacks [21] [22] [23], silly accusations of sockpuppetry [24] [25] [26] and very poor attempt at WP:GAMING [27] [28] [29] (basically accusing others of the violations they are doing). Back in November 2024 they were already warned to stop randomly throwing the word "vandalism" [30]. 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)

• Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

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

Page: Tesla Takedown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:

1. 01:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Removed without consensus or support."
2. 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."
3. 23:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC) "/* Mobilization */ Source directly mentions Tesla Takedown in the same paragraph."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 08:19, 25 March 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Tesla Takedown."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 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)

• 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)

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

Page: Belgrade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 87.116.177.191 (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. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]
5. [35]
6. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

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)