Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

• WP:AN/3WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EWWP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEWWP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RRWP:AN/3RR

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives

Administrators' (archives, search)
353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362
363	364	365	366	367	368	369	370	371	372
Incidents (archives, search)
1175	1176	1177	1178	1179	1180	1181	1182	1183	1184
1185	1186	1187	1188	1189	1190	1191	1192	1193	1194
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487
488	489	490	491	492	493	494	495	496	497
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

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

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [10]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11][12][13]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments: Through 19 years of many hundreds of contributions with only one or two comparatively minor issues with an editor or administrator, this is actually the first and only time I've encountered such an unnecessarily extreme conflict with an individual and escalating reversions that I've been compelled to take inordinate time to attempt to address as advised through the user's talk page to no avail. Notwithstanding my own misunderstandings and increasing frustration which I concede, I believe the record will show my good faith efforts at every turn to submit factual information based on credible and approved reliable sources, only to see reversions time and again which ultimately ended with demonstrably false information for the third or more time which the user in question knowingly posted only on what I deem an irrationally misguided principle of adherence to Wikipedia's rule on synthesis at the actual expense of the site's credibility with a verifiably false detail. Not only did I repeatedly request proper adjudication with at least two attempted corrections as well as one talk page entry. But I also contend through the talk page, given the absurdly conflicting lack of logic in at least one of the user's responses which I readily deconstructed, and the nature of the numerous reversions in violation of the policy limit, I have every reason to believe the user was intentionally provoking this upset under false pretenses of authority and equally unacceptable wholly faulty logic. RRawpower (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. Without prejudice. Use the actual article titles, not the URLs. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a former professional design as well as Mac computer tech I frankly have to say I'm astonished after all these years to find just how unbelievably confusing and obtuse Wikipedia's system appears to be, regardless of how massive and how long the site has been established, or even how many other people apparently manage to navigate it.

In this case, I might understand the result "malformed" if not for yet more incredibly time consuming corrections starting all over again with an entirely new report that must require copying all the diffs anew when the obviously better process would be simply to port the existing report over with the specific fields indicated requiring correction highlighted which would in turn avoid any problem with compounding errors in the report.

Equally confounding is the last note "use the actual article titles, not the URLs" since I had, in fact, first attempted to enter simply the name of the subject, "Larry Charles", only to find the preview section displaying NO such title whatsoever but rather the footer block, "Films directed by Larry Charles", for absolutely no apparent reason. And that is exactly why I could see no alternative but to resort to the URL instead as the most logical entry.

So if that may be the only reason I must go through this entire exercise again, after making the original point of being subjected to what may yet be determined to be deliberately provocative antagonistic reversions, it's a wonder this site has ever got to this point of relatively effective functionality otherwise. And my own relative tech familiarity notwithstanding, I can't begin to imagine most people tolerating so much of what I said appears to me to be incredibly arcane and obtuse "Help" pages and guides which I'm then accused of being "extremely angry and confused" for being forced to wade through and still find no relevant answers, let alone satisfaction. I suspect most people simply don't bother, while you have someone like the user/editor/admin? I don't know what exactly continue rolling along with abusive behavior under the guise of "polite" correspondence, adding insult to injury on "Civility" after failing to follow the specific advice, indeed requirement, to take such matters to a Talk page FIRST before getting out of hand with excessive reversions – which I didn't even know was actually supposed to be limited to 4 until this whole mess to begin with. I'M the one who felt compelled to remember and then resort to Talk as I said.

So before I do bother taking all the time to recompile every single diff and detail, please help clear this up before I risk making any other mistake that should make apparent I will not put up with all this a third time. Thanks. RRawpower (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a closer look but beyond a wall of text complaining about the process, there were repeated attempts to set the birth date to something more specific than "1955 or 1956", which was repeatedly challenged by Rift, whose reverts except the last one are exempt from the edit warring policy per WP:3RRNO #7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the other reports here. Those people seemed to have no problem figuring this out. I think at most 10-20% of these reports get declined this way (And maybe given how things turned out for you, maybe you would have been better off letting sleeping dogs lie). Daniel Case (talk) 02:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from editing this specific article only ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Winona Ryder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 186.4.78.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC) "Es para describir bien su exito en ese momento"
2. 22:51, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Fama global me parece lo mas correcto para describir ese momento en la carrerra de winona"
3. 22:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Chance,a simple World besarse I think it doesnt describe her sucesos well"
4. 22:16, 10 July 2025 (UTC) "Cambien simplemente una sola cosa resalte su fama mundial ya que veo que esta bastante subestimada ademas de que varias de sus peliculas son un clasico y de culto"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:186.4.78.8&oldid=1299873987

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Retro (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:3CF6:7CFF:FE12:D64A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The IP editor is repeatedly deleting citations, and leaving abusive edit summaries because he/she is angry that other editors are reverting back.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:58, 11 July 2025 (UTC) by 2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:7C36:7FF:FE98:D424
2. 22:12-22:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC) by 2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:3CF6:7CFF:FE12:D64A
3. 22:31, 11 July 2025 (UTC) by 2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:3CF6:7CFF:FE12:D64A
4. 22:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC) by 2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:3CF6:7CFF:FE12:D64A
5. 22:40, 11 July 2025 (UTC) by 2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:3CF6:7CFF:FE12:D64A

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:36, 11 July 2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The editor has received warnings on User talk:2405:6E00:280E:DE0A:3CF6:7CFF:FE12:D64A. There are some posts regarding soruces at Talk:Retro (film)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [15]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:01, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• • Already blocked. I rangeblocked them prior to this report being made. I've also restored semi-protection to the article which had expired.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Glenn Diesen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 142.67.134.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]
3. [19]
4. [20]
5. [21]
6. [22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23] [24] [25] [26]

Comments:
Not involved myself but blatant edit warring and WP:NOTHERE Jeppiz (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeppiz, this is a little late :) The page is already protected and the last edit was 8 hours ago. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: AquaDom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.186.224.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

90.186.224.137 has a long history of receiving warning messages that he/she deals with by blanking his/her talk page periodically.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC) partial revert Toddy1
2. 09:04, 12 July 2025 (UTC) partial revert Toddy1
3. 18:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC) revert Discospinster
4. 18:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC) revert Discospinster
5. 18:31-38, 10 July 2025 (UTC) partial revert Toddy1
6. 14:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC) revert Toddy1
7. 14:44, 9 July 2025 (UTC) initial edit

The IP editor tends to write ungrammatical English, and wants to write based on his/her claimed-knowledge of the hotel rather than based on what sources say. Other editors have tried to accommodate what he/she is trying to achieve. Some of his/her edit summaries have been constructive such as when he/she explained that the source of his information was personal knowledge; but others have accused other editors of vandalism or of being ignorant. He/she puts spaces in between the letters of v a n d a l i s m u s presumably to avoid automatic filters.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 19:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to warn the user on their talk page: [27], [28] - in the latter I tried asking him/her to provide a citation to support a statement he/she had added - he/she just blanked the talk page.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [29]

-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:
Hotel articles and also ship articles. Here is another example: [30] [31] [32]. Three unsourced edits, all reverted. I have also warned this editor, here: [33]. Uncivil behavior is a problem too, like "you are ignorant": [34]. GA-RT-22 (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given the user's other vandalism and personal attacks, I was going to report them to AIV until I saw this. Given that the previous blocks have done little good, I believe an extended block is in order. --Sable232 (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1 in his her own page says he or she in ukranian language "known few english" and really knows nothing about aquadom. the Star of seas was right from me confirmed after by others the same infrmation. This is the Toody1 text translated to english https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Toddy1 "en-0 This user does not understand English (or understands it with considerable difficulty)." "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I respect men. They make life more interesting, they offer a hand, open the door, buy chocolate and dresses. They meet us at airports. They will go to war if there is a war. They are brave.

I respect men. They say: "no problem", "no problem" - and there really are no problems...

They come to the university for us, they take us away from other people's guests, bring us home and cover us with a blanket; they like to look at us without make-up, they take us in their arms if there is a puddle, they think that we are small and need to be hugged. They are right.

They become fathers, they give our children their last names. They protect us. They smell of expensive cologne.

I respect men. Their words often match their actions. They know everything better than us. They are always interested in where we are. They insistently want to pay for our coffee, although they themselves do not know why. They tolerate our whims and tell their friends: "She has a bad character, but she is so beautiful!"...

They forgive us everything, although we, mind you, forgive them nothing at all...

They are strong.

I respect men. But only men, not males." signed by Toddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.186.224.137 (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The text is a bit strange and may come from elsewhere on the internet; I have now asked Toddy1 about it. It neither justifies your edit warring nor your personalization of a content dispute, though, and it is irrelevant to this report here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ToBefree, thanks for your action. For the sake of information I believe problems with this user can be traced back to 2012. This IP is located in Hamburg, Germany. Taking into account grammar mistakes, typical of native Portuguese speakers, it possibly belongs to a Brazilian (or any Portuguese speaker) living there. At first, blank accounts were used such as Crucks (banned in 2012), Monart (blocked in 2014), SeasSoul (blocked in 2019), CBG17 (blocked in 2019), and Mateusportuga (dormant). Since then, the person uses only IPs and consistently blanks anything written on Talk pages. Because of this person, the page Fortaleza Airport remained protected for a whole year in the past. Brunoptsem (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Dune: Part Three (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2600:387:15:2413:0:0:0:C (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300233072 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC) to 02:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
   1. 02:41, 13 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300232593 by Trailblazer101 (talk)"
   2. 02:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 02:39, 13 July 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1300092105 by Geraldo Perez (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 02:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 02:44, 13 July 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Failing to communicate or provide any sourcing for credits. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:45, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]