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:~2026-41780-68 reported by User:Thedarkknightli (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Mikhail Gorbachev (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-41780-68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:

• The user has a history of making such edits and ignoring community input about them. Last ANI thread: ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Nessi6 reported by User:D.18th (Result: Both blocked)

Page: 2026 AVC Women's Volleyball Continental Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nessi6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:09, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
2. 13:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
3. 13:23, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
4. 13:05, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
5. 12:57, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
6. 12:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
7. 12:37, 22 August 2026 (UTC) ""
8. 10:02, 22 August 2026 (UTC) ""
9. Consecutive edits made from 06:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC) to 08:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 06:24, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
   2. 08:33, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"
10. 06:14, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 12:39, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "Note: Disruptive editing (RW 16.1)"
2. 12:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 12:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking table */ new section"
2. 13:06, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking table */ Reply"
3. 13:17, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking table */ Reply"
4. 13:20, 22 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Combined ranking table */ Reply"

Comments:

I stopped engaging with Nessi6 after what they said on their last reply then file the discussion at WP:3O, while the reported user has continued to revert past the threshold. ꕥ 𝙳.𝟷𝟾𝚝𝚑 ꕥ ^{→𝙼𝚎𝚜𝚜𝚊𝚐𝚎 𝚖𝚎←} 14:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure which threshold exactly you refer to, but it can't be one you haven't crossed yourself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Both editors blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-45779-72 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: Page protected)

Page: Husainid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-45779-72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 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:
Note specifically the removal of "Turkish" and replacement by "Tunisian" in all edits. The first edit was by a different temporary account but is clearly the same person as, or related to, the second TA, which is the one currently active and listed above. This particular point in the lead (ethnicity/origin) has also been a recurring target of disruption and edit-warring by various short-term accounts, unregistered users, and the occasional sockpuppet over the last few years: , , , , , , , , , , , etc. R Prazeres (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Hello R Prazeres, thanks for coming here instead of continuing to revert. If this is block evasion, all good, but you should be able to point to a specific block that is being evaded in that case. Else, please stop earlier next time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

User: ~2026-46047-66 reported by User:Celjski Grad (Result: Blocked along with another editor for two weeks for edit-warring in a contentious topic area)

Page: Kingdom of Dardania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-46047-66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Plus three more

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

Comments:
Already blocked  for a period of 2 weeks by myself after this was reported to AIV. Theeverywhereperson blocked for the same period. Both editors have been alerted to CTOPS since, as the nature of their disagreement unambiguously demonstrates/d, the article is within WP:CT/EE. Underlying range also blocked to deter evasion attempts. Daniel Case (talk) 20:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

User:PaperMarioGlassDoor reported by User:Aesurias (Result: Indeffed for personal attacks)

Page: 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:52, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Because the candidates received at least 5% of the vote in their individual primaries, they are required to be included."
2. 23:45, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Candidate is not running unopposed. Per the information provided. Alan Aversa should be included because he made the ballot. He also got 100% of his votes."
3. 23:31, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Restored information."
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC) to 22:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 22:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "This wikipedia page is to provide accurate information regarding the 2026 election in the state of Arizona. Mendoze does not look like that. That is a 2013 picture not a 2026 picture. Source of the information is the AZ secretary of state's website: https://apps.arizona.vote/electioninfo/Election/69"
   2. 22:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "This is not advertising for Yassamin Ansari. Because the candidates have been covered by 3rd party, removal is against ToS and amounts to advertising for Ansari, trying to say there are not other people on the ballot. Because these are not individual pages, but just normal information, the notariety exception does not apply. Write-in candidates would count as advertisement; so, they are not to be included. But all else are fair game: https://apps.arizona.vote/electioninfo/Election/69"
   3. 22:34, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Switched jpg to png."
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC) to 16:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 16:46, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Updated information so it was accurate and complete as required. If the table needs to be edited to include all four candidates, that would be helpful. The information needs to accurate and complete. Removal of information is advertising and presenting false/inaccurate information."
   2. 16:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* District 6 */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC) to 16:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 16:29, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Corrected to the actual listing as required by wikipedia for accuracy and completeness. Candidates without pictures that can be sourced were given 3x4.svg. I contacted campaigns to see if we have permission to use their recent pictures."
   2. 16:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1370891935 by PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk)"
   3. 16:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "As per accuracy and completeness, including the official information for candidates who will appear on the ballot. Will contact campaigns to see if pictures from the AZ SOS website can be used."
   4. 16:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Fixed page to make it accuracy and completeness in accordance to the AZ SOS's office."
   5. 16:38, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "In accordance to accuracy and completeness, updated to include all candidates that made the ballot for the general election."
7. 15:37, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Sharing a 13 year old picture of JoAnna Mendoza is a violation of completeness and accuracy. A recent picture needs to be uploaded to provide information on what the candidate actually looks like. If there is no such picture, 3x4.svg should be used."
8. Consecutive edits made from 14:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC) to 15:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 14:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Factual accuracy and completeness supersede individual notability. Exclusion is false advertising and against ToS of Wikipedia."
   2. 14:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Factual accuracy and completeness supersede individual notability. Exclusion is false advertising and against ToS of Wikipedia."
   3. 15:00, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Factual accuracy and completeness supersede individual notability. Exclusion is false advertising and against ToS of Wikipedia."
9. Consecutive edits made from 06:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC) to 06:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 06:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Since the three candidates are on the ballot, and the three candidates have been covered by an external source, removing this information is advertising that Yassamin Ansari is running unopposed, which is against policy."
   2. 06:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Nominee */ added "the""
   3. 06:47, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "JoAnna Mendoza, 2013.jpg is advertising. The image should appear updated to accurately convey what Ms. Mendoza looks like."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 04:36, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona."
2. 09:14, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"
3. 22:15, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"
4. 22:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"
5. 23:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"
6. 23:51, 23 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Managing a conflict of interest */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:53, 23 August 2026 (UTC) on User talk:PaperMarioGlassDoor "Warning: Edit warring on 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona."

Comments:

Edit warring in a contentious topic. Edits go against consensus at Wikipedia:Five percent rule. Talk page discussions have not been effective in any way. Based on their Wikimedia uploads, they either have a conflict of interest with one of the political candidates or they're uploading copyright violations (something they have a history of doing). aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Editor is removing candidates that fulfilled the 5% rule to utilize the wikipedia pages as advertisement. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Now, the editor identifies as potentially a zionist; so, the violation of the 5% rule to remove a candidate that has a pro-palestine clothes is clear conflict of interest.

In regards to the subject, the flyer was received at my door and I wanted to include the candidate since they received 100% of the vote for their nomination. It extended to other candidates that received over 5% of the votes for their nomination. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Would also like to note their edit on the Edit filter/False positives/Reports page: "Fix the page. Editor got upset because the candidate is wears a Palestine shirt. That caused the person, who appears Zionist, to disrupt the information creation." reppop^talk 00:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It was comment. Thank you. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I noted it as I think it could potentially be seen as a personal attack and casting aspersions. reppop^talk 00:21, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The uploaded image of the candidate shows a shirt with Palestine on it.

The user has identifies to Pro-Genocide and antisemitic views of the indigenous Palestinians as not descendants of the Ancient Israelis. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

So, the removal of Pro-Palestinian information on a wikipedia page and wikimedia commons page can be viewed as antisemtic. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That is still casting aspirations and making personal attacks on them, especially when the "evidence" is them having an image of a memorial from the aftermath of the Bondi Beach shooting on their user page. reppop^talk 00:29, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

However, the action of removing Pro-Palestine information WHILE having the Bondi Beach shooting shows bias, since Palestinians are semites, per David Ben-Gurion: "Israel’s first Prime Minister, noted in his early Hebrew writings (Eretz Israel – Past and Present) that many local Palestinian rural peasants were likely the linear descendants of ancient Hebrew-speaking populations—such as Jews and Samaritans—who remained on the land through successive Roman, Byzantine, and Islamic eras." PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

But, I don't have an agenda to support the systemic extermination of an indigenous population. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Them removing a candidate because they do not satisfy the 5% rule because there is next to no polling for the district that has them at 5% or more has nothing to do with being pro- or anti-anything. You keep re-adding candidates that don't satisfy the 5% rule repeatedly because you think that they have to be on the page, and that them having a majority of the vote in their primary is the same as polling. reppop^talk 00:39, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Monica Alponte -- 100% of the Libertarian vote for her district > 5%

Curtis Goodwin -- 96.95% of the Libertarian vote for his district > 5%

Alan Aversa 100% of the No Labels vote for his district > 5%.

David Redkey 100% of the Green vote for his district > 5%

Jereme Lance Peters 100% of the Libertarian vote for his district > 5%

Gary Swing 100% of the Green vote for his district. > 5% PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It's like talking to a wall. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

>5% of the vote is >5% of the vote. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Again, primary results do not matter in this instance. reppop^talk 00:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't apply for your agenda.

The literal text states 5% of the vote, which those candidates fulfilled.

"Several RfCs have resulted in a 5% threshold for inclusion in infoboxes on American and non-parliamentary election articles. A generally accepted exception is to include a second-place candidate if only one candidate polls over five percent, and any other criteria determined appropriate by local consensus. This does not strictly apply to parliamentary elections, where other criteria may be used to include or exclude candidates." PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

5% of the general election vote, dude. Otherwise, it's based on pre-election polling, which you seem to not get. reppop^talk 01:05, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

If the position to remove PRO-PALESTINE information to support a Zionist agenda that is an affront to the rest of the world... If the administrators agree that wikipedia should be Zionist, I will not fight the change. But the information was given to me with permission from the candidates. I contacted the other candidates to get pictures to include, and I have not heard back. PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Stop bringing that into this conversation. This is about the infobox, not about whether candidates have a pro-Palestine view or not. Please stop casting aspirations, and maybe read the page on Wikipedia:Casting aspersions while you're at it. Again and again, it does not matter that they won their primaries. It does not matter that they're on the ballot. It does not matter that they are listed on the Arizona SoS page. What matters before the election in November is that they have polling that is above 5% consistently, which none of them have.

It's not even like they were removing the candidates from the page altogether, it's literally only from the infobox because that's how every election page is formatted.

Maybe also read the 2024 RfC result: "Before the elections, candidates can be included in the infobox if they […] generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)". reppop^talk 01:16, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The infobox shows the candidates.

Now, this was not an issue until a Pro-Palestine picture appeared on the page. Given the Bondi Beach Shooting being used to garner sympathies for a genocidal, homicidal culture does a Bondi Beach Shooting every day...in Palestine to Palestinians... PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

This was not an issue until you added the candidates in the infoboxes when it goes against consensus. reppop^talk 01:36, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Added a candidate that was Pro-Palestine... PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

You added multiple candidates, including Libertarians and No Label candidates. reppop^talk 01:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The things you are saying are 1) irrelevant to this discussion and 2) appalling and deeply insensitive.

I have a small memorial image on my userpage dedicated to a 10-year-old girl in my community who was murdered in a terrorist attack. She was gunned down in front of her younger sister and their friends after getting their faces painted at a park.

Do you seriously have no shame? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Israel has committed 5 Bondi Beach Shootings a day since October 7th, 2023.

Do YOU have no shame? PaperMarioGlassDoor (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely That's enough, PaperMarioGlassDoor blocked for a week for personal attacks, with no prejudice concerning additional sanctions for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

They talked themself into an indef on their talkpage., Acroterion (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2026 (UTC)