Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 12:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "/* top */I support palestine but what the hell is this corny stuff. No consensos."
2. 05:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "/* top */I support palestine but what the hell is this corny stuff."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 07:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Rafah."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Violation of 1RR. Has removed RS citations regarding an issue already being discussed on the talk page. When this removal of citations was reverted, a warning was given, and the user then re-removed the citations. User has chosen to participate only minimally on the talk page and has not responded to the warning given after the first removal. Veggies (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Page(s) involved

• Heath Howard

Diff of edit warring / reverts

1. – revert by Graniteswimmer
2. – revert by Graniteswimmer
3. – revert by Graniteswimmer
4. [DIFF LINK] – revert by Graniteswimmer

Warnings given

1. – warning placed on Graniteswimmer's talk page
2. – additional warning (if applicable)

Explanation User User:Graniteswimmer has repeatedly reverted edits on Heath Howard. The diffs above show multiple reverts within a short period. A warning was issued on the user's talk page but the reverting continued. Discussion has been attempted on the offending user’s talk page. The information being repeatedly removed is factual and supported by citations. The offending user will not engage in discussion of the substance of the topic. Junkityjam333 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Not a WP:3RR violation. But Graniteswimmer why are you reverting? EvergreenFir (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What I see is you adding and restoring WP:BLP violations across multiple articles, Junkityjam333. That's the blockable offense in the edits at Heath Howard and Lily Foss.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ponyo Ah, thank you for pointing that out. Junkityjam333, you need to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

BLP CTOP notification provided to Junkityjam333. The initial edits, let alone edit warring to restore them, are completely unacceptable per BLP and NPOV.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The edits made by junkity jam are vandalism. That's why they are being reverted. Graniteswimmer (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The Talk page did not provide any substantive response as to the problem with the edits. For example, on Heath Howard, his heckling of Senator Jeanne Shaheen is widely reported news in WMUR and other reputable sources, per provided citations.

Each of those were substantial regional news, as is Heath Howard's poor fundraising. The bulk deletion of edits without discussion did not provide an opportunity for discussion and consensus.

Adding the WMUR news stories about Heath Howard's treatment of women in politics, although unflattering to the politician in question, is newsworthy and factual.

I propose to rewrite factual paragraphs on these topics for inclusion, without further reversion. Junkityjam333 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

This is factual news about the candidate - https://www.wmur.com/article/heath-howard-shaheen-heckle-nh-01-primary-closeup/69524328 Junkityjam333 (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Here again is regional WMUR reporting of Heath Howard expressing unfavorable opinions about women in politics - https://www.wmur.com/article/heath-howard-jon-kiper-share-frustration-with-democrats/69963481

Likewise, it is a newsworthy fact relevant to his campaign that his fundraising substantially lags all candidates and has negative cash on hand - https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/H6NH01370/

Inclusion of this information is factual and supported by citation. Junkityjam333 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Neither of those sources support a lot of the material you added to the article, though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Junkityjam is targeting two specific state representatives, Heath Howard who is running for Congress and Lily Foss, who appears to have worked on Heath's campaign. This is a political attack on two people associated with a congressional campaign. Graniteswimmer (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Heath Howard and Lily Foss are public figures running for election, for whom unfavorable public information exists. With revisions as discussed above - neutral tone, information contained to discrete sections - availability of information serves the public interest. Junkityjam333 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It's mostly not WP:DUE at best. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ponyo - I will revise the proposed content to emphasize neutral tone and remove extraneous words.

It is also factual content useful to Wikipedia users to provide context that the New Hampshire house of representatives are unpaid volunteers vs. other professional legislatures.

@C.Fred - Heath Howard's LinkedIn supports other of the material (e.g. duration to earn degree). Will revise as discussed above; will not revert. Junkityjam333 (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Junkityjam333 Since you're at or over 3RR, you probably want to discuss on the talk page first and get consensus, rather than risk being blocked for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

You have used this acccount almost exclusively to post derogatory content targetting two politicians. Wikipedia is not a platform for smear campaignsand any further edits like this will result in a block of your account. Start a blog if you want to take on the potential liability of such edits.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I apologize for not listing reasons for reverting the edits by junkityjam3333. I was more focused on undoing the derogatory comments made in an attempt to slander two politicians as quickly as possible since this is clearly a targeting attack. Graniteswimmer (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The opposing viewpoint is not participating in the Talk page. Please share your view on each of the following:

1) Heath Howard was widely reported as "heckling" Senator Jeanne Shaheen by WMUR. (link provided)

2) Heath Howard's text messages about women in politics were widely reported by WMUR. (link provided)

3) Heath Howard's fundraising reports show him lagging other candidates substantially with negative funds on hand. (link provided)

No specific "derogatory" language was used - the word "heckling" was the focus of the WMUR reporting. Junkityjam333 (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I will go to the page's Talk page and provide the factual information to be added, and will allow 5 days for response, discussion, and attempts at consensus.

Any further revisions I add will emphasize neutral tone while accurately reflecting the citations being used. Junkityjam333 (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you want to rethink your claim about not adding "derogatory" language to the article? Your revision to the intro sentence in this edit is almost enough to get you blocked directly, because there is no way to interpret it other than a direct attack against Howard. —C.Fred (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are referring to. Der

1) The NH House is made up of 400 unpaid volunteers, and its deficiencies - "where anyone can become a state representative" as the headline and story explain - compared to other more professional legislatures are widely reported in numerous stories such as this one - https://www.cnn.com/2016/02/08/politics/new-hampshire-state-representatives/index.html

2) Nobody contests the factual assertion that Heath Howard lives with his parents. It is biographical information that is merely unflattering, not derogatory. Someone running who has a lack of employment and experience is a relevant basis of comparison vs. other candidates.

Let's discuss on the Talk page and arrive at factual, neutral tone accurate information. Junkityjam333 (talk) 18:19, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not going to be discussed on the talk page because I'm going to block your account. Your intent does not align with Wikipedia policies.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked indefinitely Daniel Case (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Tariq ibn Ziyad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-15370-56 (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 20:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC) to 20:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
   1. 20:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 20:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC) ""
2. 20:49, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Writing it correctly and academic"
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC) to 20:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
   1. 20:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "By historic/modern facts about where he led his army from. It was the moroccan coast and not entire north africa."
   2. 20:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "By modern countries"
4. 20:41, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Origins */Corrected it by actual facts and not algerian propaganda"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 20:50, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 20:53, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User insists on adding redundant red links, and is not trying to take it to the talk page to solve the issue. The user also seems to be racially biased towards Algerians for some reason, per this edit Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 21:01, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected Technically not a 3RR violation so I opted for page protection. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Palmer Luckey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342919034 by Sumanuil (talk), BLP violation"
2. 07:31, 11 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342819278 by Apwcow (talk), BLP violation."
3. Consecutive edits made from 20:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC) to 20:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
   1. 20:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342711335 by Sumanuil (talk) for same reason as before. BLP says to not use disparaging photos, reverting four times to the"
   2. 20:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1342711335 by Sumanuil (talk) for same reason as before. BLP says to not use disparaging photos and portrait guidelines require neutral presentation, reverting four times to a particular photograph with a mid-word, blinking facial expression is neither."
   3. 20:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Reverted for same reason as before. BLP says to not use disparaging photos and portrait guidelines require neutral presentation, reverting four times to a particular photograph with a mid-word, blinking facial expression is neither."
4. 07:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Updated to picture where Luckey does not have his lips pursed and eyes squinting, which is BLP violation for third time."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Palmer Luckey."
2. 08:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Palmer Luckey."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit-warring to introduce their preferred photo, claiming that the mildly-unflattering existing photo is "disparaging" and a "BLP violation".  Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 22:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

If the photo is "mildly unflattering" and there's a free alternative, then why are you edit warring to restore the disputed image? There could be a good reason, but I wouldn't know because the talk page hasn't been used, by anyone involved, to discuss the reverts.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

That's true; I have removed it for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It may not actually be free, as it's found elsewhere on web pages predating its upload to Commons. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 23:40, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Sumanuil, here's what you can do in such cases: This is automated with a user notification () by the "Quick Delete" gadget you can enable in your Wikimedia Commons preferences. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks + an indefinite block because of an undisclosed financial conflict of interest and/or undisclosed paid editing. Repeatedly adding an image to the article is edit warring even if it comes with the (allowed) repeated removal of a disputed image. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Serbian campaign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LocalF15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:39, 13 March 2026 (UTC) "There is nothing to discuss, see WP:MOS."
2. 06:47, 13 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1343259839 by ~2026-15843-04"
3. 06:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by ~2026-15843-04 to last revision by LocalF15"
4. 06:57, 13 March 2026 (UTC) "See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Military_history"
5. 06:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by ~2026-15843-04 to last revision by LocalF15"

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 repeatedly reverted sourced content 5 times over a 20-minute period and dismissed any talk page discussion. ~2026-15971-51 (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

No, seriously, what is there to discuss? Let’s see MOS.

The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "Inconclusive". Where the result does not accurately fit with these restrictions use "See aftermath" (or similar) to direct the reader to a section where the result is discussed. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result". LocalF15 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Moreover, the source cited provides no page number. LocalF15 (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

LocalF15, edit warring is disruptive even if you are right, and you have clearly edit warred. You have even violated the three-revert rule. Please inform yourself about the policy at WP:EW; future violations can lead to a block from editing. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. LocalF15 (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Page: Colin McRae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:38, 14 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1343463349 by Escape Orbit (talk) Edit warring plus zero sources cited for Colin representing Britain solely."
2. 04:36, 14 March 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1343292139 by Escape Orbit (talk) As per the Oxford dictionary definition - "the status of belonging to a particular nation". As falls under the 'Personal Information' segment next to birth place, this is clearly about the physical being and not a union of countries represented in sport."
3. 23:08, 12 March 2026 (UTC) "Resored factual statement reverted by Unionist troll"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 11:54, 13 March 2026 (UTC) "General note: Personal attack directed at a specific editor on Colin McRae."
2. 14:00, 14 March 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edit warring over nationality and a bit of childish name-calling Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello Escape Orbit, the edit summary of Special:Diff/1343463349 does not provide a valid reason for the revert. Thanks for stopping. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2026 (UTC)