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:JohnyOda reported by User:Number 57 (Result: Blocked 48 hours Indeffed as sock)

Page: United Arab List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JohnyOda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

JohnyOda has repeatedly attempted to change the ideologies section of the infobox in this article since early August (initial additions dated 1 August). He has been reverted by several editors, but continues to reinstate the changes and refuses to take the matter to the talk page despite being repeatedly asked to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:00, 6 August 2026 (ignoring request to take it to the talk page)
2. 09:07, 7 August 2026
3. 15:12, 8 August 2026
4. 19:21, 10 August 2026
5. 19:50, 10 August 2026
6. 06:26, 20 August 2026
7. 14:18, 20 August 2026
8. 04:28, 25 August 2026 (ignoring a request to follow BRD)
9. 08:49, 25 August 2026

There are more partial reverts in additions to the ones listed above.

They were given an edit warring notice on 22 August 2026.

Perhaps worth noting, in over a year of editing, JohnyOda has never made any edits to any form of talk or discussion page.

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

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Daniel Case (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Reblocked indef by Izno as a aock. Daniel Case (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-46531-19 reported by User:TonySt (Result: Blocked 48 hours Reblocked indef as NOTHERE)

Page: The StarPhoenix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-46531-19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:52, 26 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371374518 by Discospinster CanLii publishes reports of legal decisions. Anyone can research reports of the person's conviction for the claimed offences through it and anyone can if they are willing to put in the time, determine that the person had published columns through the newspaper. If they subscribe to newspapers.com they can also find reports on his crimes in Alberta."
2. 03:24, 26 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision by Eric Schucht (talk) and added a supportive source for the RiversdaleReporter - an excellent independent news outlet - a case report accessible in Canlii.org."
3. 00:21, 26 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371341639 by TonySt (talk) Unfounded, biased, illogical attempt to justify shameful attempt to protect a msm news outlet."
4. 00:15, 26 August 2026 (UTC) "The RiversdaleReporter is not a blog, it is alternative press, well-researched, well-sourced and with documentary back-up. This back up includes: 1986 ABCA 84 (CanLII)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:29, 26 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor persistently reverting to restore their preferred version despite multiple other editors disagreeing. TonySt  17:03, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Other editors piling on with the outcome being the burying of inconvenient or unsettling truth. ~2026-46531-19 (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The anonymous editor does not understand the requirement for reliable, published secondary sources, and that the burden to provide these sources is on the editor who adds the information, not the reader. ... discospinster _talk 17:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours This is a site block rather than a partial block on account of the personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
  • Reblocked indef by Acroterion as NOTHERE. Daniel Case (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Animalparty reported by User:JasonMacker (Result: Declined User self-reverted)

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

Previous version reverted to: https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maarten_Boudry&oldid=1366675942

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maarten_Boudry&diff=1371568336&oldid=1371101938
2. https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maarten_Boudry&diff=1371618963&oldid=1371617997

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMaarten_Boudry&diff=1371629856&oldid=1371627004

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page in a section that the user in question began: https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maarten_Boudry#Disputed_content

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://latimes.pages.dev/https-en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAnimalparty&diff=1371636810&oldid=1371157038

Comments:
The dispute is fairly straightforward, as User:Animalparty engaged in two reverts on an article related to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, in particular Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. As per the requirements of this contentious topic, only 1 revert is allowed. Separate from the two reverts, the user removed sourced content from the article entirely, which made his choice of two reverts unusual, as he effectively removed the very material that he was reverting to.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Did you ask them to self-revert? Animalparty, please self-revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

As I showed in the Diff of 1RR warning, I explicitly stated that "I'd encourage you to self-revert your disputed removal of sourced content from the article," although I admit I did not request a self-revert for the second revert specifically on the grounds of 1RR. My initial focus was on the removal of sourced content. JasonMacker (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: this conflict originated with a mistake I made: I had mistakenly thought JasonMacker had added two sentences based only on primary sources, when it fact JasonMacker had only added a subheading to existing content. I reverted JasonMacker twice on the assumption I was keeping BLP and NPOV non-compliant material from the article and then initiated discussion on the Talk page. When I realized my mistake, I apologized on the Talk page, clarified my objection to the conent that was originally added in January 2026, and then removed all the disputed content on policy grounds (WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PSTS, WP:PROPORTION). I have since self-reverted, and I await discussion and consensus on article Talk page. Note, I am about to start my work day, and will have little to no opportunity to reply further for the next 9 hours. I ask that any actions requiring my response to clarify can be delayed until then. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:03, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Declined User self-reverted (). EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Livelikemusic

Livelikemusic has constantly been mass-reverting sourced or previously sourced material edits on album pages where the references match the material included entirely with exact details for the good part of half a year now, if not longer. With Perrie Edwards, Jade Thirlwall, and their solo discographies after leaving the same group, which are included in their main page being a big target. Other major music page mass-reverts are present as well, but these are the most instantaneously done by them. EfficientOrganizer (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2026 (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. @EfficientOrganizer: This should also be discussed with User:Livelikemusic before coming to this noticeboard; I don't see any attempt at discussing the dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  That said, @Livelikemusic: you need to use edit summaries and explain why you make any reverts (e.g., Special:Diff/1371697645). - Aoidh (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

My apologies Aoidh, as I do do (double-mention, ew) my best to provide edit summaries with my edits. I do miss sometimes, unfortunately. livelikemusic (TALK!) 01:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

They're still continuing to do it to this day in mass-reversion, Livelikemusic continues to bypass references from sources officially accepted-by Wikipedia with clear information and descriptions. They have reverted 100s of pages and stripped references in just a sum of months, but it ranges from a lot longer time than this year if you check their contributions list. EfficientOrganizer (talk) 19:08, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Once again, EfficientOrganizer, you have yet to come to me to discuss this, nor have you gone to any article talk pages, where two discussions exist. This discussion (from September 2025) covers the edit you performed here (which you were previously pointed to — albeit not as directly as it could have been — when you performed the same edit in July of this year — sans citation that time — and you did not go to the article's talk page, nor mine), and then I opened a talk discussion concerning this edit citing policy. And when I put in a hidden note suggesting there was an opened talk page discussion, you came here after your report was not only declined, but you were also told to discuss prior to coming to this noticeboard. This seems like an attempt by you to just get me blocked from Wikipedia based on your continued wordage. Communicaiton is required on Wikipedia and, honestly, it is feeling like you do not wish to have a dialogue, and would prefer to resort to noticeboards. livelikemusic (TALK!) 19:35, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve gone through your contributions and you are constantly mass-reverting. You reverted my additions on tracklists several times and then edit them to be your own when you didn’t even need to revert to do that. You don’t match album page changes to their artist and don’t do it for singers discography listings either, with the reverts you do. It ends up with limbo between uncredited material one page being on the other, in several instances. I’ve mentioned the reference efficiency in my edit summaries and you just revert it, and sometimes edit it as your own contribution 20 minutes later after completely removing it without a summary, and failing to mention you would do this after removing a user’s edit.

I’m not talking about just Bite Me by Renee Rapp, you just remove things or reclaim them after reverting the other person’s additions and you do it when it’s not even sensical and it’s defined in the article, and you’re not matching previous tracklist criteria and single criteria for the artist mentioned. Your contributions page is full of these reverts and edits for so many pop albums. And you don’t even match them to match the discography page listings because you just revert and revert without checking. I’ve seen many people mention how you do this, which depreciates matching structuring across artist and their content pages. EfficientOrganizer (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve gone through your contributions

So, you are tracking me and my edits — cool. That is excellent to know. I have never once not assumed good faith in your edits; however, once again, your refusal to communicate (especially after an administrator instructed you to do so), seems like this an attempt to bypass the system on which Wikipedia is built. Had you gone to either of the talk pages I posted above (both of which existed prior to your return here), I would have happily had a conversation with you, but that did not happen. This is, in fact, the first time you have ever spoken directly to me on Wikipedia. Again, your report was declined yesterday by Aoidh and were told to come to be and discuss things out; you have yet to do that, and are not insisting on combing through my edits to find something, which is against policy. Again, you never approached me on my talk page to discuss anything or go to the article's talk pages, where discussions exist (per WP:BRD and on the grounds that communication is required on Wikipedia), and instead would rather resort to returning to a declined report. I am going to wait for Aoidh to hopefully return to this report before responding again, as this does not feel like a baiting and casting, and slightly personal situation to me and towards me by the filing editor (as I have pointed out in prior responses), and I have the right to remain silent at this moment. livelikemusic (TALK!) 20:34, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I’ve listed the way you mass-revert and mass-ignore references and don’t state why many times to wikipedia, that’s all. That’s what this section of wikipedia is for. I’m just glad I brought it to light after the extended length of time you’ve done this, and done this to dozens of users relentlessly for years. I defend the way I’ve raised these issues. I don’t expect you to do differently suddenly of course, as you’ve combed through many users and edits and avoiding reasons before, so I had to raise it to wikipedia. EfficientOrganizer (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User: Tvx1 reported by User:Miria~01 (Result: Withdrawn by reporter)

Page: Yugoslavia at the Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tvx1 (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 Diff, 9:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
2. #2 Diff, 10:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
3. #3 Diff, 10:48, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 11:06, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 10:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 11:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments:

Edit summary of "Tvx1" last revert: Stop your ridiculous edit warring and respect Wikipedia process by getting consensus in favor of your changes BEFORE applying them. And I really don't think we need an explicit source to substantiate that Bosnia-Herzegovina was a province of the Austrian Empire in 1912. Leave this alone and discuss!

The user does not appear willing to engage in serious discussion, let alone provide evidence. Through his reverts, he is attempting to force his opinion on other users. The user himself recently (Diff, 15:06, 12 August 2026) made the change to the article and is now presenting it as a consensus, which is not the case. Miria~01 (talk) 11:21, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It would help if you give the other party some decent time to do some proper research and reply. Now you have a complaint full of untruths. I have very much seriously taken part in the discussion, and I have provided evidence disproving your claims. I have not claimed consensus either, I explained that you need to achieve consensus per Wikipedia procedure. Procedure you are showing little regard for. Also I'm not trying to enforce any opion. That Bosnia-Herzegovina was a province of Austria in 1912 is a well known simple fact. Lastly, I did not edit the article again after your warning so this escalation is completely unnecessary. We are discussing now, aren't we? Thus I suggest a WP:BOOMERANG and a WP:TROUT here. Tvx1 11:46, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You immediately reverted my edit—following the invitation to discuss the matter (just as you had reverted the other user)—and accused me of needing to seek consensus, even though you were the one who had made the change only recently. Shouldn't *you* be the one providing verifiable sources to reach a consensus ? Furthermore, the issue isn't the historical and political situation of 1912, but rather whether Bosnian athletes participated as part of the Austrian team in 1912.

And you have just not provided sufficient evidence to support your claim. Your tone comes across as very aggressive—seemingly just to force your opinion on others.  Miria~01 (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You are the one who started immediately reverting my edits. And after you bold edit was reverted, meaning you were now obliged by Wikipedia procedure to only discuss and yet you re-reverted. Then you post a warning on my page and escalate this here without me having made any edit to that article after your warning. You are the one make much more out of this than needed. Including falsely accusing me of not be willing to discuss.

And the historical and political situation is very much a key part of the issue. You might not like it, but the Austrian team represented all its provinces back then, including Bosnia-Herzegovina. You are the one here trying to enforce a personal restriction, that only actually competing athletes should be considered, which just does not exist. Tvx1 12:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

https://okbih.ba/en/text/the-history-of-olympic-committee-of-bosnia-and-herzegovina-and-bh-olympism/3
In accordance with the confirmed data, the first Olympic athlete in Bosnia was an Australian member of the wrestling team Hajnrih Raus, who participated the Games in Stockholm, in 1912.This source is sufficient for me—even though "Austria" was incorrectly translated as "Australian" here—because the Bosnian committee recognizes him as a Bosnian.

I would hereby like to officially withdraw from my "Edit warring" regarding the 3RR rule against "Tvx1". I criticized your approach, not whether your point of view might possibly be correct. But the discussion can be closed here.  Miria~01 (talk) 12:14, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Withdrawn by reporter EvergreenFir (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Hippo43 reported by User:Simonm223 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Jason Arday (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (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:
Editor is claiming that the articles being removed are WP:FRINGE. Fringe noticeboard has a clear consensus this is not an applicable policy. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

An additional comment: this editor has 14 prior blocks for edit warring. It's pretty clear they know by now what edit warring is. It's unclear they care. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely I was going to close this, at least temporarily, as no violation ... but then per the comment above I looked at the editor's history, and ... ehew. Other admins may differ if they want, but this to me is a clear, indisputable example of an editor who has not only exhausted the community's patience but has been allowed to continue for a long time after doing so. Fifteen blocks in 17 years? They got a dozen chances too many, it is now clear. (And saying this obliges me to add that I regret having played a part in continuing to enable this serial miscreant by only blocking them from a page they had edit-warred on for a week last year). From my perspective this editor is not only blocked indefinitely but banned; if someone wants to make this a formal community decision let me know when and where. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The block log is only half of the relevant history, the other part is multiple final warnings on their talk page (, ) and in the archives of this noticeboard. To make things worse, one of the final warnings is about the same article and both final warnings are from this month, August 2026.

There's zero chance of an unblock at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both for taking care of this. ~2026-42392-14 (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

It is good to see decisive action finally being taken. As noted above, their block log, the multiple "final" warnings on their Talkpage, and their recent reverts on a page they have already been warned about, all demonstrate that this editor is a serial edit-warrior. They are entirely aware of the rules but have sought to play on a lenient approach to sanctions to continue with that approach. It is encouraging that this has finally been called out. I very much hope that any admin looking at an appeal will carefully consider the full history of this case. KJP1 (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-46846-54 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Xavier Gispert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-46846-54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */"
2. 20:19, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */"
3. 18:33, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */"
4. 18:27, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:49, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Xavier Gispert."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:35, 28 August 2026 (UTC) on User talk:~2026-46846-54 ""

Comments:

BLP violation, repeated addition of unsourced content. AriuCH (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi ToBeFree, Thank you for handling this matter. AriuCH (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User:EarthPageant reported by User:TofuMuncher (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page: Miss Earth 2026 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: EarthPageant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 1371524562

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1371748404
2. 1371754607
3. 1371760918
4. 1371765981
5. 1371765981

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1371754595; 1371764911

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 1371897935

Comments:
Edits, all voluminous, contain no references and violate a multitude of guidelines under the manual of style and established practices. Potential COI and LLM use as well given username and their scope, and the abundance of WP:AIBOLD, WP:RO3 and sentences with similar lengths on close reading. TofuMuncher (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Naiolein reported by User:Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (Result: 48 hour block)

Page: Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Reverting Disruptive edits to historically accurate edits."
2. 10:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371925346 by Maayaaaaa (talk)"
3. 10:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "I don't see any reason for a consensus on a updated photo published by a government agency."
4. 10:51, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid change, pretty neutral content coming out of DHS directly."
5. 10:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371924107 by AirshipJungleman29 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Information about edits to Milo Yiannopoulos (uw-npov1)"
2. 10:56, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: edits to Milo Yiannopoulos (uw-disruptive4)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:56, 29 August 2026 (UTC) on User talk:Naiolein "ONLY Warning: Edit warring (UV 0.1.6)"

Comments:

• 48 hour sitewide block. PhilKnight (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-46633-73 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Indef)

Page: Genetic studies of Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-46633-73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 13:58, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371942200 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Your page contributions show a lot of edits on Jewish topics. You are a Zionist blocking the word conversion which in the article over 20 times."
2. 13:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371940605 by AndyTheGrump (talk) Not about Zionism, about how all religions spread by conversion, including Judaism. Ivanka (Yeal) Trump-Kushner is a good example, she is German."
3. 13:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371939529 by MrOllie (talk) The word conversion is in article over 20 times, that is a consensus, belongs in lead (lede). Same Zionists on this page tag team to block legitimate information."
4. 13:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1371937619 by MrOllie (talk) Most Jews alive today mixed or converts, especially white Ashkenazi"
5. 06:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Conversion is always been a part of Judaism"
6. 16:12, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "Conversion has always been a part or Judaism just like all other religions. There is no legitimate DNA test for who is or is not a Jew."
7. 00:04, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "Conversion Supersedes DNA"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:50, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – indef by User:Jauerback per WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Binksternet reported by User:~2026-41404-95 (Result: No action needed)

Page: Daisy Chain Fields (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: Revision immediately before the edit-warring, in which editor Paul Badillo added that the radio show in which the festival was announced was broadcast on station KUCI, not just KCSN

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. I add a source that mentions KUCI, because the source that was already there only said the show was on KCSN; my edit summary simply says "+source"
2. Binksternet reverts; his edit summary says "Rv unneeded" - please note that he only reverted my addition of a source, not Paul Badillo's prose that I was supporting with the source
3. I restore with the edit summary "restoring source for the broadcast also being on KUCI", thinking the explanation would help
4. Binksternet reverts with no edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Me asking on his talk page for an explanation, followed by him telling me to "Stop promoting the festival."

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Diff/1371949608

Comments:

If you look at the article's history over the past two days (specifically since 21:51 UTC 27 August 2026), you'll see multiple instances of Binksternet reverting my edits, me trying to implement some kind of compromise, and Binksternet reverting again ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you're the sole person reverting according to the page history. You should be following WP:BRD. This is an ill-conceived report - you'd be as guilty as they are here. Might want to drop this and just continue discussing on the talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 15:48, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

It looks like you're the sole person reverting according to the page history.

I don't see how. This report is about Binksternet reverting the addition of a source to an otherwise-unsourced claim. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 15:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Who else is reverting him? Sergecross73 msg me 16:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. You just said It looks like you're the sole person reverting according to the page history, meaning that Binksternet's edits can't be called "reversions" in your opinion. I fail to see how the four numbered diffs in the Diffs of the user's reverts section of the report don't show Binksternet reverting content. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying you're equally guilty because you've done just as much back and forth as he has. How are you not just as guilty of the very thing you're reporting here? Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

How are you not just as guilty of the very thing you're reporting here?

I will be typing up a thorough response with more diffs, which should be finished within the next hour. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Just because a piece of information is supported by a source it doesn't mean that its not promotional content. I think the best way forward would be page protection due to the edit warring especially. Zirthes (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Just because a piece of information is supported by a source it doesn't mean that its not promotional content.

Binksternet did not remove the prose about the radio show being broadcast on KUCI. He removed the only source for it being broadcast on KUCI, which I added, while keeping the now-unsourced prose. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 16:26, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You have filed this report on the edit warring noticeboard when that sounds like a dispute over content which would be better suited to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Zirthes (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Correct. Or the article talk page. Or a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT. Not concurrently, but there's other options to work through, all better than here. Sergecross73 msg me 16:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

A more thorough defence of my own actions, for @Sergecross73:

• 23:47 UTC, 27 August 2026  – Binksternet reverts my prior two edits with the edit summary Rv... too much clutter. I can only assume this was primarily in reference to the navboxes for the festival's individual performers that I added in the edit immediately prior, although he also reverted (seemingly accidentally, given the edit summary) other information, such as prose about one of the performers being replaced and an update/correction to the timetable.
• 00:18 UTC, 28 August 2026  – I add back the content that was seemingly removed accidentally; in my first attempt at a compromise with Binksternet on this article, in order to not make the infoboxes too cluttered, I had looked up and found the {{Navboxes}} template and used it.

I proceeded to make more edits to the article.

• 20:33 UTC, 28 August 2026  – Binksternet reverts more of my content with the edit summary rv promo, clutter; mainly, the Navboxes template and a new piece of prose I had added about official radio specials that would be airing in promotion of the festival. From this point forward, I made no attempt to add navboxes for the performers.
• 20:39 UTC, 28 August 2026  – Another attempt at a compromise: I add back the prose but in an invisible comment with NOTABILITY DISPUTED at the start. This is so that other editors can see the disputed content and maybe rephrase, add more sources to prove its notability, et cetera, but it won't show up for readers. My edit summary is commenting out radio promo.
• 22:36 UTC, 28 August 2026  – Binksternet removes the invisible comment with the edit summary rv promo again.
• 22:41 UTC, 28 August 2026  – I drop the disputed prose onto the article's talk page with the note This content has been disputed; dropping it here on the talk page so I can maybe come back to it later, rephrase it, add sources, et cetera.
• 22:45 UTC, 28 August 2026  – I go to Binksternet's talk page to ask for clarification on the exact meaning of the edit summary rv promo again.
• 22:54 UTC, 28 August 2026  – Binksternet responds on his talk page.
• 22:57 UTC, 28 August 2026  – Binksternet responds on the article talk page, citing WP:NOTADVERT.
• 23:03 UTC, 28 August 2026  – I respond on Binksternet's talk page.
• 23:03 UTC, 28 August 2026  – I respond on the article talk page.

That brings us to the events described in the report. I don't see how my actions on this article during these past few days can be called edit warring or disruptive. When I did add things back, I did it once and while either tweaking the edit to address what I thought Binksternet's issue with them was, or added a more detailed edit summary when I thought Binksternet's issue was that the edit was unclear. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I think you need a better understanding of Wikipedia's definition of edit warring, namely that An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. Sergecross73 msg me 17:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not defending myself by saying my edits were correct. I'm defending myself by saying I was making good-faith attempts to compromise each time, which were repeatedly thrown out altogether in a way that seems targeted. Why did Binksternet claim I was "promoting" the festival by adding a source for the claim that it was announced on KUCI? Why did Binksternet not remove the claim itself (added by someone else), only the source for it (added by me)? ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

You have been edit warring, good faith, bad faith, it doesn't matter. All I currently wonder is if I block both or the war is stale. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:17, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm going to be honest, because I don't think it's right to lie about how you see your own actions just to look good in a dispute: I don't personally see how my actions on that article constitute edit-warring. However, I will assure you that I'm not going to add back any of the content, not even with any "tweaks" or in invisible comments or whatever. Instead, I'm going to place them on the article talk page so that other editors in the future have an opportunity to improve them, like I did with the bit of prose about the upcoming radio broadcasts. ~2026-41404-95 (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm running out of ways to explain that you're in the wrong venue to be discussing things like this. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Wall of text. Whatever. Can we get an explanation from Binksternet why these should be exempt from WP:3RR? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I mean, if we're strictly talking about 3RR, for starters, the IP hasn't listed the the required 4 difs or difs or a dif to a 3RR warning in the first place. There's generally an argument that they're both edit warring, but I figured it was more constructive to encourage discussion rather than block both, which won't resolve their core content dispute here. Sergecross73 msg me 17:19, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not actually intend to block anyone in response to this report; I'd long have done so if I saw a need. The four diffs are . There has been a 3RR violation from the reported user, so I want to hear why that happened, from them. I don't care much about the underlying content dispute as the noticeboard is the wrong place for resolving it. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry about the excessive reverts. I was not assuming good faith with the TA. I will stand down and let the page develop freely. Binksternet (talk) 20:57, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• No action needed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-46935-44 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Page protected)

Page: Stefan Halper (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-46935-44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:30, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "removing misleading information"
2. 16:20, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Clarifying the record."
3. 16:12, 29 August 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 18:28, 28 August 2026 (UTC) "removed misleading information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:32, 29 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stefan Halper."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Five minutes before ToBeFree protected the article, User:~2026-47239-28 was created, and immediately repeated the edits of ~2026-46935-44 above. ~2026-35499-70 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

...yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

User:ItzVoyag3r reported by User:TheodoresTomfooleries (Result: )

Page: Manchukuo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ItzVoyag3r (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:

User has continued to engage in an edit war even after being told that they were engaging in edit warring and after being told that their changes required consensus. On the talk page for the article, they have repeatedly refused to acknowledge the sources I have given, whilst not giving any sources of their own, save for 'Simple Wikipedia', which is not a citation. TheodoresTomfooleries (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2026 (UTC)