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:Whathever2 reported by User:Nswix (Result: Stale)

Page: List of UFC records (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Ultimate Fighting Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) List of current UFC fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) UFC rankings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), etc.

User being reported: Whathever2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC) "The reason for the change was already explained in a previous edition. What matter is what appears in the UFC fighter card during the live event. The flags that appear here are not about nationality, but about which country that athlete is representing. We should respect each athlete decision to represent whatever country they want. Fighters like Topuria and Mackenzie have multiple nationalities, they are free to choose which country they want to represent in their card"
2. 18:17, 28 October 2025 (UTC) "/* Most submissions - By division */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on UFC rankings."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Nationality warring across half a dozen pages. Brazilian editor has decided a fighter is Brazilian, will not relent in changing flags back, despite multiple editors changing their edits back. Nswix (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The flag shows the country, which athlete is representing. Topuria represents Georgia and Mackenzie represents Brazil. Tjis flag appears in their cards and this flags must be in that tables here. Lado85 (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Declined as stale; user has not edited in about three days so maybe they've gotten the hint. Daniel Case (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Avantiputra7 reported by User:Zalaraz (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Sati (practice) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Avantiputra7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1319856383 by Zalaraz (talk) - it is not "my" edit I am newly proposing, it was part of the prior stable text of the lead (Special:Diff/1268575707). Please also check that you are not wholesale reverting copy-edits such as the page numbers."
2. 08:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1319855002 by Orientls (talk) what? it is exactly what the source says, as I discussed on talk page. Also, Kulkarni specifically mentions sati (not only jauhar) as "particularly popular" with regard to Rajputs"
3. 06:37, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "adding citation to Brick"
4. 04:34, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "no good justification for this wholesale deletion of correctly cited historical context (building on the last good revision by Fowler&Fowler), relevant quotes, and correction to page number. next I will address the Rajputs/Mughals issue"
5. 15:20, 31 October 2025 (UTC) "rv edits by User:Longewal - please obtain consensus before making such changes. The source you have deleted actually supports the coercion aspect by saying "or being burned""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 06:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Further restoring some text */ Reply"
2. 08:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Further restoring some text */ Reply"

Comments:

Despite repeated attempts to dissuade this editor from edit warring and instead taking part in discussion at the talkpage by proposing his edits, he continues restoring the disputed content and falsification of source. Zalaraz (talk) 08:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

I apologise if I have indeed run afoul of 3RR during my batch of edits (and in any case I will refrain from further edits for the time being), but please note that the earliest revert listed here (5.) had nothing to do with the other disputed content, and was simply restoration of part of a disambiguation hatnote and two sourced quotes that were newly deleted without prior discussion, with only an edit summary which I noticed was partly incorrect. (There has since been some more constructive talk page discussion by this editor.) As for the main disputed line in the other edits, the line was not my new addition but was part of the reliably sourced, prior stable version of the lead, carefully worded by South Asia editors who are experienced in good historical writing (see [2], [3], etc.), and I did not think that it could be deleted without consensus. I started a section on the talk page to discuss further and address any valid concerns (about this, or my further additions). There is certainly no "falsification of source" involved (I verified the cited source), and I do not feel that such an allegation is appropriate to make. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@Avantiputra7 You should self-revert your last edits right now if you really regret violating 3RR. Yes you have misrepresentd the source as already concluded by 3 editors on talk page. Zalaraz (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Avantiputra7, this is not about the number of reverts. Please have a look at WP:ONUS: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That's you. If, after the block, you restore text others have removed, without you having found a consensus to re-add the content, you may be blocked again. Even if it happens just once. Someone removes material you'd like to have in the article? Discuss. Find a consensus first. Ideally let someone else restore the content, don't do it yourself. If the re-addition of previously-disputed content is as uncontroversial as you think, you can surely find at least one user who does so for you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

User:47.205.180.147 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: Page protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Page: Lakewood Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 47.205.180.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC) ""Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say." The edit cites an article, which does not cite an published source for the allegations made."
2. 16:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say.

There is no published source citing an evidence of Lakewood's budget in the year 2017. The editor cited the Financial Times article. The finacial times article cited a nonexisting link as evidence of Lakewood's budget..."

1. 15:48, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */The edit I removed is prohibited on Wikipedia as it falls under the category of original research. There is no published existing source cited to support the claims made.

Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say."

1. 15:21, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */Do we have any ethical standards?"
2. 15:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Prosperity gospel */Attempting to get a Wikipedia editor to remove slander. Clearly the last editor lacks discernment."
3. 15:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Addressed slander"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Editor appears to feel that since they can't find the Houston Chronicle article, then the Financial Times must be making things up. C.Fred has tried to discuss this to no avail. Acroterion (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Editor also has attempted to prefer primary sources to secondary. At best, editor does not understand Wikipedia policy. At worst, this is a COI attempt to sterilize the article of negative content. I was considering escalating this to ANI; however, this can probably be handled by an uninvolved admin here. —C.Fred (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Additional revert after report to noticeboard filed: [4] —C.Fred (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

While I do not have full knowledge of Wikipedia policy, I do know that C.Fred and Acroterion have violated it multiple times through our interactions. Revising edits with "Original Research" is in violation of Wikipedia Policy. Engaging in an edit war without following the guideline: "If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them." And Acroterion has made multiple condesceding assertions on my state of mind.

Again, the Financial Times has provided no FOIA request of Lakewood's Budget for the year of 2017, so what evidence has been provided to support their slanderous assertion that less than 1% of the budget was given towards charity.

That is in direct violation of the Original Research Policy which states, ideas, allegations, and fact, must be support through citation of evidence of such facts. Not simply a link to another webpage article that repeats the allegation. 47.205.180.147 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:2A04:4A43:937F:F0DF:5CAA:CFAA:7501:EB6B reported by User:Danners430 (Result: Blocked, Sent to AfD)

Page: Incredibles 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A04:4A43:937F:F0DF:5CAA:CFAA:7501:EB6B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Qjqhhqh"
2. 19:43, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Wjwjwheh"
3. 19:12, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Sjejdnnd"
4. Consecutive edits made from 17:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC) to 17:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:45, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Susjsjeh"
   2. 17:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Jwhwwhhw"
5. Consecutive edits made from 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) to 17:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
   1. 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Wjwjwjw"
   2. 17:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Sjsnsj"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: The 17:45 edit listed above is pure mischief-making, with content from the lead section of Elio (film) pasted in. Wikishovel (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Additionally, as there has been no discussion on this issue - anywhere - as far as I can tell, I have raised an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incredibles 3 so everyone can discuss things. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not mischief-making. Please read the explanation of the "undoing" of my edits. It says "endorsements, why?" That is not a valid reason. The same editor sought out and posted endorsements and citations (that are similar, such as Facebook) for one candidate but not another. That is unequal treatment that should not be permitted. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:44, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Wrong thread, mate: this is about Incredibles 3. 2025 Albuquerque mayoral election is further down the page. Wikishovel (talk) 05:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Beast from da East (Result:Now at ANI)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Beast from da East (talk · contribs) is currently edit-warring the redirection of Gambino Family (group). This was determined per consensus to be redirected to No Limit Records discography, but even after multiple warnings and explanations, the user keeps reverting with "I don't know what this user's problem is" and refusing to fix the problem in any fashion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

If I can defend myself. In August I was made aware that both the Gambino Family and their Ghetto Organized album were redirected, this is despite the fact that the album went to #17 on the U.S. Billboard 200, thus passing Wikipedia:Notability (music) which states an artist is notable if that artist "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." Knowing that the group had charted highly in the US, I reverted the articles back their original state. User:Nayyn, left a note on my talk page asking me to add references, which I did to both chart positions. Now the above user, who is self-admittedly is "not well-versed enough in hip-hop", unbeknownst to me had pinged 2 other users to the group's talk page, both of whom had zero awareness about either the group or album and formed an extremely questionable "consensus" as both users that were pinged basically just agreed with the above user with no research with one user stating to "it's your decision" Now both are articles are stubs and probably wont ever exceed beyond that, but if a group that has a top 20 album in the United States isn't notable as the above user claims, what artist is? Perhaps a more official consensus can be reached elsewhere. Beast from da East (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@Beast from da East: You are still dodging two issues here:

1. There was consensus to redirect, meaning other editors agreed with my assessement.

2. You still have not provided any reliable sources, and refuse to say anything at all when I ask you to provide more.

I have explained this to you multiple times, yet you still insist on stonewalling me and saying "I don't get what this user's issue is". Binksternet (talk · contribs) has stepped in and restored the redirect.

If you think it should be undone, then prove it and don't edit-war.

Also, please do not send templated messages to experienced editors. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

And who are you exactly? You're not at administrator, you've been blocked a half dozen times and that "consensus" is extremely questionable as it's on a little seen page and you basically pinged users who blindly agreed. Why not take it to AFD? The articles in question are sourced, both the group and albums meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability due to the chart success. It's a stub, sure but stubs are not illegal on this site. Just to play devil's advocate, an article you created well over a decade ago Rockin' in the Country, did not chart, has no charting singles, has one Allmusic review as a source is basically a track list that will never exceed stub status, if you can kindly explain how that article is notable and how Ghetto Organized, which is a top 20 album in the U.S, isn't, I'd feel a lot better on this. Beast from da East (talk) 18:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Can the articles in question be taken to AFD? Or is there another way to have other users to participate in a discussion? At least that way, we can have an actual consensus? Beast from da East (talk) 19:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Beast from da East, this could reasonably be taken to AfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is now at WP:ANI#Edit warring and WP:TEND with Beast from da East. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:178.233.142.61 reported by User:Semsûrî (Result: 72 hours )

Page: Gölbağı, Çelikhan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 178.233.142.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 14:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 14:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 14:23, 3 November 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 14:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking."
2. 14:45, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "/* November 2025 */ Reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The editor has been warned twice - firstly their edits are pure disruption. Secondly the article is part of the contentious topics/Kurds and they are not extended-confirmed. Semsûrî (talk) 14:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:24, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This is unfair because it is viewpoint discrimination. The editors reporting me have provided sources and information for another candidate and are ignoring similarly-cited resources for another candidate. They are interfering with an election by excluding content on the basis of viewpoint, the night before an election. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:AshwinAjax reported by User:Magawla61 (Result: Pblocked - 1 month)

Page: AFC Ajax in international football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AshwinAjax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [10]

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

Comments:
The user User talk:AshwinAjax keeps playing messing up with the content of AFC Ajax in international football. I warned him/her via his/her Talk page but it didn't help. He/she kept going insistently on it. Magawla61 (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Partial blocked from the page for 1 month. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Millennial2025 reported by User:LuniZunie (Result: 24hr block)

Page: 2025 Albuquerque mayoral election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Millennial2025 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1320196778 by Aesurias (talk)"
2. 00:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1320316098 by Prothe1st (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 23:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC) to 23:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
   1. 23:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1320196568 by Aesurias (talk)"
   2. 23:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1320314715 by LuniZunie (talk)"
4. 23:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1320196722 by Aesurias (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:54, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Welcome to Wikipedia! (WikiShield)"
2. 23:57, 3 November 2025 (UTC) "Message about your edit on 2025 Albuquerque mayoral election (level 1) (WikiShield)"
3. 00:07, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Now violated 3RR and continues to revert despite warnings placed on the talk page. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 00:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

All citations have been included in their original format. These people are unfairly targeting Alex Uballez but not the other candidate with endorsements containing similar "self-sourcing" and "non-notable" individuals. Some of that information was even posted by an individual who entered another candidate's endorsements. Even where there are reliable sources, they are removing the information. They have even removed the full name as it appears on the ballot without reason. This is viewpoint discrimination and an attempt to meddle in a local election by allowing one candidate's endorsements to be listed but not another. Millennial2025 (talk) 00:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Could you clarify any other endorsements that are self-sourced or by non-notable individuals? Seriously, just provide one.

A candidate's "full (ballot) name" does not need to be on the title of their endorsements list. Aesurias (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually since you care so much about information being sourced correctly, and go out of your way to do it for candidates for an election you have no stake in--please, by all means, correct these. Thanks in advance!

Organizations

• New American Leaders Action Fund
• Young Democrats of New Mexico
• NM Native Vote
• Olé New Mexico
• Equality New Mexico
• Organized Power in Numbers
• Gun Sense Voter
• UNM College Democrats
• NM Voters First

Political parties

• Working Families Party New Mexico

Individuals

• Pascual Maestas, Mayor of the Town of Taos
• Former State Rep. Brittany Barreras
• 16 New Mexican artists, including Marian Berg, Nani Chacón, Tina De la Luz , Sofia Eleftheriou, Eric García, Jodi Herrera, Denis Kennedy, Teri Marsala Esrig, Warren Montoya, Jack Ox, Eric Romero, Hank Schuyler, Vicente Telles, Barbara Wisoff, Sueko Yamada

Millennial2025 (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Going down the list:

1. This is already on the page
2. This is already on the page
3. This is not a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
4. This is not a notable organization, and 'Ole' just links to the Spanish phrase, rather than the group
5. This is not a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
6. This is not a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
7. 'Gun Sense Voter' is not an organization -- it's a branch of Everytown for Gun Safety that 'approves' or 'disapproves' of candidates based off their support for tougher gun legislation. Keller is the only candidate properly endorsed by Everytown, but all other Democratic-affiliated candidates in the race have Gun Sense Voter-approved ratings.
8. This is not a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
9. This is not a notable organization, as evidenced by the red link
10. This is already on the page
11. This is improperly sourced to Uballez's Instagram (see: Wikipedia:ENDORSE)
12. This is improperly sourced to Uballez's Instagram (see: Wikipedia:ENDORSE)
13. This is improperly sourced to Uballez's Instagram (see: Wikipedia:ENDORSE) None of us have any affiliation with any candidates in this election, and your suggestions that we are editing with political bias appears to be projection. Although it isn't relevant, (based off research when I was expanding this article weeks ago), I actually like Uballez and prefer him to Keller. If you are able to provide independent sources for Maestas and Barreras, they can certainly be included in the article.

Aesurias (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Those instagram posts are jointly posted. Organizations posted by Keller also are not "notable" or linked to an existing Wikipedia page. This is viewpoint discrimination and unequal treatment. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure if you have actually read Wikipedia:ENDORSE in any way. It doesn't matter that they were jointly posted because endorsements made by individuals cannot be sourced to social media.

All organizations listed as endorsing Keller have their own Wikipedia pages. Aesurias (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Pages on Keller's endorsement list are citing to general pages not endorsements. They are no better sources than what I have provided.

Heather Berghmans, state senator from the 15th district (2025–present)

Labor unions

Teamsters Local 492>>>DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

AFSCME Council 18>>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

AFL-CIO New Mexico>>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

Western States Regional Council of Carpenters

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 611 >>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local 49 >>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

Organizations

Planned Parenthood Votes New Mexico>>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

Sierra Club Rio Grande>>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

Conservation Voters New Mexico>>> DID NOT SITE TO LOCAL ORG

Everytown for Gun Safety>>> DID NOT SITE TO SPECIFIC ORG Millennial2025 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what is so confusing about Wikipedia:ENDORSE -- if you'd actually read it, you wouldn't be saying this.

Endorsements by organizations must either be:

- posted by the organization themself on social media

- reported by news outlets or reliable election guide sites

Endorsements by individuals must be

- reported by news outlets or reliable election guide sites Aesurias (talk) 01:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Also -- you're just wrong. Most of the organizations you listed are directly sourced to the local organizations website... Aesurias (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not engaging with you anymore, and will let an administrator deal with this.

You seem to be either unwilling or unable to understand a very simple set of rules for listed endorsements. Aesurias (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Aesurias, please don't argue with people at AN3, it's already an edit war situation, you're not going to get anywhere good that way. -- asilvering (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are edit warring and ignoring warnings placed on your talk page. You should follow the WP:BRD procedure when your edit gets reverted. --Prothe1st (leave me a message)-- 00:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem here is you have not gone out of your way to find "adequate" sources the way you have for another candidate in a local election, the night before the election. Please, apply your citation support equally and evenly. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Are you able to find sources for Maestas and Barreras that don't come from the individuals themselves or Uballez? If so, send them to me and they will be added. I had previously tried and was unable to.

Constant accusations toward other editors is not helping your case, if anything it is hurting it. Seeing as you've not responded to what I said above, I am hoping you now understand that the endorsements you added were not suitable in their current form. If you feel that any of the organizations are notable, then you should make articles for them to prove this. Aesurias (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Where did you previously try? It is literally a video of Barreras saying she endorses Alex Uballez. Not everyone uses social media, and in our state not everyone has internet access or webpages. They post via social media campaigns. These endorsements are permitted by state law and local regulations in our jurisdiction. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

State law is not Wikipedia guidelines, and it's irrelevant that the video is of Barreras herself, because it is sourced to social media. I personally disagree with the Wikipedia guidelines and believe those kinds of endorsements are suitable, but most editors are opposed to this.

Our personal view points are irrelevant. Aesurias (talk) 01:49, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

THERE IS NO OTHER SOURCE. AND KELLER HAS NOT CITED AN ADEQUATE SOURCE EITHER. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• I counted 5R (in the last hour). M.Bitton (talk) 00:29, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Yes and 5 by editors. What is your point? That information should be posted the night before an election. This is unfair because it is viewpoint discrimination. The editors reporting me have provided sources and information for another candidate and are ignoring similarly-cited resources for another candidate. They are interfering with an election by excluding content on the basis of viewpoint, the night before an election. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  No... not by 5 editors -- just by you. Do you understand what the user actually meant? There is no discrimination, please stop with the silly allegations. Aesurias (talk) 01:48, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  You should stop responding to everything I do on here. You're not wikipedia police. Millennial2025 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  Hi Millennial2025! I invite you to read up on User:Guy Macon/One against many, which is a good essay to have in mind when finding yourself in this type of situation. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

References

User:Ixudi reported by User:Sutyarashi (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: [12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]
4. [16]

[17]]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [18]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [19]

Comments:
On 2 November 2025 at 13:57 User:Ixudi reverted my edit after which I opened talk page discussion. The page history showed a long series of back and forth edit warring and POV pushing, and I restored the origins section as it was on 10 May 2025, asking User:Ixudi to discuss the additions hereafter at talk page. However, they continued edit warring and adding the disputed content back. At 10:39 3 November 2025 I made the last reply to them at talk page to which they did not respond and went to WP:3O, without notifying me about it. Today instead of replying at talk page or waiting for response to their own request for 3O they have made a fourth revert and added the disputed content back with edit summary restoring longstanding sentence. No consensus achievers to remove it. To me it appears User:Ixudi either does not understand WP:CONSENSUS or they do, but keep ignoring it anyways inspite of my best efforts to inform them of it[20][21] and keep resorting to edit warring instead to maintain the version they like. Sutyarashi (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

User:534edits reported by User:NatGertler (Result: )

Page: Keith Edwards (media personality) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 534edits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:00, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1320359261 by NatGertler (talk)"
2. 02:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Stop vandalizing this page. That New Yorker article state's Keith's age. It states where he is from. It states his former work. You are an idiot and need to be banned from wikipedia. Undid revision 1320217590 by Kuru (talk)"
3. 17:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC) "Keith's bio is in the New Yorker article about him. Please stop making this page worse. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/10/12/inside-the-lincoln-projects-war-against-trump Undid revision 1320050853 by Kuru (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 05:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Keith Edwards (media personality)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: