Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

The original report can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Deamonpen on Evie Magazine, but the request was made at the wrong place. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

OK, because I want it to be easier for others to follow what has happened, I repeat my postion that the version User:Snokalok and User:Grayfellare trying to revert to, without trying to talk it out on the Talk page, is this one

It is an older version (that do not include refs, agreed by everyone to be legitimate, that refer to the Evie (magazine) as conservative).

The position we started before yesterday debate was this one:

(There are slight differences, but all keep the language "conservative [sources] alt-right magazine....")

1

2

3

+me (I don't agree, but have temporarily restored before Grayfell reverted me again).

And as said, I did the initial edit of today, because no one protested my last reply on the Talk:Evie_Magazine#Proposed_Lead_Revision_for_Neutrality_and_Consistency Talk page.

I don't remove the "alt-right" materials. I add the "conservative" materials. And nobody in the Talk page protests the additions of "conservative" materials. They just have different ideas on how to put "conservative" and "altright" in the description of the magazine (first sentence). In the last message of User:Zenomonoz, they said that they agreed with my position. Deamonpen (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'll just paste my original intro, Deamonpen (talk · contribs) has been relentlessly refusing to drop the stick and edit warring against consensus on Evie Magazine even when everyone in the talk page thread[1] is against him. He consistently edit wars to water down the language describing the mag in the lead from "Alt-right" to "conservative" to "An American women's magazine described as conservative" despite everyone in the thread consistently being against him and a continuation of the stronger language of the status quo (or else the strength-equivalent "Far right"). Deamonpen's justification for this in the face of everyone in the thread being against his position, is on the grounds that consensus is not determined by the number of peope who say X. It is about what arguments they bring and how the debates end.[2] All I've done is revert his disruptive edits. Snokalok (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Both Deamonpen and Snokalok have gone right up to 3rr for something they have both previously been reverted on.

This version, from a couple days ago, is described as the status quo version. The lead of the current version is pretty close to that one. The changes to the body seem mostly unrelated to this current dispute. The version Deamonpen restored has an egregious formatting error that shows that it is not stable and was apparently restored reflexively without evaluation. I'll also note that this edit summary claiming that nobody else disputes this change is flatly wrong, as is the claim that everyone agreed about the sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Described as status quo by whom? Not, since we started the debate yesterday.

I don't see [people on the Talk page] saying that "we should remove the "conservative" description (with suitable refs)", as shown above. It is you and Snokalok trying to remove the "conservative" materials without talking it out. Deamonpen (talk) 02:44, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yesterday, you yourself didn't protest the "conservative" materials - or I cannot see it in the last exchange between you and me. You just protested me inserting the long quote in the first sentence of the lede:

"Cramming a quote without any context into a note in the very first sentence both makes the article look sloppy and bad and also seems like it's edging into disruptive behavior. The cited source is not challenging or disputing the 'far-right' label in any way, and they included the 'far-right' quote for a reason. Just because a source supports 'conservatism' doesn't mean it cannot also support 'far-right', 'right wing', 'alt-right' etc. The lead should be succinct. As a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so how they choose to describe their own magazine inherently has less weight than reliable sources." (Grayfell)

And I repeat, the "conservative" sources just flat out say that Evie is conservative in their own voices. They do not quote the Evie founder or other Evie people or anything.

These are the sources referring to Evie as conservative (so it is easier for others to follow):

Cambridge

NYTimes

The Guardian

If you care about the invisible note (that you at first tried to remove yesterday) so much, why did you not restore Bluethricecreamman's version? Not that the version you reverted to is anything perfect in syntax and everything either. Not with the unreliable tag PARAKANYAA added to the Rollingstone, which is used extensively by you guys to build the article.

Deamonpen (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment, I don't think I said I "agreed" with Deamonpen's position? I said I would favour 'far right' over 'alt right' because the term alt right is usually associated with atheistic far-right rather than conservative trad wife stuff that Evie does. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:19, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sorry, probably misinterpretation on my part. Just our last exchange went like this:

>>"Personally, I think that like many other things on the right nowadays, it is a mixture of different people and one often tends to put less constraint on what the other says, so the first NYT article is also right, that the general trend is conservative, but some authors/articles can be very fringe (and they will not apologize or be dismissed, unlike what often happens in mainstream journalism, especially left-leaning parts).

But the point is that I like the exact term to be sourced (if source says far-right, then it is far-right) and reliable sources to be treated as equal. You would not like "conservative women's magazine which are described by Source X and Y as far-right/alt-right" either, right?" (Deamonpen)

>>"That's probably true."(Zenomonoz)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Evie_Magazine

When you said that, I did understand that your approval also means you approved my thinking, that "far-right/alt-right women's magazine which is described as conservative" (in the lede) is unacceptable, because "conservative women's magazine which is described as far-right/alt-right" is unacceptable. I myself don't care about the far-right/alt-right part. I just want it to be reflect the sources. If some sources say conservative and some sources say far-right/alt-right, then we need a way to inform the readers of that fact, and not create a SYNTH. Deamonpen (talk) 08:46, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

regardless of Deamonpen's conduct (i haven't kept up since originally looking at this), this report is poorly formatted. its unlikely to go anywhere, and WP:ROPE is likely to be final outcome, til folks come back with more diffs. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 16:08, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Do you agree with the removal of "conservative" sources? User:Bluethricecreamman ---Deamonpen (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Declined Either make this a formal edit-warring complaint or go back to AN/I/. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Non admin comment) Wasn't this originally an edit warring complaint? Specifically WP:3RR? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It needs to be in a very specific format, with dated diffs showing clear reversions. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 04:06, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yeah, and the only one who reverted three times to the same content was the one who reported. I reverted twice and after Wikieditor662's comment (perhaps misinterpreted by me), I reverted to the version as it existed before our debate (Gurkubondinn/basically YOUR version). Generally it will not help if you guys continue with "we want it to be portrayed as far right as possible", but when confronted with the reality of your faulty logic (combining "altright/far right" with "conservative", just keep totally silent. ---Deamonpen (talk) 04:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've had the Evie Magazine article on my watchlist because I had been involved with LLM-cleanup and an WP:NPOVN dispute there a few months ago. An editor was using LLMs to attempt to force some "neutral" language into the article, wanting to avoid any mention of "alt-right" or "far-right":

• WP:NPOVN § NPOV dispute on Evie Magazine
• User talk:Gurkubondinn § AI collapse on Talk:Evie Magazine
• Talk:Evie Magazine § Proposed Lead Revision for Neutrality and Consistency and § Evie Magazine

The only edit that I made to this article recently was to fix some refs and footnotes that were incorrectly used, I did not make any material changes to the article.

it will not help if you guys continue with "we want it to be portrayed as far right as possible", but when confronted with the reality of your faulty logic (combining "altright/far right" with "conservative", just keep totally silent.

I am not saying that this is what you meant and I certainly don't want to accuse you or anyone else of anything, but I would resent any implication that I am one of the "you guys" referred to here.

And since I was pinged on WP:ANI § Deamonpen on Evie Magazine, I just wanted to have explitily stated that it's not something that I stand for. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 10:44, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No, I don't mean you. I was referring to people who kept pushing SYNTH versions, or presenting a best source but then suddenly disappeared when it turned out the best source meant the opposite of what they wanted, or deleting the "conservatives" refs without even trying to argue on the Talk pages, and then just kept silent. And I was not saying that you materially changed anything, thus I emphasized that was basically Bluethricecreamman's version. Thank you. Deamonpen (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Honestly, that's what I thought. Sat on this for a day before saying anything, but I just didn't want to accidentally get lumped in with bad faith editors so thank you for clarifying. Unfortunately I don't think this is the last time we'll see some bad faith interpretations of WP:NPOV on this article. --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 11:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Deamonpen If you mean me, when you suggest i "just kept silent", it should be noted that in this discussion, you contributed about 1700 words out of the total 2500 words, in the ANI thread you did about 560 out 900 words, and in this thread itself you have 875 out 1300 words. read WP:BLUDGEONing, but I am not required to respond to every repetitive argument when the situation seems very close to WP:1AM at this point. I haven't been involved in the Evie Magazine conflict in a few days because I sometimes wanna do something else, and you should consider the same.Consider WP:DROPTHESTICK. I've read some of your arguments but I have seen more noise than signal. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I maintain my opinion that SYNTH is clearly against Wikipedia's policy and you present no reason that can explain why this should be an exception at all. There is no reason to combine sources like that. And I do not think that I was the one who made the repetitive arguments. It seemed you wanted to appeal to others' sense of justice when you repeatedly said that, let's call Evie what it was, it was "both" etc (except of trying to explaining to me why your sentence was not SYNTH). I think you meant well. But you should consider the bigger picture, if we call things "as they are" based on the worst one can find on the media and show undue emphasis on one side (let alone, making SYNTH indiscriminately like that - calling something "liberal communist" will implicate the liberal side in a bad light, and I call on you to drop your stick, too). Even Joseph Stalin does not have "genocide perpetrator" in the first, second, or tenth sentence of his lede. And one can write a totally one-sided Wikipedia article on the heads of Harvard, MIT and Pennsylvania that focuses on the part, they tried to put calls for genocide in perspective. It doesn't mean one should.

But I do appreciate your effort to allow others to balance your contributions a bit in other cases. Deamonpen (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

read also WP:SATISFY, if you feel unsatisfied, deal with it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 15:29, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am trying to be constructive. I require nobody to satisfy me. I just hope people stop Wp:Gatekeeping. Deamonpen (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not disagreeing with you; I've just never understood: why are things like bludgeoning or dropping the stick often cited, aren't these just essays, meaning you aren't required to follow them? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

They are but they are examples of WP:Disruptive which isnt an essay.

The full range of disruption can never be fully specified but the most common archetypes may be documented in essays and interpreted by admins as necessary.

...

which is to say dont bludgeon even if its "just essays". User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 01:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Here comes the absolute fair standard. Never explained how what you wanted was not SYNTH, kept silent when pushed, acted perfectly A OK when another user reverted *your* version which existed between our debate and had been reinstated by others, but it was me who was disruptive and needed to drop the stick. Deamonpen (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not the one who filed the original request, but if it helps, I believe they're talking about the edits that happened on November 8th by Deamonpen and Snokalok on this page Evie Magazine: Revision history - Wikipedia. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Non-administrator comment) I think it might be time to close and archive this? --Gurkubondinn _(talk) 16:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I think it's long past that. Daniel Case (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Edward Yum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Agm77 (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 03:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC) to 03:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
   1. 03:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC) ""
   2. 03:59, 11 November 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 10:16, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Information update"
3. 08:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Information update"
4. Consecutive edits made from 07:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC) to 07:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
   1. 07:29, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Information update"
   2. 07:30, 10 November 2025 (UTC) ""
5. 05:53, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Information update"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Edward Yum."
2. 22:28, 10 November 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest on Edward Yum."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced and promotional material to this BLP, and removal of referenced content. User has added this information five times, including after final warning. Tacyarg (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Pages:

User being reported: Dash9Z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Not 3RR strictu sensu, but keeps edit warring to replace ⟨–⟩ with ⟨-⟩, in contrast with a guideline, despite being invited to discuss at Talk:Rama Duwaji. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Does the guideline you linked not explicitly use "Musk with then–president-elect Trump", inadvertently confirming that "X-elect/designate" is correct rather than "X–elect/designate"? Aesurias (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Nope. That example refers to a prefix/suffix attached to hyphened compound (then- + president-elect, not then-president + -elect). Non-hyphened constructions are prefixed/suffixed with an endash per the guideline. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, I see now. Makes sense! Aesurias (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

IvanScrooge98, you may well be right and someone may restore your edits, but you shouldn't now, please. Reporting instead of reverting again was the right decision. Let them have the latest revision at least for a few days instead of edit warring yourself. And if this continues, don't wait for three or more reverts to be made including yours; just let me know if Dash9Z continues. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Got it, thanks. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 10:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Parker Boudreaux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-33039-43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. under ~2025-32612-68
2. under ~2025-32612-68
3. under ~2025-32829-77
4. under ~2025-32829-77
5. under ~2025-32914-39
6. 14:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Professional wrestling career */This is not editing warring you loser!!!! Stop editing good work. You must have 0 life you loser"
7. 14:40, 12 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Professional wrestling career */Fixed"
8. [3] under Czelloisaloser, clearly a personal attack username violation

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4] [5] [6]

Comments: Across multiple temp accounts, clearly the same individual however. Has also engaged in personal attacks, as can be seen in their other edits. — Czello ^(music) 14:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

User has now resumed edit warring under Czelloisaloser, clearly a personal attack username violation directed at me. — Czello ^(music) 15:05, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've blocked the user Czelloisaloser and also semi-protected the Parker Boudreaux page - it seems clear that this individual is engaging in personal attacks and causing disruption on that page. However, I should point out that it looks like they are not the only one demonstrating sub-optimal conduct on that page. On your part, Czello, you've used the rollback tool to revert edits which are not at all clear vandalism (they appear to be sourced content) and meanwhile, HHH Pedrigree has broken the WP:3RR by reverting four times between 07:30, 11 November 2025 and 21:57, 11 November 2025, again reverting edits that aren't obvious and clear vandalism. Please try to avoid such actions going forward. — Amakuru (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's not that they were vandalism – I don't believe that anyone said they were – it's that the edits covered non-notable events (as was explained in edit summaries). As professional wrestling bios quickly become overburdened with non-notable content, particularly given that there are usually weekly updates, we only retain significant matches and events to avoid fan-wiki WP:CRUFT that wouldn't be acceptable for other fictional characters. — Czello ^(music) 15:30, 12 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Technically, the rollback tool wasn't used for the linked diff. Practically, Czello did arguably imply with their default Twinkle "rollback" edit summary that one of the cases listed at WP:ROLLBACKUSE, usually "obvious vandalism", applied. "Stop edit warring" is not a valid revert reason either. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: David Bean (judge) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-32890-06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:07, 13 November 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 09:54, 13 November 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 07:11, 13 November 2025 (UTC) ""
4. 07:31, 12 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Lord Justice of Appeal (2014–present) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 21:50, 12 November 2025 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on David Bean (judge)."
2. 08:21, 13 November 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on David Bean (judge)."
3. 10:13, 13 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on David Bean (judge)."
4. 10:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on David Bean (judge)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced material to this BLP. No response to messages on user's Talk page. Tacyarg (talk) 12:03, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC) "/* Microlabels */ Some wikis are reliable sources"
2. 14:10, 12 November 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:53, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 09:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Comments:

has been asked to bring it to talk page and been warned multiple times. Attempts to reinsert Orchidsexual and Pseudosexual using unreliable sources. In this case lgbtqia.wiki LakesideMiners ^{Come Talk To Me!} 15:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Assassin's Creed Shadows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2025-31254-81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/~2025-33351-75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (behavioral linking these 2 TAs as one; new TA appeared after 3RR warning)

• Cluster of TAs (related via geolocation) they've been primarily edit warring with: ~2025-31176-58, ~2025-31258-81, ~2025-31327-03, ~2025-33068-56, ~2025-33262-21, ~2025-33041-03, ~2025-32670-93 (might have missed some but that should be enough for anyone with TAIV to find the rest)
• DocuSudoku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - new-ish editor they've also been reverting & calling a sock

Previous version reverted to: 07:22, 31 October 2025

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:32, 13 November 2025 - I disagree and it doesn't look like Tooli Mars was for this version
2. 05:05, 13 November 2025 - You are edit warring by reverting against the status quo
3. 03:21, 13 November 2025 - seek consensus
4. 09:54, 12 November 2025 - Restore sourced information

Page protected from 5 November to 12 November

1. 04:32, 5 November 2025 - that's not my reason (mine is elevating nonsense right-wing fringe), but it still holds in that an obvious csection is csection even if the name is slightly changed. seek consensus
2. 23:09, 4 November 2025 - you were already given a reason
3. 22:04, 4 November 2025 - no consensus for this

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. ewsoft at 02:37, 5 November 2025
2. Uw-3rr at 05:18, 13 November 2025

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Talk:Assassin's Creed Shadows#Edit warring over sectioning

1. 09:50, 5 November 2025 - Toadspike started the discussion after I requested page protection
2. 21:23, 6 November 2025 - my comment

• Talk:Assassin's Creed Shadows#Actual sales figures

1. 03:33, 13 November 2025 - my explanation after I did a single revert
2. 20:48, 13 November 2025 - longer explanation after I was reverted by the TA

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

1. User talk:~2025-31254-81
2. User talk:~2025-33351-75

Comments:

Assassin's Creed Shadows (ACS) is on my watchlist & I requested page protection after noticing the edit war on 4/5 Nov between the two clusters of TAs. When protection expired today, the behavior restarted. After the two TAs did a round of reversions, I requested PPI again. The decline note suggested to bring it here should the edit war escalate.

I'm reporting this TA for WP:4RR at ACS. They've also been engaging in edit war behavior with this other cluster of TAs and a new editor across a few articles for the past month. I've listed that cluster & diffs at other articles for context beyond ACS. I've also limited my diffs to the TA's recent behavior, although anyone with TAIV can look at legacy edits. While they've lightly participated on the ACS talk page, they seem more focused on maintaining their preferred version of the article and saying "seek consensus" without really engaging in that process. Sariel Xilo (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Salt Lake City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2025-33516-42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 02:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1322046446 by Binksternet (talk) There are only two genders it is scientifically proven."
2. 02:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1322045679 by Binksternet (talk) Doesn't matter it is against the law."
3. 02:35, 14 November 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1322043691 by Binksternet (talk)"
4. 02:11, 14 November 2025 (UTC) "Utah passed a law that bans pride flags on government buildings. The rainbow is a symbol of God's promise not to flood the Earth again. Not homosexuality."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 02:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC) on User talk:~2025-33516-42 "Warning: Edit warring on Salt Lake City."

Comments:

• I think we are looking at block evasion. The blocked TAs Special:Contributions/~2025-32920-31 and Special:Contributions/~2025-32635-03 were doing the same thing at the same articles, with strikingly similar edit summaries. Binksternet (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• Blocked indefinitely Sure looks like block evasion to me.Ponyo ^{bons mots} 18:04, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 09:52, 13 August 2025

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 03:20, 16 August 2025
2. 09:36, 23 October 2025
3. 17:55, 14 November 2025
4. 20:36, 14 November 2025
5. 20:46, 14 November 2025

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 20:40, 14 November 2025

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 20:56, 14 November 2025

Comments:

Slow edit war that has turned into a fast edit war. User is pushing a disputed POV using unreliable sources such as random blogs and Reddit posts. Subject falls within WP:CT/GG topic area. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello everyone, thank you for reviewing.

I want to clarify that I am willing to stop making changes. I have no interest in any editing battles.

I also have no intention of promoting any controversial viewpoints. If anyone has any questions about my revisions, I am happy to continue the discussion on the article's discussion page and reach a consensus there.

My initial intention has always been to improve the article, not to provoke controversy.

I apologize for any potential violations; please feel free to point them out.

Thank you. Uinsnskzkkjshjs (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Page: Española, New Mexico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KennethR11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12]

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

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

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 23:09, 14 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• Wikipedia noticeboards
• Wikipedia edit warring

• Noindexed pages
• Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
• Wikipedia move-protected project pages
• Pages archived using a key