Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

Update this page

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

---

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

User:~2026-30907-45 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Underlying IP blocked one week)

Page: Ikka (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-30907-45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ netflix.com is not present in the list of reliable sources. It comes across as promotional"
2. 18:49, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ please refer to WP:ICTF for list of reliable sources for articles on films. Please add info only if it can be backed by a reliable source"
3. 12:14, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ unexplained change"
4. 12:00, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ unexplained removal"
5. 11:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ terms like "smashing success" are not suitable for an encyclopedic article. It doesn't appear neutral but promotional. Moreover all the sources are unreliable and irrelevant. Please refer to WP: ICTF for list of reliable sources"
6. 11:51, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ unexplained removal"
7. Consecutive edits made from 11:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC) to 11:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 11:45, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ unexplained removal"
   2. 11:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ added source"
8. Consecutive edits made from 08:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC) to 08:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 08:42, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ direct sources are not allowed"
   2. 08:44, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ unnecessary sources"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:06, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ikka (film)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of one week The underlying IP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:Parkridge87 reported by User:Aesurias (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: 2027 Chicago mayoral election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Parkridge87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "This is an endorsement under WP:ENDORSE. The aldermen all confirmed their endorsement by statements to the media and their own social media. WP:ENDORSE only says you cant only use an endorser social media post, but you can use a social media post to bolster a news story. If an endorser is reported to attend a rally in support of a candidate and later posts he endorses that candidate, that is an unambiguous endorsement."
2. 07:19, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "STOP VANDALIZNG! All these endorsements are extremely well cited and supported credible media and social media statements of the endorsers. For example, Ald Susana Tabares was at Susana Mendoza's campaign kickoff rally and spoke and said that she is endorsing Mendoza. She also later stated on her social media accounts that she is endorsing Susana Mendoza. 1368472222 by Aesurias (talk)"
3. 05:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "ABC 7 Chicago stated that the 5 Chicago aldermen showed up to "back him." ABC 7 Chicago also interviewed Ald. Emma Mitts at the rally, and she explains why she supports Alexi Giannoulias. Ald Brian Hopkins, who was reported widely by the media as attending the rally, also posted on Instagram that he is supporting Alexi Giannoulias."
4. 04:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Susana Mendoza was very clearly endorsed by Ald Ray Lopez and Ald Susana Mendoza. I am adding this again with 11 credible sources cited. WP:ENDORSE compliant."
5. 02:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Add Alexi Giannoulias endorsements with citations; limited to endorsements/backing supported by reliable sources and formatted in accordance with WP:ENDORSE."
6. 14:01, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "Derrick Curtis endorsement with citation"
7. 05:46, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */ added endorsement from Derrick Curtis"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Derrick Curtis */ new section"
2. 07:49, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "General note: Not assuming good faith."
3. 07:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2027 Chicago mayoral election."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 07:48, 9 August 2026 (UTC) on User talk:Aesurias "/* Silvana Tabares endorsement of Susana Mendoza */ Reply"
2. 08:03, 9 August 2026 (UTC) on Talk:2027 Chicago mayoral election "/* Silvana Tabares endorsement of Susana Mendoza */ Reply"

Comments:

Editor is using AI to source and communicate (see usage of backticks at User talk:Aesurias#Silvana Tabares endorsement of Susana Mendoza and Talk:2027 Chicago mayoral election#Silvana Tabares endorsement of Susana Mendoza). Edit warring to include information that is improperly sourced per WP:ENDORSE. They insist they have read the aforementioned guideline but continue to very clearly violate it, so it's probably a chatbot talking. Despite me leaving a lengthy explanation to them on my talk page, they continue to re-add improperly sourced content. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:55, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Quick explanation for anybody who does not edit American politics (a contentious topic!): WP:ENDORSE is a strict guideline regarding the listing of political endorsements. Endorsements must be, among other things, cited to a reliable, independent source, and specifically articulated as "endorsements". At a local level, editors can determine exceptions to the latter rule after a talk page discussion gets consensus.

Parkridge claims to understand all of this but they (or ChatGPT etc.) continue to make edits that indicate otherwise. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I have been closely following the mayor election and I have not been using AI. For example, I actually watched online Susana Mendoza's campaign kickoff and Silvana Tabares spoke at that event and endorsed Mendoza. And the media reported it as such. It is unambiguous that the aldermen endorsed the candidates through media reports and their social media statements. Parkridge87 (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not a chatbot, I am a real person. Aesurias is deleting heavily sourced endorsements for no valid reason, and instead is insulting me. The endorsements were reported in the media and verified by the endorsers social media posts. I 100% followed wilkipedia guidelines. Parkridge87 (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Also, the Chicago Tribune, the most credible news source for the Chicago mayor race, explictly states that Ald. Ray Lopez and Ald. Susana Mendoza endorsed Susana Mendoza. Aesurias deleted these endorsements and now is trying to ban me. Aesurias should allow the endorsements and stop deleting them. Parkridge87 (talk) 08:18, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Parkridge, you never used this source prior to sending it on the talk page 4 minutes ago. Do you not see the issue with the timeline here? aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I am not a chatbot, I am a real person living in Chicago. I am a casual wikipedia editor. I know all these people personally (I am not working on a campaign, nor do I have conflicts). What I put into the wikipedia page is 100% accurate. I follow the news. I understand that some of the endorsements were not as strong as others in terms of citing, but I believe attending a campaign rally and stating an endorsement on social media, taken together, follow WP:ENDORSE guidelines. If you asked any journalist in Chicago about the endorsements I listed, they would agree that the listed endorsements were accurate. Parkridge87 (talk) 08:29, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Here is the Chicago Tribune article with Alderman Ray Lopez and Alderman Silvana Tabares endorsing Susana Mendoza: Aesurias "Mendoza, endorsed Wednesday by Alds. Raymond Lopez, 15th, and Silvana Tabares, 23rd, also promised to lead an effort to amend the state’s controversial SAFE-T Act that ended cash bail so that people accused of murder, attempted murder and predatory sexual assault cannot be released on electronic monitoring." www.chicagotribune.com/2026/06/03/susana-mendoza-chicago-mayor/ Parkridge87 (talk) 08:21, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Parkridge87, these backticks at the end of your message ... are they an attempt to place four tildes to sign the message or what is it? Regarding insults, when you accuse others of vandalism (malice, intentional damage) in capital letters, you're in a bad position to complain. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is very unfair. The other editor eventually restored the endorsements. The sources were extremely clear about endorsements and the other editor kept deleting them. The editor was saying that I was using AI and not following the rules on endorsements, but was misreading the rules. There is no prohibition on using social media sources, there is just a prohibition on using social media as the only source. If the media reports that a candidate attends a campaign rally in support of a candidate and the endorser later posts that they endorse the candidate, there is no ambiguity on the endorsement. Not every media source will say "endorse." For example, the Chicago Tribune used the term "endorse" and the local PBS station used similar terms, but they reported on the same event. By deleting those well sourced endorsements, the other editor was deleting facts from a wiki page and misleading the public Parkridge87 (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Parkridge87, is there a chance to obtain an answer to "Where do these backticks come from"? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know exactly. I am a very casual wikipedia editor, I just stick to Chicago government and politics. And I am not too experienced. Were there "`" in the article or my writing? They could have been there in the article from other editors. I didn't originally add the Susana Mendoza endorsements, another editor did. Parkridge87 (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Also, the more experienced editor should have brought the issue to the talk page before trying to block me. I actually brought the issue to the talk page, not the other editor. This is very unfair. The other editor insulted me, was factually wrong, and did not attempt to resolve the disagreement via the talk page. Parkridge87 (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

  Parkridge87, the two messages the backticks appeared in are linked above in the first comment's first sentence. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-43870-64 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Underlying IP blocked 24 hours)

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

User being reported: ~2026-43870-64 (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 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC) to 16:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 15:57, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:00, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 16:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Channels */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 15:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC) to 15:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 15:47, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:54, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "/* Channels */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC) to 15:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 15:38, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:42, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""
   3. 15:45, 9 August 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 15:51, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on Top News."
2. 16:01, 9 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on DigitAlb."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent unsourced content and vandalism. Also note: ~2026-43455-05 — previously used by ~2026-43870-64, blocked for 31 hours due to disruptive editing on 7 August 2026. See , and for similar editing pattern. AriuCH (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

I was redirected here per their talk page notice. Found an indefinitely blocked TA. As of now, a similar new TA has literally done the same kinda edits.‎ — B.J (talk) 08:15, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The underlying IP. Daniel Case (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Hm. The easiest way to block a temporary account's underlying IP(s) is to block the temporary account for 24 hours. The autoblock conveniently has the same duration. There's no reason to spare the account and to make the excuse "I didn't notice I was blocked" in case of an IP change credible.

That said, as there seems to be sockpuppetry involved, I have just blocked the account indefinitely and we'll see if there's an appeal or further block evasion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2026 (UTC)

Disruptive edit warring by user User:Itsekiriwriting. User:Itsekiriwriting reported by User:Oramfe

1. Page: Timeline of Yoruba history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
2. User being reported: Itsekiriwriting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Reversion Diffs in user's edits: First edit and removal

• 1 — First revert

• 2 — Second revert

• 3 — Third revert

• 4 — Fourth revert

Diffs of WP:3RR and edit warring I notified them about on their user talk page are Here and Here

Comment:
This user Itsekiriwriting look shighly committed to / bent on a protracted edit war. They are fervently reverting edits to what they want it to look like (their preferred version), even after I had previously informed them on their user talk about the edit warring policy, WP:3RR and the three-revert rule. After I had dropped two different warnings on their Notifications/Talk page, I had to wait to make sure they were aware and they would stop the continued behavior before making this report. They also seemed to have formed a consistent pattern, as this is not their first or even second time engaging in this kind of habit within the past few weeks or so. Two other different but related topics (Yorubaland and Yoruba people) have had to be protected because of them and their similar editing actions of recent, but their disruptive persistence and disregard for Wikipedia policy and concensus building is not abating, and doesn't look like it will. This is very worrying, and needs to be looked into. Oramfe (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

I removed a map that presented the Itsekiri as a Yoruba subgroup as though this were an established fact, despite the classification being widely disputed in the scholarship. I stated that concern in my edit summary. Rather than addressing it, the map was restored and I was simply directed to the talk page.

I don’t have an objection to discussing issues on the talk page but directing me there does not substantiate the challenged material or give the disputed version an automatic right to remain in the article in the meantime. Under WP:BURDEN, the burden lies with the editor who adds or restores challenged material. If an editor wants to restore a map presenting the Itsekiri as a Yoruba subgroup as fact, they should be able to substantiate that presentation and address the sourcing and NPOV concern, rather than restoring it first and requiring other editors to obtain their agreement before it can be removed. Itsekiriwriting (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Thr map has since been referenced and can be checked by any editor. Not sure why you are invoking WP:BURDEN. Anyways, that is not what is being discussed here. Oramfe (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected EvergreenFir (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Zafermeymen reported by User:GhostOfMuir (Result: Partially blocked 1 week)

Page: Enes Kanter Freedom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zafermeymen (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 been engaging in repeated reverts over the course of several months against multiple editors. He has also threatened to report multiple wikipedia editors for changing his edits: , , . Just seems like a single purpose account attempting to insert what feels like PR fluff (edits include describing Freedom as having "become a prominent voice for the oppressed" in the lede and promoting his charity work that is only referenced in Freedom's personal X.com account:

• Partially blocked – for a period of 1 week EvergreenFir (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2026 (UTC)