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:Hippo43 reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: Rod Liddle (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:

1. 22:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "doesn't appear to be an allegation of racism"
2. 20:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "these aren't sourced as controversies."
3. 16:32, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "rv. unsourced controversies. if this is to be a section on his "Writings" instead, it would need serious expansion"
4. 16:11, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "controversy not sourced. Ash Sarkar posted a tweet that could be presumed to be criticism. that's all that these sources say"
5. Consecutive edits made from 12:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC) to 13:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
   1. 12:36, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "no reference to controversy on this"
   2. 12:42, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "no allegation of racism sourced"
   3. 13:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "Not sourced as controversy. Other than some tweets mentioned as critical"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 19:55, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "/* August 2026 */ Liddle"
2. 21:02, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "/* August 2026 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 19:52, 5 August 2026 (UTC) "/* If the material isn't being portrayed as controversies, then stop deleting it on specious grounds */ new section"

Comments: Fair enough. The article seemed to be attracting lots of claims of controversial or unpopular writing, because Liddle was pretty divisive, rather than because this was reflected in sources. So I tried to keep it out of a section about "Controversies" if there wasn't good sourcing for it actually being a controversy. I'll stop. // Hippo43 (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

You were meant to stop after being informed about already having breached 3RR. No participation in the talk-page either. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a talk page discussion open. My bad. // Hippo43 (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

That is not a satisfactory response.

When you reverted at 22:52, Nomoskedasticity had already warned you for edit-warring (at 21:02). Further, Launchballer had previously reverted you (at 20:46) saying in the edit summary: Revert edit warring. Aside from the fact that WP:CSECTIONs are forbidden, this material has been restored by multiple editors. We can do this at the talk page or we can do this at a noticeboard. Your call.

Two points thus arise.

Firstly, any reasonable editor in these circumstances would have checked the talk page before reverting again (where the discussion, started at 19:52, would have been visible). So if you really didn't check, that can only be because you were being wilfully blind to any such discussion.

Secondly and more fundamentally, even if there had been no talk page discussion, you should have started one (rather than continue to edit-war). Your response implies that you consider it acceptable to edit-war provided that no-one has started a talk page discussion complaining about it. That is, I'm afraid, completely misconceived. ~2026-43430-09 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

I guess I can save the warning and close this as "Warned" already. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:14, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment: I have also observed this editors's use of edit-warring, and refusal to engage in discussion, to attempt to force through their preferred text, . To be clear, I ended up behaving as badly, so the episode reflects no credit on me either, but it may indicate something of a pattern. KJP1 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

• Warned ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  ToBeFree - Just wanted to be sure you had reviewed the previous block history for edit-warring before you decided a Warning was the appropriate response, . KJP1 (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

  Oh no, I hadn't seen that. I'd have noticed if I had considered blocking, as I do check the block log then. Thank you very much.

  Hippo43, if you weren't on the side removing disputed content from a biography of a recently deceased person, with WP:ONUS, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:3RRNO#7 possibly strengthening your position, you'd be writing an unblock request instead of article content at the moment. I assume you have read the warning above and accept it as possibly final. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2026 (UTC)

@Hippo43 above, you said you'd stop, but you were edit warring on the same article a few hours ago! aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 08:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I edited that article, yes, but rather than continue and break 3RR etc, I posted on Rocksymusic's talk page asking them to self-revert. // Hippo43 (talk) 09:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42770-84 reported by User:IntentionallyDense (Result: No action needed)

Page: Baggio–Yoshinari syndrome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ~2026-42770-84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Permalink/1367738330 August 4th

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. August 5
2. August 5
3. August 5
4. August 5
5. August 5
6. August 5

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Permalink/1367940265

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Special:Permalink/1368189387

Comments:
Last revert was done after I warned user, although the edits they kept reverting did end up being sockpuppets, the user did not know this at the time and continued to revert. Not sure if the warrants any action but considering the sheer number of reverts made I thought I would bring it to admins attention. There are other reverts to but I just linked the big ones. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

It may not technically fulfill strict definitions of "knowledge": I can claim to "know" tomorrow's lottery results, but even if I guessed them correctly, I wouldn't have known them.

But the reverts' edit summaries refer to sockpuppetry, and sockpuppetry was actually what happened. Not block evasion, but sockpuppetry in exactly the described way.

I don't think any action is needed at this time. It was an edit war, yes. The report is not wrong. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

• No action needed ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's pretty outrageous to be reported in this way. I did know at the time that the users were sockpuppets of each other. It was completely obvious. If you looked at the situation and decided that the two brand-new accounts both editing the same article and no other were completely unconnected, then you could have posted on the article talk page, or my talk page, or the medicine wikiproject page where I had asked for assistance, to say that you disagreed with my assessment. Instead, you decided to try to get me blocked. Why? ~2026-42770-84 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I did comment on your talk page about the situation and you reverted it. I didn't try to get you blocked, I said in my report that I wasn't sure if your actions warranted any action or not. In the future, it can help to respond to others concerns instead of ignoring them. When you don't acknowledge others concerns it is really hard to tell if you understand that your actions were wrong or not. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 12:41, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-43539-09 reported by User:Jackjd0 (Result: IP blocked six months)

Page: U.S. Route 21 in South Carolina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-43539-09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:53, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368192685 by ~2026-43031-00 (talk) is this your alt?, also it’s true, look at edit history and talk page of sc 21 article"
2. 15:50, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368192363 by Imzadi1979 (talk), just make a discussion in talk page of the sc article"
3. 15:48, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368191926 by Imzadi1979 (talk), the about section was shortened, so people can go to main article to see more detail of route. Also the expansion note was added, to make the description more detailed. Even other editors and admins were fine with."
4. 15:38, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368190278 by Imzadi1979 (talk), even the WP:other stuff says having this article is fine, also the previous admin Enćenćecasïdća, and people from help in the talk page were fine of this being a article. Also added more fixes."
5. 14:47, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368183274 by Imzadi1979 (talk) the wikipedia:SIZE does not match what it’s said, also US Routes 3,4,5, 7, 9, 97, 99, 101, 150, 180, 250, 431 existed only in three states, but have article per state, basically three own articles for three states."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 17:59, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

im not involved with this and dont have the time rn to review it 100% and send in everyone involved- but there is an edit war going on here and wanted to make yall aware. possible sockpuppetry as well. Jackjd0 (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of six months The underlying IP. Daniel Case (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-32893-67 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Shania Twain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-32893-67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:29, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */"
2. 07:21, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ stop changing this!"
3. 22:04, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ do not edit this is a fact"
4. 21:31, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */ I added relevant information"
5. 17:25, 6 August 2026 (UTC) "/* */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 22:58, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
2. 07:28, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Shania Twain."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Continuous edit warring soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:38, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:TheDonEmilioBarzini (Result: Page protected)

Page: List of Jackie Chan Adventures characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: ~2026-43551-64

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 06:10, 8 August 2026 ~2026-43551-64 Undid revision 1368223613 by TheDonEmilioBarzini
2. 14:41, 7 August 2026 ~2026-43407-23 Undid revision 1368065578 by TheDonEmilioBarzini
3. 15:25, 6 August 2026 ~2026-43359-58 Undid revision 1367438177 by TheDonEmilioBarzini
4. 17:11, 9 June 2026 ~2026-34042-14 Undid revision 1357875908 by TheDonEmilioBarzini

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List of Jackie Chan Adventures characters

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

Comments:
The reported editor has repeatedly reverted my edits concerning the description of Jade Chan's relationship to Jackie Chan, despite an extensive discussion of the issue on the article's talk page.

The dispute has been discussed at length rather than being a simple disagreement over an isolated edit. I have explained my reasoning on the talk page and have proposed wording based on the relationships explicitly established in the series. In particular, the article's sources establish that Shen is Jackie's cousin and that Jade is Shen's daughter, while other family terminology in the series is acknowledged to be ambiguous. The discussion also addresses the competing proposal to describe Jade as a "fictive niece."

The reported editor has nevertheless continued to revert my edits rather than allowing the matter to be resolved through discussion. The latest reversion restored his preferred wording after I had made a further edit to the article. The edit history therefore shows a continuing pattern of reverting disputed material rather than allowing the article to remain stable while consensus is sought.

The dispute has also previously been taken to the third-opinion process (WP:3O). A third opinion was requested regarding the disputed wording, but this did not resolve the disagreement, and the underlying dispute subsequently continued on the article's talk page. I therefore consider the repeated reversions particularly concerning given that an attempt had already been made to resolve the matter through the appropriate dispute-resolution process.

I am not seeking to continue the edit war. I will not revert the latest reversion. I am bringing the matter here because the repeated reversions have continued despite the existing Talk-page discussion and the prior attempt to obtain a third opinion, and I would like an administrator to assess the conduct and, if appropriate, intervene to prevent further edit warring.

I am reporting the conduct as edit warring rather than asserting a 3RR violation unless the edit history establishes that the four-revert threshold was actually met within the relevant 24-hour period. --TheDonEmilioBarzini (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

TheDonEmilioBarzini, please let your AI know that while reporting an edit war instead of continuing was good advice, copying the appeal text from the AI was a bad idea and if the walls of text in the talk page discussion are also from AI, please stop. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-43488-48 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Page protected)

Page: Draft:List of Specialized Subjects for Senior High School in the Philippines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-43488-48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 09:49, 8 August 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Draft:List of Specialized Subjects for Senior High School in the Philippines nominated for MFD. Multiple IPs such as ~2026-43247-66, ~2026-43506-79, and ~2026-43488-48 are engaged in edit warring, repeatedly removing the MFD tag. See , , and . AriuCH (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hi ToBeFree, Thanks for handling this. AriuCH (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-42284-85 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: partial block 1 week)

Page: Evolutionary mismatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: ~2026-42284-85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:19, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "Added another source to fix the edit war, Restored old revision"
2. 14:10, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368339565 by MrOllie (talk) repeated vandalism, you are engaging in an edit war with another user"
3. 09:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC) ""
4. 08:56, 7 August 2026 (UTC) "Undid revision 1368068259 by MrOllie (talk) weird. how do you think that there is no such term like an Adaptive lag? and how are you supposed to even refer to non-social structure?"
5. 15:37, 6 August 2026 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:42, 8 August 2026 (UTC) "/* July 2026 */ Reply"

Comments:

Also adding diffs from ~2026-43392-20 (talk · contribs), clearly the same person. MrOllie (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

• Partially blocked for a week. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  What did I even do? I tried to add a reliable source to fix the edit war and it again resulted in that same section being removed. ~2026-42284-85 (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

  Now that I look into this more, I believe this is the same person as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1228#User:~2026-32705-16, and they are evading the block handed out there. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The underlying IP doesn't geolocate to the same place as these 2 TAs. PhilKnight (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the IPs because I was in a content dispute, but the related TA account lists have entries in common. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

The user was later blocked as "~2026-43392-20", so I have now extended that block to the other account. Whether there was block evasion by the reported user before, I haven't verified. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

User:~2026-30907-45 reported by User:AriuCH (Result: Underlying IP nlocked 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: )

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)