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. 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:FellowMellow reported by User:Fm3dici97 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)

Page: Patriots for Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FellowMellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [8]

Comments:
The user constantly reverted modifications to the page, even those meant to reach a compromise, proposed irrational arguments in the attempted discussion in the talk page not rally meant to reach any meaningful agreement with the other users, and vandalized the main table in the page by adding a column which is absent in all the equivalent pages for European Parliament groups and was only functional to supporting their changes. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

please explain to me why MZH2020, Braganza, and IIiVaiNiII were not reported, when they engaged in similar activity. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Because you're the only one who's willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs, the electoral commission, to push his own changes and that refuses any attempt of compromise (like Braganza's idea to list Turek as independent). Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That is false information. I am not willingly ignoring the information provided by the highest autority over electoral affairs. I have persistently encouraged talk page use (and you can see in the edit history) and if most agree with Braganza’s option, I will not revert it. However at the time of revert, there was no consensus. @Fm3dici97 is not being truthful and is not interested in reporting the other violations.

If I wasn’t interested and was really willingly ignoring information, then I wouldn’t be engaged in the talk page, yet I am. The accusation is baseless. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"he is not at an independent." Braganza (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

[9] check this edit @Braganza. It was restored after consensus was agreed on your idea. FellowMellow (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It was not "restored after consensus was agreed" since there's been barely any discussion about that yet. It was an attempt at reaching a compromise that was immiediately reverted by you (and when I say immediately I mean in less than 5 minutes), and that you restored only after this discussion had been started and that your behaviour towards the talk page and towards the aforementioned compromise attempt had been highlighted. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it was. You are not being truthful once again. It was restored after most users agreed with @Braganza‘s idea of using independent. You are saying that I wish all choices that are made by me to stay as is. It’s not true. If I really wanted that, I wouldn’t be on the talk page.

Also you aren’t being truthful here either. "You restored only after this discussion had been started and that your behaviour towards the talk page and towards the aforementioned compromise attempt had been highlighted." That is false. After looking at the talk page, most user’s disagreed on how the edit on the table was placed. That is why @Braganza choice was restored on the page after it was reverted. That is called consensus. So you pay attention to your own behavior, as you are willingly allowing other user violations to slide. It was not restored after this discussion started. That is not why it was restored. You are lying on purpose. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also @Fm3dici97 is mistaken. He uses the word "irrational", however this is quite false. Instead of refusing to talk on the talk page, I have consistently spoken on the talk page and have gathered users to find compromise and consensus. The user is not being sincere and using words that are illegitimate such as "vandalized"

@Fm3dici97 has barely engaged in the talk page and jumped into conclusions, without any effort to even talk and provide input. My edits were not intended for vandalism purposes and he for some reason hasn’t reported the others users, also engaged in reverts. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I use the word irrational because engaging in multiple edits to add information in open contradiction with an official source and trying to justify those with sources whose vaildity is lower than that of an electoal body is, to me at least, an irrational behaviour. And the reason why I engaged with only a single message in the discussion in the talk page is because to me the focus to the discussion should be entirely different. If, between members A and B of a two-members electoral coalition, the electoral commission links the candidate with A, there's no discussion that has to be held about whether he's instead linked to B. However, as I specified in the talk page, there is the ground for a disucussion about how strong the ties of the candidate to A are, and if he should instead be considered as an indepedent candidate endorsed by A. Fm3dici97 (talk) 21:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Well I guess I can say I find it irrational behavior to accuse someone of things that aren’t true. I suppose I can make a similar report.

Also the example you bring up. It was reverted because consensus and compromise were not reached. After most users agreed with @Braganza‘s idea, I restored it, as most users liked that idea. That effectively contradicts your false claim, that I am editing without engaging with others users. Yet I am one of the most active on the talk page. I have engaged in similar discussions with the ideology and with the political position.

That’s how it works. If most agree with one over the other, then that’s what it will be. You are not being truthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's put things straight: you reverted Braganza's compromise attempt at 21:09 [10], and you reverted it back at 21:45 [11] because you claim "consensus had been reached in the meantime". During that time window, no comment has been added to the talk page regarding the "indepedent" status, so either your initial revert was unjstified and the consensus was already there, or the reason behind the second revert is made up. Furthermore, all the reverts linked in this edit warring date back to AFTER the discussion in the talk page had started: if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you woudln't have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing. Fm3dici97 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Actually the discussion is still ongoing. Your refusal to engage in the talk page and provide input of your own raises concerns. When I had reverted it (as you described), consensus was not reached (at least not when I saw it). When I went back to check about any further discussion, to me it seemed there was consensus (not by everyone, but by most users engaged in the discussion). That is why I restored @Braganza‘s edit. Neither one of your allegations are true (in terms of the reverts).

Also yet again, you are not being truthful here ("if you were really interested in that discussion as a mean to reach a compromise, you wouldn’t have kept reverting any change that disagreed with your version even while the discussion was still ongoing.") If I wasn’t interested in having a discussion and finding compromise, I would have repeatedly refuse to engage in the talk page. You would be correct in that instance and I would be wrong. However, that is not the case. My discussion that I have on the talk page (and still is ongoing) strongly, contradicts your allegations.

Also, I personally do not think it’s fair for me to have all of my preferred options in the article. I am perfectly aware of that, that will not always be the case. That is the reason why there is a talk page, which I have persistently engaged in. You, on the other hand, have barely engaged in it, which makes your allegations even more illegitimate. If most users agree with what I propose, then it should be on the article, if majority say no, then it shouldn’t be. Most users did not agree with the table I had proposed to resolve the dispute between two users. After most users said they were against the table, it has not been re-added ever since. Your arguments are untruthful. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Also I would like to add, that the table that I proposed on the article has been reverted. As

most users do not agree with that table (based on the talk page), the table will not be used (since most users agree not to have it). @Fm3dici97 is not telling the truth that I am only seeking my own edits and don’t care about other user’s edits. - FellowMellow (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 36 hours The extra 12 are for the fifth revert in that time. The material reverted does not have to be the same as all the other reverts. I will be putting a CTOPS notice on the talk page because it seems like this can come under ARBEE; everyone should be mindful of that next time (if you let there be one), especially in situations like this where discussion that really should have taken place on the article talk page or, better yet, some DR forum, took place here (Not that it seems likely to suddenly become productive, I agree—you need to get cooler heads in this, since you're not arguing about the article so much as you're arguing about the argument). Daniel Case (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

User:L.S. WikiCleaner reported by User:Michalis1994 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Niki (Greek political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: L.S. WikiCleaner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [32]
2. [33]
3. [34]
4. [35]
5. [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: Removed by user [[38]] Michalis1994 (talk) 15:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The user Michalis is much more experienced than me on these pages(strange thing for a 15-days account) but i will try to say my truth and hopefully someone will read it.

I said many times to Michalis, I have no intention of accusing him to any adminstrator. My goal was to find a solution through the Talk page and that's what I did.Instead he is going on Adminstrators Talk Pages and begs them(?) to punish me.I made it clear that i didnt want him to get punished or something and i still dont.

He created an IP address to revert for 4th time so he would not break any edit rules (something that shows how experienced he is).He as Michalis already undo 3 times.

He was warned by an Adminstrator because he claimed I was vandalizing.Instead of apologizing in my Talk page as requested by the administrator, he left a message on my page calling me a vandal again.

Also there are quite a few complaints about the way he editting articles.And some warnings to be more constructive on Talk Pages.

Im not even going not to talk about the topic of our confrontation(if im not asked to), which has already been discussed on RFC and all the editors agreed with what I say (that the article is neutral), however, Michalis continues and changes it in his own way. L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I will not respond further to this issue, as my provided explanations and diffs are clear. The reported user shows no intention of finding middle ground. By the time the IP address appeared, L.S. had already reverted the article for the fourth time. I could have reported them then, but I chose not to. Now, after the fifth revert, they have returned to accuse me of actions I neither understand nor can rationalise. They have reverted the article five times and accused me of using an IP address without any evidence. Oh, and it's worth noting that the so-called "complaints" they refer to resulted in another user, who reported me, being blocked. Please see the section and judge for yourselves. Michalis1994 (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Let me kindly add here that how even up to this moment as we speak im still waiting for his answer on the Talk Page:)

He obviously doesn't want to talk he just want me to get punished in order to...leave him alone editing(?) L.S. WikiCleaner (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Anyone can see in this section

that the user is attempting to mislead others by claiming (with a smiley face) that I have not responded to their questions. However, I asked three times for them to provide diffs and specific sections they disagreed with after they reverted a 3,000-character edit that is fully backed and cited with reliable sources. I rest my case; this is simply meaningless and sad.

Michalis1994 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Ncnub reported by User:Czello (Result: No violation)

Page: Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1233536265 by Maurnxiao (talk) See comment on talk page, petered out discussion has offered personal opinions but zero reliable sources to justify change (because there are none) and has petered out with the consensus appearing against change."
2. 15:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1233503804 by Maurnxiao (talk) discussion shows that there is no consensus for obviously ideologically motivated proposal by corbynite editors that goes against the unanimous consensus of reliable sources including recent ones (see the two recent sources that have been added to replace the old ones)"
3. 14:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) "no consensus to sustain request by ideologically motivated editors to change position widely supported by all reliable sources, use updated sources"
4. 16:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1233540415 by Czello (talk) conenus reached to end discussion, talk page comment to explain why this discussion is so uniquely ideologically motivated with no substantive arguments or reliable sources to support change."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Labour Party (UK)."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There are only three reverts, as diff #3 above is the edit reverted to and not a revert itself. And it does seem like consensus at the talk page was in favor of deferring this discussion to January. Daniel Case (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I added a CTOPS notice to the talk page per WP:CT/CID. Daniel Case (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:WikiValidator01 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)

Page: Nury Turkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: WikiValidator01 (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 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) to 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Fixed MOS:MR. Removed misinformed reference: please edit and use exact wording from the reference without adding your opinion instead of reverting/undoing. Please try to edit with a neutral pov WP:NPOV .You are deleting a lot of other content."
   2. 18:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Career */ Added his success to his writing and references."
   3. 20:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Removed reference with a broken link."
   4. 20:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Career */ Updated with some reference links"
2. 08:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "This updated content offers a clearer and more accurate picture, thanks to a meticulous review of all sources and references. We've eliminated any ambiguity and misleading and biased information that might have existed before. Contributing to Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and all edits should be well-supported by reliable sources. Unintentional confusion can be avoided by ensuring proper citations. Intentionally misleading edits or unsubstantiated claims are a serious matter."
3. 21:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC) "Yes, the content I have updated is referenced from the source, and I'm just updating content based on the content you have copied here. But now you are truly vandalizing the content by pushing your POV WP:POVPUSH and trying to create defamation WP:LIBEL. Please respect Wikipedia's rules when you revert/update others' edits. Thanks."
4. 18:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) "The content is from original reference, stop removing and vandalizing)"
5. 18:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
6. 17:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) "previous edit creates confusion."
7. 07:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC) "Removed unconfirmed information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 13:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Nury Turkel."
2. 21:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 13:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* Untitled section */you need to build consensus"
2. 18:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Notability */Reply"

Comments:

SPA whose entire edit history is 7 consecutive reverts to remove well-referenced content at Nury Turkel, despite 7 warnings from 3 editors (incl. AgisdeSparte and Wiiformii). — MarkH₂₁^talk 01:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Commenting as a fellow editor, this does look like edit warring behavior. I will note, though, that WP:BLPRESTORE may be relevant for this sort of thing. RFA (WP:GREL) is reporting about the resignation following a NOTUS report, so it's at least verifiable that the resignation was made after the allegation was made public. I haven't heard of NOTUS before, though the reliability of that group doesn't seem to be the most relevant part here. What respondent seems to be objecting to is that the allegation has not been substantiated, and it thus should be removed, which is something that might draw from the principle underlying WP:BLPCRIME. But that sort of reporting might be enough to overcome the presumption of "keep-the-alleged-crime-off-the-page", so it could go either way on the substance.

In any case, this should be handled by talk page discussion rather than back-and-forth reverting. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Even aside from the content itself, the reported editor is ignoring the fact that three editors have reverted them. They are not engaging on the talk page in any meaningful way, only continuing to edit war their version, removing the references / adding unreferenced commentary while making blanket statements like Please edit and use exact wording from the reference without adding your opinion instead of reverting/undoing. Please try to edit with a neutral pov. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the edit warring is disruptive, yes. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

• Indefinitely pblocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:2600:1700:D510:5900:D005:EBB6:324F:FBD5 reported by User:House1090 (Result: /64 blocked for three years)

Page: IOS 18 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:1700:D510:5900:D005:EBB6:324F:FBD5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [12]
2. [13]
3. [14]
4. [15]
5. [16]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]

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

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

Comments:

User left this comment on my talk page [19], trying to get me to "understand". House1090 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I suspect the user created the account KidMediaStuffFan. He has gone back to revert the changes again. Support would be greatly appreciated. House1090 (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of three years This range has a long history here, apparently. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:181.115.138.87 reported by User:Czello (Result: Blocked for two weeks)

Page: List of coups and coup attempts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 181.115.138.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* 2019 */ I included the coup of 2019 with many references"
2. 18:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "i added the coup of Bolivia of 2029 WITH REFERENCES OF PAGES OF NEWSPAPERS"
3. Consecutive edits made from 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) to 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
   1. 17:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* 2019 */I add a needed comment because you say .. see the talk page before including Bolivia and in your talk page there is nothing about Bolivia.

So in you talk page i wrote about the need to include this. I want to know if it will be post if i include bibliography. It's a HUGE INSULT THAT YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE BOLIVIAN COUP OF 2019!!!!! YOU ARE ABUSIVE"

1. 1. 17:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* 2019 */"
2. 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* 2019 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of coups and coup attempts."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 17:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "/* The Bolivian coup of 2019 is not listed */ Reply"

Comments: Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks Incivility and desire to right great wrongs doesn't help. Daniel Case (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Akmal94 reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: Indeffed from the page)

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

User being reported: Akmal94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 00:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
2. 23:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1233489706 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"
3. 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1233301676 by Fylindfotberserk (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 10:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Pashtuns."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 10:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC) "/* July 2024 */ new section"

Comments:

User revert warring and keeps removing well sourced terms/content [20] [21] [22]. Doesn't seem to be interested in WP:BRD, removed the warning message mentioning the same. Has a history of edit warring, apparent from the warning message in their t/p as well as blocks. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely from the page by JBW. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:DeccanFlood reported by User:PadFoot2008 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: Raghoji I of Nagpur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeccanFlood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [28]

Comments:

Not a violation of 3RR but the user has been engaging in a very long, drawn out edit war and is determined add the phrase "the Great" into the article lead without getting a consensus for it. Currently, the consensus is against the inclusion of such a title in the lead, as another editor has also objected to its inclusion in the talk page discussion. PadFoot (talk)

Blocked – for a period of one week from article. It may have been a two-to-one consensus, but consensus there was, against using the title in the lede. Deccan is free to continue discussing this; perhaps it would benefit to bring more editors into the discussion and strengthen consensus, if that is possible. Daniel Case (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Sun45Raj reported by User:Warrenmck (Result: Both editors blocked from article for a week)

Page: List of Hindi films of 2024 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sun45Raj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff (recent, but more edits immediately after)

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

Comments:
Both Sun45Raj and Sush150 have been edit warring over the inclusion of a movie on this list for the last four days, resulting in far more than four reverts for both but only Sun45Raj has >4 edits in a 24 hour block of time recently, which feels a bit like a technicality here. I tried getting them to talk about it on the talk page because this is a topic I frankly know nothing about, but the edit warring has continued. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Both editors blocked – for a period of one week from the article. While Sush responded, he did not indicate any willingness to stop. Daniel Case (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)