Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    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:Holydiver82 reported by User:Nemov (Result: Declined; better handled at AN/I)

    [edit]

    Page: The Acolyte (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Holydiver82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    Editor has been warned to stop edit warring and find consensus but continues to make contentious edits. Nemov (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    trying to figure out how adamstom97 can make multiple reverts of edits based on no consensus but he is not the one edit warring. apparently he did not like his WP:OR being removed
    n Holydiver82 (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nemov: Holydiver has reverted only 3x in the last 24 hours; the other revert you listed was on August 5. And I think Holydiver has a point about Adamstom.97. Although they too have not violated 3RR, they have been edit-warring with multiple users over the last several days and rather combative on the Talk page in a discussion with you and another editor who bowed out because they didn't like Adamstom's insistence on being correct.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, I even went out of my way to simply change the wording based on the sourced article rather then just revert back to nothing. but Adamstom.97 has basically claimed ownership of the article and if you look at the recent edits pretty much reverts any edit he does not do. also the Nemov even posted in the talk page about the problem with Adamstom.97 taking ownership of the article and not looking for any consensus. the page in question has most often been reverted by Adamstom.97 who refuses to allow any other editors to contribute to the page, as you said some editors just announcing they are leaving rather then fight with him Holydiver82 (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bbb23I warned the user over a month ago and the reverted edits go beyond 48 hours on a issue that's currently under discussion. They keep adding back anyway. Nemov (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the section in question was only added on 8/5. how could you have warned me a month ago about edits the have been made within the last 2 days. again trying to figure out why you have no problem with Adamstom.97 constant reverts, edit warring, and ownership of the article Holydiver82 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been warned against edit warring. Something you continue to do while there are discussions going on and you're changing the article without finding consensus. Nemov (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a note to other admins in case someone thinks I'm going to act here: I'm not. I'm not particularly satisfied with Nemov's response or Adamstom.97's lack of one, but I'll let another admin decide what sanctions to impose, if any.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure how you can look at the edit history on that article and this discussion and think that the editor's actions aren't disruptive. Two experienced editor have warned, reached out to the editor's talk, and engaged the article's talk. They're still ignoring the discussion. As you mentioned, I haven't agreed with Adamstom.97 on some things at that article but at least they're working in good faith. Nemov (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As was pointed out before. Adam was edit warring not only with me with constant reverts but with multiple other editors. The fact that no one bothered to report him or call him out on it does not make him editing in good faith. Getting other editors to give up and leave an article because of constant reverts is not a good faith edit. Holydiver82 (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it's rather odd how he Adam doesn't bother to say a word yet nemov has taken such an interest in his behalf. Especially after nemov said in the talk page of the article that he agreed that Adam was not acting in good faith and was attempting to take ownership and not find concensus. And now making reverts on behalf of Adam since Adam could not without hitting 3 reverts. Odd Holydiver82 (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Awesome, more accusations. Thanks for helping make my point. Nemov (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      it was not subtle Holydiver82 (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I apologise for my latest few reverts, it was late and I was growing frustrated. I'm not sure why there are comments here questioning my reasoning for not responding as this thread has not been open for that long. I have been asleep, if you must know.

    Holydiver82 has made it clear at the talk page that they are not editing in good faith, insisting on making edits based on their personal bias against the show rather than following Wikipedia guidelines and consensus. They started a discussion to complain about some sources I added to the viewership section, sources that are reliable and have long been accepted across WP:TV articles. When multiple editors explained why these sources should not be removed, Holydiver82 decided to just remove them anyway and I reverted those changes as going against the established Wiki consensus and having no support at the talk page discussion. Again, sorry for my part in the edit warring, I should have taken other steps rather than jumping to reverting so many times. Still, I reject any claims that I feel WP:OWNERSHIP over the article and am happy to justify my edits with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and links to talk page discussions. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I hope I am not intruding in this conversation. Regarding the claim that Adamstom97 behaved as the owner of the "The Acolyte" article, I vehemently disagree. I have been keeping up with the events for a while now. Adamstom97, it seems to me, made the page better. Whenever someone on the article disagreed with their edits, they seemed to always seek consensus. Considering that they never shied away from talking with other editors, I would not classify that as acting like the owner of The Acolyte article. When there is disagreement, it is also the duty of other editors to debate this. And in a calm manner, which, in my opinion, is not what occurred with Holydivers82. Several editors have called out Holydivers82 on several occasions through time. They do not seem to be able to come to an agreement, they disregard the opinions of other editors if they disagree with their own, and it seems they made some personal attacks. Their edit history reveals that they frequently concentrate on "The Acolyte" article. However, they never add anything useful from what I can see; in my opinion, their only goal is to make the article look bad because they hold a grudge against the television series. I doubt they are here to improve Wikipedia, unlike the two other editors they have called out. Good day. Higher Further Faster (talk) 12:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined I concur with Bbb23 that while there’s really nothing here for this board, there is still something. Holydiver is showing all the signs of tendentious editing, and really AN/I might be a better place to hash this out. Daniel Case (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:75.161.49.73 reported by User:Bahooka (Result: Range blocked 2 months; article semi-protected 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Koenigsegg Jesko (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 75.161.49.73 (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 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) to 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
      1. 22:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Jesko Absolut */"
      2. 22:02, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Performance */"
    2. 19:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    4. 18:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 15:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Koenigsegg Jesko."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Ongoing vandalism to this article by a user under various IP addresses. Has been reverted and warned by multiple editors, but continues the disruptive behavior. Bahooka (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Continues to edit war as shown here. Bahooka (talk) 01:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:89.180.44.169 reported by User:Combrils (Result: Page semi-protected for 2 day)

    [edit]

    Page: Spanish Navy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 89.180.44.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Comments: The user appears to be recurrent in using multiple IPs to add assertions without any reference to support it. He tries to vandalize the articles by constantly pushing his POV. Combrils (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both Combrils (Reverts: 1, 2 3, 4) and the IP address (reverts: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) are edit warring and have blown past the three revert rule. Rather than blocking both of them, I have semi-protected the page for two days. During that time, I would encourage them both to go to Talk:Spanish Navy and discuss it there. A quick internet search reveals that at least some sources refer to Portuguese supremacy from the 15th century until the late 16th century, so this appears to be a genuine content dispute (even if the IP doesn't know how to cite sources) rather than pure vandalism. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think this source is not reliable since it is a PDF presentation and welcome from a company (HHC) that has nothing to do with history studies. I don't see that statement appearing either. However, I think it's a good idea protect the Page, and I'll try to use Talk to address this topic. I recommend also protecting the Galleon and Portuguese Navy pages, as they have also been the subject of the same dispute with the user. Combrils (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      If this is an issue that spans across a few pages, with the editor not communicating, then WP:ANI is probably the place.
      Additionally, @Combrils: Please note that you are supposed to notify the IP of threads like these when they are opened, as the instructions on top of this page state. I have done so for you in this edit. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Allan Nonymous reported by User:Polyamorph (Result: )

    [edit]

    Page: 1 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 14:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Restored revision 1239247585 by Allan Nonymous (talk): This seems to have been effectively a revert of the previous work done on the article, with a WP:POINTy edit summary that does not address the rationale behind the changes made. Will open a talk page section to discuss changes."
    2. 04:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "1 is a trivial case of a lot of functions, if you want to add this kind of info, put it in the bottom with the calculations."
    3. 04:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Frankly these are, to put it lightly, obscure facts that do not belong on a number article."
    4. 04:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "Rewrote this WP:CRUFT lede in favor of a more mathematically sound one."
    5. 03:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Davey2116 (talk): Mass reverting edits with copy paste rationale is generally frowned upon."
    6. 20:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) "Removed yet more WP:CRUFT."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [[12]] by Johnuniq
    2. 08:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ reply"
    3. 08:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ ping"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User continues to revert war at number articles. With reverts and partial reverts they are now beyond 3RR at 1. They have reverted multiple times in other number articles as well, please see their contributions. Relevant discussions are at AIV and at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Help_remove_WP:CRUFT_on_number_articles! and at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TBAN_for_User:Radlrb. The user has received warnings about edit warring on their talk page and wrote to Johnuniq suggesting they did not want to edit war [13] a mere 6 minutes later they reverted again at 1. Polyamorph (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the edit in question after the concern was raised to me. I am not sure if the three edits in question would qualify for edit warring, but granted, I am not wholly familiar with the full technicalities of edit warring. I would also like to note the user did not attempt to resolve the dispute on the article talk page, and wish he had expressed his concerns there before bringing it up here. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I messaged you on your talk page here. It was ignored, you continued reverting instead of accepting my offer of collaboration. You were warned by an administrator that you edits across multiple number articles that you were engaged in edit warring so I don't think your claim of ignorance is credible. Polyamorph (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not claiming ignorance, I am just claiming it can be a little hard to tell where active editing of an article ends and edit warring begins. This is why I am asking for feedback from the editors in question. I am more than willing to collaborate with other editors on the subject. I do apologize if I may have worked a bit to hard and fast. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This user is still reversing the actions of other editors at 1, see [14]. Note An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. These in part reverts mean this user has flown past WP:3RR. The fact they are still editing this article with this case open is astonishing.Polyamorph (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I rephrased the lede of the article. I don't believe that counts as reverting per WP:RV. Frankly, this sounds like WP:WIKILAWYERING. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      You deleted content that had previously been restored after you previously deleted it after it was previously restored after you previously deleted it. It doesn't matter if it's an entire article or one sentence. This is pure disruption. Polyamorph (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing one sentence in an article, with rationale to which the only major reverts have been editors mass reverting a bunch of collective edits hardly counts as disruptive. The point of WP:3RR is to prevent ping-pong editing and article instability, not small, constructive changes. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There was no consensus of your reverts thereafter. Plus, you continued removing very valuable information, such as this 1; 1 as first in the list of natural numbers is a classically distinguishable point for 1, in fact part of its very definition (which can also be defined starting with 0, depending on convention). I would return it. Radlrb (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That edit was by another user, and is fine anyway; it just makes the intro of the article more concise. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      True, just noticed. Thank you for relaying this, I thought it was Allan. Radlrb (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      These mass reverts shouldn't continue, in single reverts or continuous relatively small removals, without consensus. On the page for 1, these already technically count way above the limit of 3 reverts, at about 21 in total (in a little less than 2 days, however). Radlrb (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It sounds like a couple of days of full protection might help reach a consensus on talk. Are you OK with that? Daniel Case (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Daniel Case: That would be fine with me. Although note they have just made an edit removing 1228 bytes, some of it sourced content. They did write on the talk page but went ahead with the change before getting agreement which is challenging for me because I am likely to need to restore some of the content they have just deleted. There is also the fact that it's not just this article. Polyamorph (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Chaselien reported by User:Tgeorgescu (Result:User indeffed as NOTHERE)

    [edit]

    Page: The Exodus Decoded (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 04:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
    2. 03:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
    3. 03:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Verification"
    4. 03:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC) ""
    5. 03:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    6. 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */Telling the fact, and stand by righteousness against information arbitrary sharing, and the attacks."
    7. 03:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    8. 13:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    9. 05:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* Reception */"
    10. [15]
    11. [16], [17], [18], [19]
    12. [20]
    13. [21], [22], [23], [24]
    14. [25]

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [26]
    2. 11:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC) "/* August 2024 */ WP:THETRUTH, WP:VNT"
    3. 03:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [27]

    Comments:

    Hell-bent to insert un-WP:V information inside the article. Their motivation is religious, as shown at [28]. They are a fundamentalist POV-pusher. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has been massively attacked by business backed organisations.
    I am seeking justice on constantly deleted neutral comments I have made. Chaselien (talk) 04:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conspiracy theory. Besides, if I were the only editor to revert you, admins should give you the benefit of the doubt. But you are largely in WP:1AM territory. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You seek to put the axe at the root of WP:RS and WP:V. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeffed, end of the story. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Already blocked indefinitely by Doug Weller Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Baratiiman reported by User:Borgenland (Result: Blocked 3 months)

    [edit]

    Page: Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Baratiiman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [29]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [30] Reverted the removal by AlexBobCharles (talk · contribs) of an questionable image
    2. [31] Reverted the removal by me of a questionable image
    3. [32] Reverted the removal by me of a questionable statement
    4. [33] Reverted the removal by Kashmiri (talk · contribs) of a questionable statement
    5. [34] Flagged by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs). See 3RR warning below
    6. [35] Flagged by Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs). See 3RR warning below



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [36]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [37]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

    Comments:
    User has continued to deny violating 1RR in restoring a reverted image twice within the past 24 hours when warned on their talk page and has resorted to false accusations of WP:OWN. They have also had a history of poorly-worded and translated edits and a WP:IDNHT response to similar warnings. Borgenland (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Having stumbled across this report, I'd like to add some insights:
    • The user in question has previously been blocked for edit-warring three times, with the two most recent coming within the last year - the most recent block, in April, was explicitly for another ARBPIA 1RR violation.
    • I've interacted with the user's edits more than a few times at the Current Events portal - not to pile on/go off-topic, but their rather inconsistent, sometimes incoherent control of English, combined with the multiple blocks and ongoing denial of violations, has led me to wonder whether WP:CIR takes effect here. A mess created in good faith is still a mess, and in this case it hasn't always been in good faith.
    The Kip (contribs) 06:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal:Current_events/2024_April_11&diff=next&oldid=1218364018&diffonly=1 Baratiiman (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't even noticed the spelling error before - the problem is that the entire sentence structure is erroneous, and that's been a recurring issue. The Kip (contribs) 06:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having dealt with the editor in Iran politics related pages (mostly 2024 Iranian presidential election ), I agree with all the accusations said here by User:Borgenland. Issue seems wider than just edit warring AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See this recent response as a demonstration. AlexBobCharles (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this user is indeff blocked for disruptive editing on Persian wikipedia ‍‍‍‍AlexBobCharles (talk) 11:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow this user is also imagining that i have the time to do sock puppet ip edits just to mess with him/wiki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Borgenland&oldid=1239335977 Baratiiman (talk) 06:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Confused as to what you are trying to prove in presenting this latest version of my talk page featuring this reversion of a vandal which I did not attribute to you as seen in the automated summary. But then again it just further proves WP:CIR on your part and a failure to adequately address the issue to which you have been raised here. Borgenland (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Search the word sock "When I first saw the IP's edits I suspected it was a sock of Baratiiman " Baratiiman (talk) 09:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pity. You could have searched for that revision rather than falsely label the last one I made. It just shows. Borgenland (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quepor reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet)

    [edit]

    Page: 1999 East Timorese crisis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Quepor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: 10:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC) Sky meme reverted Pineapplethen

    This edit war is a continuation of an edit war started by Sky meme, but he/she got blocked for edit warring on another page, so new account Quepor continued the edit war.

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Pahamas
    2. 14:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Ckfasdf
    3. 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Ckfasdf
    4. 06:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Pineapplethen
    5. 08:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC) Quepor reverted Toddy1


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 07:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. A look at User talk:Sky meme shows a series of edit warring notices and two blocks.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 09:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Toddy1 (talk) 09:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments:

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1239511393"