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:Hujjat al-Umari reported by User:WikiEnthusiast1001 (Result: No violation)

Page: Family of Imran Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hujjat al-Umari (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. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6] While I did not attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page, I did warn them previously. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Comments:
The user is persistently disruptive, engaging in frequent edits and vandalism on the Family of Imran Khan. They justify removing the "Turkish Kurdistan origin" from the infobox by claiming, "This origin from Turkish Kurdistan is highly disputed and is only a theory of a certain author." However, where is this claim of it being "highly disputed" substantiated? The origin is explicitly mentioned in Peter Oborne's award-winning book about the family, Wounded Tiger. Furthermore, their claim that they are only removing the Turkish Kurdistan origin is misleading—they are also removing Tyrian from the "Alleged Children" section and creating a new section about Tyrian under Imran's children. This could potentially indicate a WP:NOTHERE situation. Also, this page has been vandalized in the past, as shown here, here, and here WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not remove the Khan family's supposed origin from Turkish Kurdistan from the article. It is still present at the 'Maternal family' subheading. As i said in my edit summary, these claims are only theories and not facts (as highlighted in the article itself), thus I removed the supposed origin from Turkish Kurdistan only from the infobox. Also, the book you highlighted, Wounded Tigers, is indeed a reliable sources, but I wish you read it's text clearly. Oborne says: "Burkis trace their history back for at least a thousand years". They believe they travelled from Turkish Kurdistan approximately eight hundred years ago", implying that it's the Burkis' folk belief and not confirmed by other sources. Secondly, Tyrian Jade is Khan's actual daughter per the sources given. The Californian court confirmed Tyrian to be Khan's daughter and in 2004, Khan himself welcomed Tyrian into his family per the sources. I was checking the article's history and found something very interesting. Tyrian was actually counted as Khan's daughter in the [8] version before WikiEnthusiast1001's edit. On 2 January 2024, [9] WikiEnthusiast1001's changed the Tyrian part without any discussion. WikiEnthusiast1001 was also reverted when they tried to [10] change the Tyrian part in the Imran Khan article. It seems quite clear here who is actually committing vandalism here. Hujjat al-Umari (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

No, I wish you would read my words more carefully. I never claimed you removed it from the article. Re-read what I said: you didn't remove it from the infobox for the "folk belief" reason. Your edit summary states, "This origin from Turkish Kurdistan is highly disputed and is only a theory of a certain author." Where is the source for "highly disputed"? You claim it's a theory of the author, but it literally says the family believes it, not the author. This is dishonest. The California court did not conduct a DNA test; it issued a default judgment. Also, Maury Povich welcomed his adoptive son Matthew Jay Povich into his family, that does not make him his biological child. Nor has Khan ever stated that he adopted Tyrian. WikiEnthusiast1001 (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't need a source for Turkish Kurdistan being "highly disputed"; the article itself reflects this: "There are various theories about the origins of the Burkis, including one which states that they migrated from Turkish Kurdistan over at least eight centuries ago, and settled in the mountains of Kaniguram.[71] Another theory, as discussed by Robert Leech (1838), ascribes a "Farsiwan" or "Tajik" origin with ancestry from Yemen, from whence they arrived in Afghanistan and were later brought to India along with the army of Mehmood Ghaznavi.", clearly implying that there are several theories about the origin and neither of them is confirmed. And that I claimed it's the theory of the author, I apologize, I did not correctly checked it at the time, although I later replied in this edit warring saying it's a folk belief of the Burkis. If you do wish to add Turkish Kurdistan back, then add these other theories of Tajik origin or Yemeni ancestry. Secondly, I analyzed your changes to the Tyrian White part. You removed "She [Tyrian] was noted for her resemblance to Khan" in the version before your edit that was sourced by Piers Morgan's book, The Insider: The Private Diaries of a Scandalous Decade, without giving any explanation? Nevertheless, I'm fine with adding Tyrian back in the alleged children, though you should avoid a pro-Khan stance here. This really did not needed an edit warring. Hujjat al-Umari (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• No violation Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have added a CTOPS notice (IPA even though the above discussion suggests KURD, and of course BLP also applies) to the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Ct180410 reported by User:Amaury (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable; partially blocked 2 weeks)

Page: Sabrina Carpenter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ct180410 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:49, 2 December 2024 (UTC) "no one is discussing on the talk page, at all! therefore we should go back tk what is supported by the songwriting section in the article."
2. 09:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC) "singer-songwriter is backed up by article content! Please bring up recent sources proving otherwise in talk page"
3. 23:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC) "she does not need sole credits on a whole song a la speak now to be a singer songwriter. She works on music, she works on lyrics, she undeniably sings. per talk page- period"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Sabrina Carpenter."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The edits highlighted in this report are only some of them. Twinkle didn't bring up more for some reason. However, this has been going since at least November 28. See article history. User refuses to accept that they currently do not have WP:CONSENSUS for their changes. See also Songwriter status section on article talk page. Amaury • 00:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Bbb23: That's why I said to look at the page history as well. For some reason, Twinkle wouldn't load more diffs. This has been going on since November 28, with the initial edit here. Subsequent reintroduction of the disputed content: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. That's nine reversions/restorations of disputed content, plus the three diffs above. 12 reverts total! Amaury • 01:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, declining this just because there haven't been more than 3 reverts in the last 24 hours sends the wrong message, both to the edit warrior and the reporter, the former of whom had even referred to "IAR" as justification. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

  I have also left a CTOPS notice on the talk page as the article is semi-protected already for at least the next 3 years. Daniel Case (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

User:MolAnneFinnBall567 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Blocked 2 weeks)

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

User being reported: MolAnneFinnBall567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "I’ve had enough of this nonsense"
2. 07:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ""
3. 06:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC) ""
4. 14:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC) ""
5. 01:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Antz."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:MolAnneFinnBall567#WP:FILMNAV

Comments:

Also editing as Special:Contributions/2603:7000:C300:862F::/64 with 2 reverts while logged out, Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

User:76.88.55.135 reported by User:Fma12 (Result: Declined)

Page: RIMAC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.88.55.135 (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. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (none provided)

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

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

Comments:

Reverted all my edits made on November 30, alleging "spelling mistakes". I tried to talk to him explaining that changes involved not only spelling but other modifications, but he erased my message at his talk page. He also refuses to open a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fma12 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

My reply. I am user 76.88.55.135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.55.135 (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Please don't assume my pronouns are he/him. I am the IP user. Not sure how to reply here. The user made an edit filled with non-constructive and spelling error ridden changes. Various typos, formatting issues, etc. Then insists on maintaining it even after a request for an explanation of the reversion was given. User expects others to clean up after themself. Changed California to CA unnecessarily, listed UC San Diego incorrectly per its style guide, (it is never "University of California, SD") "Abbreviated" was spelled wrong. Mistakes to the links had brackets in text from source editor. Just to name a few mistakes in the edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.55.135 (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

On the contrary, my edits were completely constructive and in good faith. They include upading the official website, a commons template addition, images alignment, paramethers added to the infobox, among others. But this anon editor just erased them all, instead of fixing the spelling mistakes he seems to be so worried about.

I don't expect other "clean up" mistakes as he wrongly says, I just expect edits not to be completely reverted when some of the changes are useful. Furthermore, I expect this userdoes not remove all the lines I wrote on his talk page in search of consensus. This user seems to act in a capricious manner, unwilling to reach an agreement or, at least, be able to discuss. Fma12 (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Given the large amount of mistakes I am not confident that other parts of the edit were constructive, if someone else wants to align images and add "paramethers", they can. You can't expect an edit to not be reverted when a large part of it consists of mistakes, then tell others to fix them because some of the edit was constructive. You sent me a message in broken English via my talk page. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, they are not just "spelling mistakes" you made. It is in bad faith to claim that they are minor edits that could be made to an otherwise "constructive" edit, when in fact the edit is riddled with offenses. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Which is not "constructive" at all is your attitude. I'm not a native English speaker and of course I can commit mistakes but at least, I can make myself understood in another language, I doubt you can write one word in Spanish without using a translator. You insist on "mistakes" which you have not specified until now. Writing "University of California, SD" is a so serious mistake to revert an entire list of changes? That's what you're referring about?

You are talking about "offenses", do you read what you state? "offensive" is your behaviour, trying to disqualify me as editor just because my native language is not English. That sounds so ridiculous. You should take a look at Wikipedia:Civility, that probably fix your manners and teach you a bit of respect. Fma12 (talk) 00:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I am half Mexican and have lived in Tijuana... Bringing up only "University of California, SD" is a cherry picking fallacy. That is one of the many parts of the edit that was non-constructive. Claiming that that is the serious mistake that made me revert "an entire list of changes" is just misleading. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It simply comes down to the fact that you made an edit filled with egregious mistakes, and are upset that it got reverted. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you are confused. I'm not upset because of the reversion, in fact I'm not even upset. It was me who decided to stop with this non-sense reverting because you had refused to discuss blanking your talk page so you did not leave me another option.

You have been claiming I did "many non-constructive edits" but the only part you cited is University of California, SD (which I don't consider a so serious error, unlike you). Now, could you please detail the "eggregious mistakes" in my edits? Until now, You wrote a lot without saying anything concrete. At least, try to find a justification to your reversions and make this discussion more interesting. Fma12 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

By the way, you reverted an edit that updated the official website from this to this (the current website), among other disruptions. Do you think this is a "constructive" edit? Fma12 (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I already listed multiple mistakes in your edit here and on the article's page. Now that is twice you have cherry picked that one. Your edits are vandalism to me given how the page appeared after your edits, which is why I believe immediate reversions were warranted. Thank you for catching that. I'm happy to revert my own edits when someone points out a mistake. Goodbye. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, you just pointed out a mistake in your own edit LOL. The first is the home page for UCSD Recreation. You tried to change it to an essay article about LionTree Arena, an arena WITHIN the complex that the article is about. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it was not a mistake, I know the LionTree is a basketball arena, but the website includes description of all the facilities there. You not only could justify your reversions, but also ruined several important changes like the one I described above.

And finally: before talking about "vandalism", check out what the term means so the only "vandalic", disruptive, and non-collaborative edits have been yours, not mine.

I hope an admin take the best decission. Fma12 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope an admin makes the best decision as well. 76.88.55.135 (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fma12, why Special:Diff/1261032897? Specific errors had been pointed out and you restored them? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

76.88.55.135, the editing policy's section about trying to fix problems and the policy against edit warring apply even when reverting the introduction of errors unless they're obvious vandalism, and the edits you have reverted are not vandalism, so you have edit warred. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Both, the content removed in Special:Diff/1261055417 as well as the edit summary of the removal are uncivil. It is also inappropriate to respond to uncivil remarks with "that probably fix your manners and teach you a bit of respect", as such advice is highly unlikely to lead to the allegedly intended result.

If your interactions continue to look like this, they will probably lead to a block sooner or later, not for edit warring. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree I have been in WP for 18 years and that kind of interactions with other editors were very few. That reply came after some unappropriate coments that the anon IP left on the edit summary, even referring to my English writting, which was totally unnecessary. I tried to reach a consensus but he erased all the messages I left on his talk. I am anything but uncivil, but I don't like to deal with this kind of users, even less when they are anonymous. Fma12 (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Fma12, you're not required to deal with anyone (WP:DISENGAGE, WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, and in case someone persistently messages you after a request not to, WP:Harassment). However, you chose to interact with this person by reverting article content to a state that had been pointed out to you as containing errors. That is not really an option. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i'll keep that in mind for future occssions. I do not feel comfortable in this kind of discusions so I prefer to focus on editing articles. Fma12 (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• Declined ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

User:Dickenseditor reported by User:Raladic (Result: )

Page: The Heritage Foundation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261049873 by Raladic (talk) You"
2. 16:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1260978986 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
3. 16:30, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "This has been discussed by numerous users. One reporter form the "NYT" does not a consensus make. It would be ludicrous to add in, randomly, what every reporter from every newspaper thinks about the THF. there is no consensus from news outlets that they're spreading false info. Use talk page if you have more data."
4. 17:38, 7 October 2024 (UTC) "1) Added context --- one journalist at the NYT (which has officially endorsed Kamala Harris) suggested that Heritage spread misinformation. 2) Removed subjective language (i.e., the word "credible," shows the original author's bias, not general consensus)"

Also on another article (Twelve Tribes communities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in parallel:

1. 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1261045211 by Cambial Yellowing --- please use talk page if you feel the need to add in this language."
2. 22:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Do not edit to fit your narrative --- use talk page if you need to vent. Edit wars are against Wikipedia guidelines. (Some suggested I "feel passionately" about this haha . . . your beliefs about my feelings (weird to even say) don't dictate facts."
3. 22:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1260989559 by M.boli"
4. 17:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "removed biased language"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 23:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war." by @Cambial Yellowing
2. 23:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Potential three-revert rule violation see also uw-ew (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 23:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Dickenseditor "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Comments:

User has been blanking and removing details left and right in multiple articles based on their personal WP:POV. They have been warned twice within the past 24 hours (blanking the warning in between) of potential edit warring and just ignored it and now went over the bright-line, so it appears they are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but just to cause disruption based on their personal POV. Raladic (talk) 04:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

All but one of these were explained, in detail. There is not a pattern of " unexplained content removal," and you personally attempted to revert all my edits. Further, I answered all your requests on my talk page in-context. Cheers (Redacted). Dickenseditor (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

No, explanations for removals need to be valid and not made repeatedly. You have been reverted by multiple separate editors and yet continued to re-instate what you believe is right. You claimed there is a consensus to remove this on the talk page, but there isn't, there is an ongoing thread in which an admin, @Doug Weller tried to explain policies with regards to attributed text to you, but you removing the text you disagree with again despite having been warned to stop doing so is a violation of our 3-revert rule as the warning warned you about. Raladic (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Others were warned (by multiple editors, other than me) not to continue to insert biased, unclear, language w/o citation or attempting to cherry-pick information (as was the case of the THF article), and yet other editors continued to revert; again, multiple editors warning others about repeated attempts to bias the language. See Talk pages in all instances. Cheers. Dickenseditor (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

See Talk pages in all instances. You’ve not engaged at talk at Twelve Tribes communities – at all – despite reverting multiple other editors to your preferred version. Cambial — foliar❧ 10:19, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, just because I'm going to assume you were acting in good faith, I reverted my own edits in the THF article (where I assume you were most upset about). Edits were made that (somewhat) addressed mine and other editors concerned, so I left those in. Hopefully, this alleviates your concern and stops the babysitting. Cheers. Dickenseditor (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In general, we treat consecutive uninterrupted edits as a single revert for purposes of WP:3RR, and both this self-reversion over 4 edits at the former this set of two edits at the latter would render the user at 3 reverts on both. This isn't great behavior, but I don't see a bright-line 3RR violation here. @Raladic: Is either The Heritage Foundation or Twelve Tribes communities under 1RR, or is this just a standard set of articles?

That the user self-reverted at The Heritage Foundation makes me a bit hesitant to p-block from it, since they at least now seem to be taking it to the relevant talk page. Blocks are meant to prevent future disruption and I don't see any WP:STATUSQUO gaming; the editor appears to be engaging. That being said, I don't see a self-revert at the end for the Twelve Tribes article, nor engagement on talk. I would sternly remind Dickenseditor to take their concerns to the talk page rather than reverting again; if the edit warring on that article continues again and you don't try to gain consensus on the talk, I'd expect at least a partial block from editing that article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Their recent edits at Talk:Sex assignment might also be worth looking at. They unnecessarily revived a dead thread and wasted people's time. There seems to be a pattern of provocation and sealioning here. Whether it is intentional I wouldn't like to say. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

User:2A01:CB05:82B1:2100:454F:E599:F903:5FA8 reported by User:Nswix (Result: Blocked 1 week)

Page: List of undefeated mixed martial artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 2A01:CB05:82B1:2100:454F:E599:F903:5FA8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 18:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "EVEN ON THE PFL SITE IT'S WRITTEN 20-0 !!! Stop being stupid and open your eyes. You are nobody in MMA to be able to claim that Musaev is in 18-0 and not in 20-0 ... Really pathetic ..."
2. 18:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "It's clearly written 20-0 on tapology with real evidence for the 2 fights in addition. But the reality is that you don't like Musaev and prefer to use a much less reliable internet site like Sherdog. You have no arguments to prove that Sherdog is a better website than Tapology but since you don't want to admit that you're wrong you will continue to re-edit the page ... This is pathetic"
3. 17:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "I think Musav haters don't want to use Tapology ... If you have REAL arguments for using sherdog, please let's debate in "Talk""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing."
2. 18:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "/* December 2024 */"
3. 18:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
4. 19:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC) "Final warning: Personal attack directed at a specific editor."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Personal attacks, 3RR. Nswix (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

• whoops? Rangblocked the /64 for 1 week.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)