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:Cambial Yellowing reported by User:Grorp (Result: Stale)

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

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

Previous version reverted to: (see table)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

These six reverts fit in under 48 hours; the final 4 reverts (3b, 4b, 5b & 6b in pink) span under 25 hours—if you're short on time, just look at the last 4. I felt I should include the earlier reverts to put the series in perspective, especially showing the edit warring started right after Cambial Yellowing's edit-warring block expired. I apologize for the length, and hope this chronological table helps simplify/illustrate an edit warring series that would have been too complicated to follow if abbreviated to just diffs. I tried to simplify it as much as possible.

Markers	Grorp (OP)	Cambial Yellowing	Notes
green			Key: Green color represents edit to "new territory" (meaning an area of the article that had not recently been edited)
pink			Key: Pink color represents a revert (includes partial reverts)
		23:34 30 Dec	Cambial Yellowing receives 72-hour block for edit warring on different, but related, article
1a	06:20 1 Jan		My one edit to this article during Cambial's block represents the starting point.
		23:34 2 Jan	Cambial's block expires
1b		15:37 3 Jan	1b: Cambial reverts my edit-1a as their second edit after their block expired, and starts discussion under older talk page thread. Cambial goes on to make 9 more edits, including reverting/restoring content @15:40 3 Jan (1c) which I had removed 07:44, 30 August 2023.
2a	02:41, 4 Jan		I revert Cambial's edits-1b & 1c to restore my version (plus I edit a few other new territory bits in this same edit).
3a	03:49 4 Jan		I go on to make a series of edits (03:49-04:57 4 Jan) modifying new territory.
2b 3b		07:52 4 Jan 08:49 + 11:38 + 11:53 4 Jan	In this period, Cambial makes a series of 27 edits (07:52-13:20 4 Jan), starting with 2b which reverts my edit-2a (by re-adding deleted content). In the remaining 26 edits, several of my new-territory edits were modified, reorganized, and basically undone. 3b is a trio of edits to revert 3a. I selected to focus on just one section, "Auditing", so you can see the reverts without trying to compare two entire sets/series of edits.
4a & 4b	07:37 5 Jan	07:50 5 Jan‎	4a: I revert a large section ("Beliefs and practices") which Cambial had mangled. 4b: Cambial reverts 4a.
5a & 5b	08:02 - 09:22 5 Jan	11:33 - 11:34 5 Jan	5a: I remove content which does not verify. This section was new-territory and unrelated to above content disputes. 5b: Cambial reverts 5a.
6a & 6b	11:58 5 Jan‎	12:40 + 12:47 + 12:50 5 Jan	6a: Rather than revert, I tag content as 'failed verification'. 6b: Cambial reverts 6a, starts talk page thread. (Pinging other editor involved in that thread, North8000.)

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

No specific warning given. Cambial had received a 72-hour block the prior week for edit warring with me on the talk page of a related article (see AN3 archive 477 § Cambial Yellowing). Cambial is quite familiar with 3RR and AN3, having participated here several times.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Two threads on talk page; neither resolved:

1. Talk:Scientology § Reduction project B&P (re content forks—edits 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b in table above)
2. Talk:Scientology § Misuse of maintenance templates (re failed verification—edits 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b in table above)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 01:57, 11 January 2024

Comments:

During 28–30 December 2023, Cambial edit warred with me on a related article, culminating in Cambial's 3RR violation on the talk page for which they were given a 72-hour block. Since that edit warring incident, I have made no further edits to that article. (I gave up.)

During Cambial's block period, I made only one edit to the Scientology article (the article of this 3RR report). In less than 24 hours after Cambial would have gotten off their 72-hour block, Cambial reverted my edit, and continued for the next three days almost exclusively edit warring or arguing on this article, and not stopping until after I ceased engaging.

I have been slowly working on this article over the last few months to remove duplicate material resulting from content forks (Talk:Scientology § Reduction project B&P), but during this period, everything I tried to do in this article has been reverted and reorganized by Cambial Yellowing (who keeps re-adding the duplicate material) until it is too complicated of a jumble to figure out how to fix it.

It wasn't until after I quit trying to work on the article, and abandoned the two talk page threads (which were not resolving), that I counted up the edits/reverts and subsequently drafted this report.

  ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Cambial has been one very nasty individual at the Scientology articles. Mostly with Grorp plus I've had some exchanges with them. I'm not concerned about me but they are harassing away it's best editor (Grorp). There should be some type of warning given. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion at the article's talk page (permanent section link) is full of unproductive discussion about user behavior, which doesn't belong there (focus on content; no meta). This isn't entirely Cambial Yellowing's fault; Grorp and North8000 also raised conduct concerns there instead of leading by example. Describing an editor as "very nasty individual" and another as "best editor" is a highly subjective approach that turns pages into battlegrounds and is unsuitable for a noticeboard discussion.

So if a warning is needed, this here is one for all of you three. Now we can archive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with your post. I DID lead by example. And if you are going to make implications about the conversations between me and Cambial Yellowing, I would want to into that thoroughly. One clarification when I said "nasty individual at the Scientology articles" I was talking about things that happened at the article, not the individual and I should have made that clearer. I have high hopes that the more recent discussions will create a good situation there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@ToBeFree: The discussions that you refer to came after the end of the edit warring. Scolding frustrated talk page participants for language that was used after the edit war and for not "leading by example" (an admin conduct requirement) is an incorrect and unfair assessment of causation or contribution of Cambial's edit warring behavior. Please retract your accusation.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 20:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

While "leading by example" is a (stricter) conduct requirement for some usergroups, doing so is generally a good idea. WP:FOC and WP:TPG are universal; the former is policy, and they apply to your editing as well as anyone else's. The statements removed in Special:Diff/1194995281 shouldn't have been made on an article's talk page. I haven't made an assessment of "causation or contribution" to the edit warring and thus can't retract it; my "This" refers to the talk page being "full of unproductive discussion about user behavior", a state to which at least three users have contributed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I read "this isn't entirely Cambial Yellowing's fault" as an attempt at assigning contributory blame to Cambial's edit warring. If the 3RR report was simply filed too late to bother acting on, why even mention a discussion that happened afterwards?   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 19:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand this interpretation, but as you have already described, that would have made no sense.

I've had a look at the discussion because, in response to Bbb23's decline, an accusation of harassment and nastiness was made, and because there was a request for a warning. So I checked if there had been harassment and a need for a warning. A one-sided warning didn't seem appropriate, though. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Newimpartial reported by User:Darryl Kerrigan (Result: Stale)

Page: René Lévesque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newimpartial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

René Lévesque

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6]
7. [7]

The King in Yellow

1. [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Talk:René Lévesque#Lede and Québécois (again);
2. Talk:René Lévesque#Canadian Québecois or Québecois Canadian;
3. Wikipedia_talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#René Lévesque and nationality in the lede

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [9]

Comments:
This editor is currently subject an unrelated topic ban for gender and sexuality articles, and a general anti-Bludgeon restriction following edit-warring in March 2023. Following the close of an RfC and subsequent discussions at René Lévesque they have been engaging in similar behaviour, including violating WP:3RR with diffs 4-6. Similar behaviour seems to have occurred at The King in Yellow where they referred to other editors as self-appointed RoboCops or content high priests, while jumping into edit war there. They are generally disruptive. Sadly, I think they are generally here to try to make a better encyclopedia but the above is making it harder not easier to resolve content disputes and obtain consensus.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Stale Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• The last edit to the article was on January 11. Before that, both users were edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  [copied from AN] I have warned all three users for edit warring. They are lucky not to have been blocked. As it stands, the Newimpartial version is the stable version, and any editor seeking to diverge from that should seek consensus on the talk page. However, that does not excuse Newimpartial's constant reverting. I also think Newimpartial's repeated edit summary that their version/edits are as per the RFC is simply not correct and somewhat misleading/mistaken - the RFC close at Talk:René Lévesque#RFC: How should René Lévesque be described in the lead? specifically states that "Just to be clear: the outcome of this RfC is that the word "Canadian" should remain but whether "Québécois" should follow it is not decided" (my emphasis). GiantSnowman 21:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  GiantSnowman, the closer also said as part of the close, However, in this discussion I can't find a consensus that would let me choose between "Canadian" and "Canadian Québécois". In the circumstances I feel that should make the minimum possible edit, which is to insert "Canadian" before "Québécois". I'm choosing not to remove "Québécois" because I can't see a consensus to do so. The closer then edited the lead sentence to establish the version to which I reverted. So I don't see how I could be mistaken in identifying the version the RfC closer put in place - explaining their reasoning in the RfC close - as per the RfC. (Comment repeated from closed ANI filing.) Newimpartial (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 reported by User:Thecleanerand (Result: Declined)

Page: Triller TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [11]
2. [12]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

Comments:
Repeatedly cites an incorrect source claiming that FITE was a rebrand/relaunch of Flipps that launched in May 2012 when every other cited source on the article contradicts this.

Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a credible source that considers FITE to be a rebranding/relaunch of Flipps. The source that you cite is from FITE (now Triller TV) themselves. Triller seems to be attempting to rewrite history, also self-sources are often not considered to be credible on Wikipedia. Also many of the edits I made were to correct spelling and grammatical errors that you made. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Triller seems to be attempting to rewrite history

Baseless.

Even if that were true, Triller doesn't own PRNewswire - which is where the alternate version of the same press release from 2016 (differenced by the PRN version referring to the service as "FITE TV"). Are they trying to "rewrite history" too?

Wrestling Observer Newsletter is a credible source, but they were simply wrong when it comes to the actual history of the app. Every other cited source on the page contradicts the citation from Wrestling Observer. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

User thecleanerand also does not respect the rulings of Wikipedia Administrators, previously writing in response to an attempt to get them to stop their disruptive editing:

"Kiss my fucking ass. This is not "the encyclopedia", it's a circle jerk of self-righteous, gatekeeping, page-hoarding pricks who think they can do whatever they want even against the site's own rules. I don't respect any of you brain-dead children, and whatever BS privileges you have mean nothing to me. [...] So unless you are an 'employee' of the non-profit WikiMedia Foundation, you and everyone else complaining on my talk page can eat shit for all I care. I won't be 'inappropriately combative', if the likes of you can avoid being insufferable cancer. Good day, and good fucking riddance." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Thecleanerand#March_2022) Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevent. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

BTW, if you're going to play the high horse card, maybe don't wipe your own user talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0&oldid=1195675659

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0&oldid=1195680023 Thecleanerand (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0&diff=next&oldid=1195680023 Thecleanerand (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Also please do not make accusations about editors. I had planned to create an archive even prior to your false report of me today. I did not move the section you added to my talk page to the archive. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not irrelevant. Just demonstrating a pattern that you display when the editing process does not "go your way". You have a history of edit warring, making disruptive edits, and denigrating other editors. You have a history of disregarding calls from administrators to cease such activities - multiple examples are present on your talk page. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

It IS irrelevant because it has NOTHING to with the fact that the citation was pain and simply wrong. Credible news websites can make mistakes.

Discrediting me doesn't help your case. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

FITE's website is not deemed a credible source and you must find another source for the 2016 launch date rather than the 2012 date that I cited from the credible Wrestling Observer Newsletter. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

PRNewswire is a creditable source. Every page on Wikipedia uses it. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Not true.

"There is consensus that PR Newswire is generally unreliable, as press releases published on the site are not subject to editorial oversight. Some articles may be used for uncontroversial claims about the article's author." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2016 launch date of Triller TV is a controversial claim because the Wrestling Observer and other credible sources cite the 2012 date while (seemingly) Triller itself is attempting to rewrite history and claim a 2016 date (to separate Triller TV from the Flipps app). Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wrestling Observer is a verified credible source on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Reliable_sources) Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't have proof that Triller is "attempting to rewrite history".

I'm citing an official press release from 2016 that's been used by every news webite covering the launch.

You're citing an article from a verified credible source that plain-and-simply got the FITE's launch date wrong.

https://www.wrestlezone.com/news/672295-jim-ross-signs-on-as-spokesperson-and-executive-advisor-for-flipps-medias-fite-tv-complete-details Thecleanerand (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

WrestleZone has been deemed an unreliable source on Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Sources#Unreliable_sources) You have to be able to back up your controversial claim without using unreliable sources and a literal press release. Dustin5StarMemphisoYeah0 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I have been using a literal press release the entire time, straight from FITE themselves. Thecleanerand (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• Declined I don't think the edit warring quite reaches the level of actionable at this time, especially since activity on the article seems to have died down with no edits in the last ~18 hours. I would highly suggest that the editors utilize the talk page to discuss the issue at Talk:Triller TV#About Flipps app, and there are dispute resolution options such as WP:3O available if no consensus can be reached between the two editors on the content. - Aoidh (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  There's no issue to discuss. They're wrong, I'm right.

  They're hiding behind a credible source that plain-and-simply got their facts wrong, I'm using an official press release from the article's subject that contradicts said credible source.

  They tried to discredit me by bringing up irrelevant drama while simultaneously blanking their talk page in an effort to vilify me, whereas I have nothing but civil this entire time.

  The fact that they believe in some nonsense conspiracy theory about "rewriting history" (to say nothing of their own drama on the History of WWE article) is proof enough they are are in the wrong and need to be disciplined.

  Instead, after making me wait all night, you're just going to do nothing about it? Thecleanerand (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Blocking an editor is done preventatively and not to "discipline" anyone (blocks are not punitive), and you both were edit warring. The edit warring policy specifically says that Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. If you are correct then it shouldn't be an issue to discuss it on the talk page (and I see you started a talk page discussion) or convince a third party as needed. - Aoidh (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:69.122.41.240 reported by User:Willondon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page: Carrington Event (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.122.41.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]
4. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Aoidh (talk) 05:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:LingoSouthAsia reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result: Blocked one week)

Page: Saraiki language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LingoSouthAsia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]
5. [26]
6. [27]
7. [28]
8. [29]
9. [30]
10. [31]
11. [32]
12. [33]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [35]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [36]

Comments:

More than 24 hours by far, but long term edit warring (starting from 11 December 2023‎ till now). The user just reverted again, falsely claiming that two users (who previously reverted LingoSouthAsia and even openly opposed them in the talk page [37]) now suddenly "agree" [38] [39] with LingoSouthAsia due to the mere fact that they didn't revert them again [40]. Basically, LingoSouthAsia keeps removing the name "Lahnda", replacing it with "(Punjabi) variety language" or something similar for an extended period in the WP:CTOP topic Saraiki language. User has already been told of several rules such as WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWARRING, WP:COMMON NAME. Bonus; a random attack [41]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

HistoryofIran has broken 3R rule himself [42]. He gives false assertions [43]. I used tak page and new section and got concensus [44]. I advised him that he may approach Dispute resolution for professional consultaion on the topic rather Admin notice Board but I think he lacks valid sources [45]. LingoSouthAsia (talk) 13:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

You forgot to point out that the vast majority of my reverts there is of a user evading their block (WP:3RRNO), someone you was suspected of being related to due to the same disruptive edits [46]. If you interpret the two users who disagreed with suddenly "agreeing" with you just for not reverting you again (I had the honor of that instead) and that talk page section as you gaining "consensus" (literally the opposite), then there are clear WP:CIR issues here. HistoryofIran (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Someonewhoisusinginternet reported by User:PickleAndPeanutFan (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)

Page: Oggy and the Cockroaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Someonewhoisusinginternet (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. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

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

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours. - Aoidh (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:PickleAndPeanutFan reported by User:Someonewhoisusinginternet (Result: Both blocked 36 hours)

Page: Oggy and the Cockroaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PickleAndPeanutFan (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. [52]
2. [53]
3. [54]
4. [55]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57]

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours. Aoidh (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

User:125.165.209.176 reported by User:Buidhe (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Template:Genocide sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 125.165.209.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [58]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 15 Jan
2. 15 Jan
3. 16 Jan
4. 16 Jan
5. 17 Jan

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60].

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [61]

Comments:
Note that all of the user's edits are a violation of ARBPIA extended confirmed restrictions (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Aoidh (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)