Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring
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
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
 | Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
User:Alyo reported by User:2a04:4540:642b:3500:6d99:924e:e396:a4c92A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (Result: Stale)
editPage: Atlanta United FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alyo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user’s reverts:
Previous reverts of other users’ edits:
Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article/user talk page:
The full name issue has been discussed extensively in the past, with angreement to include the full name in the info box, and a majority of users were in favor of it, see reference 2. above. Alyo has both been informed about and aware of the discussion at the time and their conclusion.
He unilaterally removed the sourced edit, contrary to a previous compromise reached in the dispute discussion mentioned above on user’s talk page that would retain the full name of the club in the info box:
See reference 2. above, where Alyo himself offered to retain the full name in the info box, and ultimately reneged on it after some time when it went unnoticed.
Diff of warning that disruptive edits would lead to a report:
[13]
Diff of WP:ANEW notice posted to user’s talk page:
[14]
Comments: Alyo consistently ignores the process of consensus forming and focuses solely on pushing his WP:POV, with disregard to WP:ONUS, WP:CONSENSUS.
He conflates similar, but not identical elements to one, such as WP:COMMONNAME and branding/abbreviation versus WP:OFFICIALNAMES and full name; he uses rhetorical sleight of hand to dismiss other users’ points and numerous reliable sources brought forward, sometimes denying them outright, without providing verifiable sources himself for his claim.
The dismissal of sources extends to official social media presence and websites by the club in question itself. This behavior borders on, or might already constitute WP:OWN and is no longer inside the scope of WP:AFG. Furthermore, while he has formally opened up a discussion on the article talk page, he reverted to his preferred edit before any debate with other editors has been initiated or even any sort of consensus has been established (again), ignoring the previous agreement (references above). This constitues WP:DIS to my view. 2A04:4540:642B:3500:6D99:924E:E396:A4C9 (talk)
- This is an edit warring noticeboard. I can undo my edit (again) to give us time to discuss, but I would like you to make these content arguments on the article's talk page instead of hopping IPs and only responding to reverts. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:12, 28 August 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I went through the previous discussions and don’t see how this can be resolved without a third party, given your conduct related to the issue. I have no control over how my ISP handles the assignment of IP addresses. -2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
- I went and looked at the discussion on Alyo’s talk page, am I correct in understanding that they’re claiming what a team says about their own name can’t be used because it’s a Primary Source? And that Americans apparently just aren’t capable of understanding what FC stands for and all of them think it’s just meaningless words that teams put at the end of their name?? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That would be the gist of it, yes. There are sources by current and former employees, business partners of the club etc etc, that use the spelled out name - all either »insufficient« or non-valid sources, according to him. Please also note how he has offered to revert his pov-pushing AFTER he was reported in order to »discuss« further, when said discussions have already taken place several times. He moves the goalposts, which is documented in the discussion here [15] (too long to read, but you can spot it just by skimming through), and assumes a position of authority where he exclusively decides what is correct or acceptable -> see modified hidden note in latest diff: [16], and in general the latest comments for his reverts and edits in the history. His response to my warning that I’ll report him if he keeps suppressing sourced edits is also telling: I’ve had this discussion many times before — you’re welcome to try to convince me. [17]. Due to the lack of good faith, this would be a futile attempt, as demonstrated in the previous discussions. --2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
- Just to clarify, anon, have I had this discussion with you before? Are you one of the accounts who has previously edited the Atl Utd page or with whom I've had this discussion? This is not a gotcha question--I just want to know which points I've already made with you. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- No, I’m sorry, I’m not part of some conspiracy against you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, anon, have I had this discussion with you before? Are you one of the accounts who has previously edited the Atl Utd page or with whom I've had this discussion? This is not a gotcha question--I just want to know which points I've already made with you. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:05, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- @MilesVorkosigan no, the real answer is much more annoying--American soccer clubs copy the "FC" with no intention of calling their team a "Football Club" because of an appeal to (European) tradition and because it looks cool in FIFA. (Side note: There is no reason to call the team a "club" because in America, our sports organizations are not "clubs" in any way meant by that word in Europe or SA.) Obviously "FC" generally means "football club", but yes, in America the teams do sometimes attach meaningless letters to the end of their team names to appear more European. I cannot stress enough that I agree this is stupid. That said, the name of the team--what the article is about--is just "Atlanta United", or "Atlanta United FC" for branding purposes. The article really should be moved, because the precise name of the team in Major League Soccer, as outlined in the rules of the competition, is just "Atlanta United". No "FC", no "Football Club". Alyo (chat·edits) 13:59, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- This all appears to be completely original research on your part. Have you ever found a single reliable source that says “Americans don’t know what FC means and just use it as letters”?
- If you have not, can you offer any reason why you should not be T-banned from soccer articles? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Lol ok, I was operating in good faith. Take care. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That means you have no sources that agree with you, correct? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am grateful for him to state this false claim on record here (won’t call it something else, albeit it would be appropriate) -> a few refutations: [18], [19], [20], [21], and most importantly, [22] -> Atlanta United Football Club, LLC (the “MLS Team”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is an edit warring noticeboard, not a content mediation noticeboard. Why don't you bring some of this energy to the article talk page, where I'm currently talking to myself? Alyo (chat·edits) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Because this isn’t a content issue, this is a behavioral issue. You apparently have spent a year or more wasting multiple editors time with original research. Persuading you that sources are needed doesn’t seem likely to work. The most efficient way for the encyclopedia to protect itself and save editor’s time seems to be a t-ban. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Again, this is an edit warring noticeboard, not a content mediation noticeboard. Why don't you bring some of this energy to the article talk page, where I'm currently talking to myself? Alyo (chat·edits) 14:35, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- I am grateful for him to state this false claim on record here (won’t call it something else, albeit it would be appropriate) -> a few refutations: [18], [19], [20], [21], and most importantly, [22] -> Atlanta United Football Club, LLC (the “MLS Team”). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That means you have no sources that agree with you, correct? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Lol ok, I was operating in good faith. Take care. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:10, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- That would be the gist of it, yes. There are sources by current and former employees, business partners of the club etc etc, that use the spelled out name - all either »insufficient« or non-valid sources, according to him. Please also note how he has offered to revert his pov-pushing AFTER he was reported in order to »discuss« further, when said discussions have already taken place several times. He moves the goalposts, which is documented in the discussion here [15] (too long to read, but you can spot it just by skimming through), and assumes a position of authority where he exclusively decides what is correct or acceptable -> see modified hidden note in latest diff: [16], and in general the latest comments for his reverts and edits in the history. His response to my warning that I’ll report him if he keeps suppressing sourced edits is also telling: I’ve had this discussion many times before — you’re welcome to try to convince me. [17]. Due to the lack of good faith, this would be a futile attempt, as demonstrated in the previous discussions. --2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 10:14, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
- I went and looked at the discussion on Alyo’s talk page, am I correct in understanding that they’re claiming what a team says about their own name can’t be used because it’s a Primary Source? And that Americans apparently just aren’t capable of understanding what FC stands for and all of them think it’s just meaningless words that teams put at the end of their name?? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Correct, I went through the previous discussions and don’t see how this can be resolved without a third party, given your conduct related to the issue. I have no control over how my ISP handles the assignment of IP addresses. -2A04:4540:640B:1A00:1816:CA64:C44:EF18 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC) (talk)
Stale ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)- The content is now being discussed on the article's talk page, which is good. Focusing on content there is correct. In this regard, MilesVorkosigan is right to raise conduct concerns on a noticeboard rather than the article's talk page, but the edit warring noticeboard is unsuitable for it and conduct discussion doesn't resolve the current content conflict. So:
- Please discuss the content at Talk:Atlanta United FC;
- if, independently of this one specific content discussion, persistent behavioral issues exist, they can be discussed at WP:ANI with diff links from more than just this article as evidence.
- ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I don’t see how yet another discussion would all of a sudden bring a different outcome. The user has already participated in discussions on this topic with various other editors, which is documented in the links I provided and which he also concedes - see here [23] and here [24]. He violated previous agreements, which I also documented.
- The outcome and his behavior is always the same, so I have to strongly disagree - indulging him in another content-related talk is a waste of time. You can see in this very thread/report that he makes claims which are evidently false (vulgo »lies«). This is bad faith discourse.
- Ultimately, he always forces his ideas through. The impression of a delaying tactic on his part in order to maintain his position without agreeing to an acceptable solution has not been dispelled, on the contrary.
- I, or any other user, cannot constantly provide new sources or arguments in favor of including the full name until he is satisfied and gives his consent. By the way, I am not MilesVorkosigan. --2A04:4540:640C:9000:5D13:B01E:6405:359A (talk) 00:14, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User:2001:4455:8075:A100:B594:286:16AE:5F60 reported by User: Jjpachano (Result: Page protected, /64 anonblocked for 3 months)
editPage: JAM Liner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:4455:8075:A100:B594:286:16AE:5F60 (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:
- The edits given are not reverts; but appears to be manually editing of the article each time.
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: [diff]
Comments:
This IP range must be block due to persistent added wrong destinations and no providing sources. Other pages are also affected including Victory Liner, JAM Liner, JAC Liner, First North Luzon Transit, Genesis Transport, Philtranco, DLTBCo and Vallacar Transit. Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)- And a three-month {{anonblock}} for the IPv6 /64. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User khogen2410 involved in Edit warring (Result: Page protected)
editDiff pages:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308446946&oldid=1308444415
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308440403&oldid=1308425273
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Param_Sundari_%28film%29&diff=1308441739&oldid=1308440403
Talk page link: Talk:Param Sundari (film)
User @Khogen2410 has reverted or deleted my review entries which are from WP: ICTF reliable sources without any reason. Not engaging on Talk page either.
Violates WP:3RR
Action requested: Please temp ban the user @Khogen2410
Computeracct (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User notification on user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Khogen2410#Notice:_Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computeracct (talk • contribs) 06:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Sorry, but that doesn't help in this case. The user @Khogen2410 who has been edit warring can still continue to edit the page since he has 500+ edits.
- I cannot edit as I have close to 200 edits, but not 500+
- Request you to temp ban user @Khogen2410 (or atleast warn) for WP:3RR and unlock the protected page.
- He is the only user edit warring.
- Regards
- ComputerAcct Computeracct (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Haydi123 reported by User:Largoplazo (Result: Partially blocked 2 weeks)
editPage: Dolma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Haydi123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [29]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
I didn't discuss it on the article's talk page, granted. I did leave an elaborate explanatory edit summary at [35], and the user continues not to respond even after my additional remarks at [36] on their talk page, so it seems unlikely that the user would have responded on the article's talk page either. I'm filing this now despite seeing this requirement because otherwise it seems we'll be stuck: I won't revert their edit again because I don't want to be guilty of a 3RR violation, and if I don't then, if the user doesn't respond on the talk page, I can't show the user continuing to revert after seeing a discussion on the talk page.
Follow-up: See the comments section below.
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [37]
Comments:
Two other editors have also reverted Haydi123's addition, User:Jessicapierce [38] and User:Barseghian Lilia[39].
Another editor has reverted Haydi123's addition, so I've taken the opportunity to leave this discussion on the article's talk page. Largoplazo (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Partially blocked – for a period of 2 weeks ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Mariab777 reported by User:Quaerens-veritatem (Result: Partially blocked indefinitely; reporter blocked for 24 hours)
editPage: Rita Marley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mariab777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 03:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
1. 20:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
2. 21:24, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
3. 21:06, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
4. 11:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
User had multiple reverts of the same content before this (Rita_Marley History) and had a previous block for same behavior.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Attempt at Talk:Rita Marley#Was Rita Marley born in Cuba or in Jamaica? plus individually pinged Mariab777 on the Rita Marley Talk Page here: 00:46, 9 August 2025 (UTC) to join the Talk Page discussion, plus gave Mariab777 warnings, request to use Rita Marley Talk Page, etc. in edit summaries, the edit summaries quoted, as follows: "see, Talk:Rita Marley; Notable & Relevant; use Talk:Rita Marley & don't edit war" including at 01:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC).
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 01:49, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Comments:
User Mariab777 was previously blocked for two weeks for exactly the same warring behavior at 9 August 2025 (UTC). User has failed / refused to engage in Talk Page discussion. Previous two week block had absolutely no effect. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
Partially blocked indefinitely; reporter blocked for 24 hours ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
User:82.53.94.121 reported by User:45dogs (Result: Already blocked)
editPage: Brake My Wife, Please (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.53.94.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 08:52, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308753266 by 45dogs (talk)"
- 08:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308687744 by Patient Zero (talk) Really, do you want to stop? What fun is that? Your edits are being undone before your very eyes. Don't persist if you don't want to be banned for vandalism."
- 23:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308681474 by The Raincloud Kid (talk) Did you all perhaps suffer from dyslexia, or you simply don't care what I write? In any case, I've had enough, so stop it, calm down and clear your mind, because this constant defiance here on Wikipedia will not be tolerated."
- 22:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1308674651 by Adakiko (talk) Stop it, you and these constant pejorative and unsuitable restorations for an encyclopedic text."
- 21:29, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1306970814 by The Raincloud Kid (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 08:25, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Disruptive editing (UV 0.1.6)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
User:1DHNK1 reported by User:HistoryofIran (Result:blocked one week)
editPage: Tajiks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 1DHNK1 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44] [45]
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [46]
Comments:
1DHNK1 also attempted to remove source info in this article in 2022 and 2023 [47] [48]. They are falsely claiming that the citations they removed do not support the info [49]. They also posted this on my talk page [50]. They were blocked for edit warring (and personal attacks) back in 2019 [51], though they rarely edit, having 224 edits since December 2018. If they were more consistent, I believe they would have been blocked more. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- They are still making reverts.[52] Mellk (talk) 14:14, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- The user reverted the most recent edit back to their previously preferred version. Earlier, they said it needed more sources, and now they came up with a new reason... Jesus isGreat7 ☾⋆ | Ping Me 14:57, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:06, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Edard Socceryg reported by User:AlexBobCharles (Result: )
editPage: Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Edard Socceryg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 02:28, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Bluethricecreamman (talk): Three Pro Palestinian users co operating to play the system :) I will open a case soon"
- 22:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Wipka (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 03:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC) on Talk:Reza Pahlavi, Crown Prince of Iran "See WP:TPO, do not do this again. Undid revision 1308711123 by Edard Socceryg (talk)"
Comments:
Repeated reversion of edits and edit warring, usually accompanied by accusations of working for the IRGC. Also in general the users contributions have a very large fraction of reverts. They even tried to revert a Talk message on this pages talk. On an unrelated note: they gamed the system by making the same edit of adding Worlodmeter map to 62 articles about Asia's highways and roads (while having never edited any article related to that topic) in a span of 30 minutes to get to extended confirmed status. AlexBobCharles (talk) 13:03, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Made a WP:AE request here [53]. Apologies, but I think the issue goes beyond just edit warring, especially for multiple contentious topic areas. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:00, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
User:2A02:586:DE11:8500:D1FD:8C62:635C:9421 reported by User:Php13333332 (Result: 48 hour block)
editPage: JSON (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2A02:586:DE11:8500:D1FD:8C62:635C:9421 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 15:36, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "roviding more context - source is primary source (Dominik Zynis) one of the cofounders of State Software who worked with Douglas Crockford"
- 15:24, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "providing more context - source is primary source (Dominik Zynis) one of the cofounders of State Software who worked with Douglas Crockford"
- 15:19, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "context"
- 15:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "providing more context"
- 05:26, 31 August 2025 (UTC) "providing more context"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Diffs of attempts to talk back to reporters:
Comments:
Has been claiming identity as "Dominik Zynis" and causing an edit war. I'm not in that edit war, but many people are trying to stop him. Also in his talk page two people warned him. And the person talked back saying HIMSELF was a primary source. Pнp13333332 tαlk\edıts 15:47, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- Blocked 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Farkle Griffen reported by User:D.Lazard (Result: Both reported and filer blocked for 24 hours)
editPage: Function (mathematics) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farkle Griffen (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:
I must apologize to have reverted this user four times. Also, I did not open a discussion on the talk page. Nevertheless, it is clear from edit summaries that this user considers that, in case of disagreement, this is their version that should prevails, and that they have not to explain the motivations of their change. D.Lazard (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- All I asked was that you give more explanation than vague replies like "confusing" or "not an improvment". I did attempt to explain my reasoning here and here: the previous version does not explain how to go from the set-theoretic definition of "function" as a relation to the more common I was very clear in this edit that I am happy to fix it, if I could only understand your issue with it. – Farkle Griffen (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
- You're both edit-warring, and both blocked. You both tell the other to go to the talk page in your edit summaries. Why didn't either one of you actually go there? 3RR isn't an invitation to a game of chicken. When your blocks expire, please talk it out, as you both asked each other to do. -- asilvering (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2025 (UTC)
