Page: Socialist Workers Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cobalt47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: most recent

Diffs of the user's reverts:
1st set of reversions:
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
2nd set:
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
Final large reversion:
• [12]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [14]

Comments:

Two years ago, this user Bobfrombrockley, and I had a bit of a back and forth on this article regarding this and similar issues. When asked to engage, he doesn't really engage with the nature of disputes, has a habit of hurling insults and copying the same comments back to those who make the initial comments. He also seems to ignore the WP:BRD despite it being highlighted to him. Alssa1 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User being reported: Husesein07101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 01:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 23:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC) to 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 19:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:54, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 13:18, 17 December 2022 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 09:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Somalia."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 20:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC) "/* Infobox */ new section"

Comments:

Report filed. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...and they're still at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OgamD218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [16]: Revert at 05:01, 15 December 2022.
2. [17]: Revert at 09:39, 16 December 2022.
3. [18]: Revert at 05:22, 18 December 2022.
4. [19]: Revert at 09:11, 19 December 2022.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [20]

Comments:
OgamD218 made several WP:BOLD edits to an article that has been stable for a very long time. For example, he added an unsourced, essay-like paragraph about the ideology of Ba'thism based on his personal analysis: "Though not a fully uniform ideology, at its core Ba'athism promotes Arab Nationalism, while also heavily incorporating ideals such as Pan-Arabism, Antisemitism and Arab Socialism. While religious faith, particularly Sunni Islam is not at all rejected by mainstream Ba'athists, the movement was openly and overtly secular with Muslim and Christian minorities often holding leadership Offices within the Party. Atheism was expressly rejected by the movements ideological founder, largely due to its association with communism." (Most of that is not particularly inaccurate, but the relevance of OgamD218's research on Ba'thism to the topic of the article—Saddam–al-Qaeda conspiracy theory—is far from obvious, nor is it clear that antisemitism is a core component of Ba'thist ideology, to my knowledge at least.) Furthermore, OgamD218 boldly removed extremely salient content from the highly-qualified academic experts Daniel Byman and Robert Pape, labeling the latter "discreted" [sic] with no elaboration and initially refusing to explain why he removed the former. Obviously, we welcome bold editing on Wikipedia, but it is unacceptable to continually restore contested revisions without consensus or discussion per WP:BRD.

Additionally, there is disturbing evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and lack of competence by OgamD218. For example, when I asked OgamD218 why he had removed Byman with no explanation, he did not explain the edit, but instead derided my "objectively false claim" and referred to his original "thorough editor summary": i.e., "Pape is among the most discreted researchers in this field, regardless his stance is antithetical to the argument it's being used to advance". While OgamD218 was careful to state that he was assuming good faith at that time, he has since openly described my challenge to his edits as a "bad faith revision," and—on a related article where he is also engaged in disruptive editing to remove long-standing content from academic specialists in favor of unsourced commentary—as "bad faith revisions by wiki stalker/possible vandal TheTimesAreAChanging". Sadly, all the telltale signs of lack of competence are there: Inability to engage with other users in a collegial manner; misconstruing policies such as original research and synthesis to apply to reliable sources such as Pape (see these diffs, in which OgamD218 points out that Pape is "wrong" to invoke the lack of involvement by Iraqi nationals in 9/11 as evidence that Iraq likely was not involved in the attacks) as opposed to Wikipedia editors (himself included); misusing the term "vandalism" to apply to edits by long-standing users with whom he disagrees (which is not how we define WP:VANDALISM on Wikipedia); formatting a note incorrectly so that it is hidden on the Saddam Hussein article; etc.

I have asked OgamD218 repeatedly (e.g., [21], [22], [23]) to open a discussion on the talk page, but he has not done so, and it is frankly very difficult to understand the intent behind these edits from the vague, opaque, personal-attack laden edit summaries (filled with misstatements and spelling errors) alone. For example, what did OgamD218 mean when he wrote that Pape's "stance is antithetical to the argument it's being used to advance," or when he dismissed Michel Aflaq as the "fictional founder" of Ba'thist thought? I'm not a mind reader (nor is mind-reading a requirement for our volunteer editors)!TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 72 hours from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The link here was dead before I was able to respond. It now seems possible for me to respond which though I only ask if that's allowed or even worth it considering a decision having been made against me based on a mix of misrepresentations and out lies using fabricated evidence like misleading links? OgamD218 (talk) 12:52, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: LGB Alliance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Void if removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 08:14, 19 December 2022
2. 11:10, 19 December 2022
3. 14:10, 19 December 2022
4. 19:36, 19 December 2022

User has also broken 3RR at 55 Tufton Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [24]

Comments:

• Blocked Salvio 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "Pktlaurence moved page Heinrich Reuss to Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss over redirect: Unexplained revert"
2. 19:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "Pktlaurence moved page Heinrich Reuss to Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss: His name should stay German but the title prince should be anglicised per convention, as this is English Wikipeidia"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Within a few days after their last one-month block for edit-warring, this user is now move-warring on a page with an ongoing RM discussion. JBL (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's bullshit, I didn't know what happened at all as you did not explain the reason of your revert, and you did not attempt to notify or communicate with me either. Now as I am notified I will not revert it again. BTW I have not breached the 3RR principle either so stop wasting the administrators' time.Pktlaurence (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary could not have been clearer. If you revert yourself I will be happy to withdraw this request. -- JBL (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that (1) Pktlaurence did not self-revert, and (2) instead endeavored to follow me to a different page I recently moved and to move it without discussion or explanation. It would be super convenient for me if any passing administrator could deal appropriately with that behavior; otherwise I can relocate ANI instead I guess -- JBL (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again I did explain. I cannot self-revert, but if you or some admin revert it I would be happy to see it stay the way it is. And again, 3RR. Pktlaurence (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again, you didn't make any notifications or even explanation in your summary. 'JayBeeEll moved page Heinrich XIII, Prince Reuss to Heinrich Reuss over redirect: revert. Pktlaurence' That's all I can see on the page move log. (talk) 20:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Nina Lobkovskaya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Gorgon Slayer (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 17:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC) to 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
   1. 17:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "What do you mean by " Reliable " Source ? Source that suits your opinion ? Who decided that "Proza.ru" is unreliable and those random articles in the page is reliable ? You ? Or those soviet communists ? Kindly use the Talk Page to clarify and provide refutations ( which is not available in this case ) before suppressing the truth."
   2. 18:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC) "And for your information, " Proza.ru " is way reliable and logical than those " sources " in this page as It's solely based on logic and history rather than copying and pasting the same misinformation over and over again. Proza.ru is A Russian Source which points out self-contradictory claims in those articles that is cited as " source " here. Kindly read it before suppressing the truth and reverting the edit ."
   3. 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC) "Source has been provided. Before removing any source, provide refutation (which is not available in this case) against information in the source rather than suppressing it."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User_talk:Gorgon_Slayer Shows multiple previous warnings for both disruptive editing and edit warring.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Other users asked them to go to talk,[[25]][[26]] but they decided not to.

Comments:

User has previously been blocked for edit warring, so I don't know if a 'warning' is required in this instance. In the above article and multiple others in the same subject area[[27]],[[28]] [[29]] , User made a change, it was reverted, then they edit-warred that change back in, were asked by multiple editors to discuss changes on the talk page, but instead reported the other editor for vandalism [[30]]; this is disruptive. JeffUK (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked Salvio 11:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tiger I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gun Nut perk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [39]

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2022 Indianapolis Colts–Minnesota Vikings game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PeeJay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [40]

• Please Note that the article is about a recent sporting event, so there have been several other constructive edits in addition to the subject edit-warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45].

• Within two minutes, PeeJay reverted this edit with the comment "Don't template the regulars."

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46].

• PeeJay had a somewhat uncivil response.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [47]

• Should be noted that PeeJay removed this warning from his talk page with the comment "rvv" (revert vandalism)

Comments:

PeeJay has violated the three-revert rule as shown by the diffs above. These reverts all have to do with semantics and language of the pages, despite multiple other users disgreeing with him. For example, two of the reverts listed had to do with changing "the Vikings" to "the hosts" when it is not obvious that the Vikings were hosting the game (for example, to a reader who is only looking at the game summary section). Also, language involving the Vikings needing a win or a tie to clinch the division title (while PeeJay insists on the less straightforward "needed to avoid defeat" language rather than needed to win or tie, while baselessly accusing me of being WP:POINTY in the edit summary).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been a minor participant in this edit war, having made one revert during this time [48] and a partial revert [49] (and a self-revert that would not count toward edit warring). PeeJay has also made a few other reverts during this time that I consider constructive and that do not count toward the 3RR.

Also should be noted that PeeJay has a long history of edit warring. Frank Anchor 18:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is unnecessary escalation. The content of the article is under discussion on the talk page, and Frank's assessment of my responses has been grossly exaggerated. I'm happy to discuss the content, but it's hard to do so when instead of continuing the discussion they started, other editors would prefer to go straight to 3RR. I have no particular attachment to my own contributions, but when the alternative offered is inferior (at least in the opinion of this professional sports writer), there's no reason to stick with it. – PeeJay 18:41, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not go straight to 3RR, as evidenced by the reminder template on PeeJay's talk page and the discussion I opened on the article talk page, both of which were dismissed by PeeJay as shown on the above diff links. Frank Anchor 18:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice is to interpret the deletion of talk page messages as acknowledgement. Didn’t you know that? – PeeJay 19:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the notices is obviously fine, but PeeJay, "we're discussing" is not really a sufficient reason to breach 3RR, whatever the merits of the language. I promise the site will survive even if it has some subpar verbiage on it from time to time! Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there was an issue with PeeJay deleting the notices on his talk page. That is one accepted practice to show acknowledgement. However, PeeJay falsely claimed that I went "straight to 3RR," while I was attempting to refute that claim by showing I (a) warned him with the standard edit-war template and (b) posted in the talk page attempting to discuss rather than continue edit warring, but PeeJay responded with an uncivil response that had a tone of "My version is better than yours because I get paid to write sports content" and then added a baseless accusation of me being vindictive for suggesting "need to win or tie" as an alternative to "need to avoid defeat" Frank Anchor 20:04, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Blocked – for a period of 24 hours It took about 20 minutes of reviewing the article history to determine that, within a 24-hour period, PeeJay made four reverts of other editors on either the issue of whether to describe the Vikings as "hosts" of the game in the body text or not, or how to phrase the Vikings' playoff position as whether they needed to "avoid defeat" or "a win or a tie".

If these sound like silly things to get blocked over, they are. This is, well, choosing the pitcher's mound to die on. They should and could have been resolved on the talk page. Yes, PeeJay said in his response above that discussion had started, but this combative response, in par with a generally tendentious tendency one sees throughout his edit history, is hardly adequate to make that claim.

All the same, I have limited the block to 24 hours, the standard sanction for a 3RR violation, despite the editor's lengthy history of longer blocks, because while he violated the rule he is not the only one responsible for this situation. Not just he, but Frank and the other editors involved, could have availed themselves of other dispute resolution mechanisms for this.(Redacted)

I also find that PeeJay's edits were, on their own terms, entirely defensible choices of wording that Wikipedia's collaborative processes deserved a chance to work out without getting here, another reason I only went with the standard block. Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: please note that I did NOT restore the the notice of this discussion to PeeJay's talk page, as you claim I did. This is shown in the two diffs I linked above. My first post was a standard edit war template that I used in an attempt to have a discussion with PeeJay rather than bring the discussion to this noticeboard. The second post was the notice of the discussion here, which I am required to add to his talk page. Therefore, I see no violation of WP:BLANKING and I respectfully request that you strike that part of your comment. Frank Anchor 20:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank Anchor:  Done. However, two straight templated notices within 20 minutes with the same general theme ... can you really blame him for feeling harassed and thinking they were the same exact notice? Daniel Case (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And I will keep that in mind for the future. Frank Anchor 23:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2022 Peruvian self-coup attempt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Louis Waweru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts: First round:

1. [51]
2. [52]
3. [53]
4. [54]
5. [55]
6. [56]

Second round: [57]

Third: [58]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 1st: [60] 2nd: [61]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [62]

Comments:

The user has also twice moved the page with no consensus. At this point its obvious this is edit warring so I'm not going to keep rolling back changes because I don't want to engage in this behaviour. But the page moves are: 1. [63] 2. [64]

Alcibiades979 (talk) 07:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page shows the article name is in bad taste. The discussion also shows that there is no consensus on where "self-coup" comes from, or why it is decidedly a self-coup. All sources agree either side views the actions of congress as a coup or the actions of the former president as a coup. Heads of state overwhelmingly say the acts of congress are beatant coup behavior. No source mentions self-coup (and it's a ridiculous term to apply to a sitting president). Article 134 was lawfully invoked, courts decided it was improperly used and they were obeyed.

I would like to point out other than showing unexplained reversions, this user has absolutely no critique of the content. This user is the one hitting revert and undo.

If it's not clear, this user has two complaints: the title changing, and the lead changes. Despite using three sources across a sentence, they were inexplicably reverted, requesting consensus for basic facts such as Article 134 being invoked, hostility between congress and the president, a quote used as commentary on the fact that this is not a new phenomenon (actually, the previous articles use "constitutional crisis") is not normal or how to police.

Regarding the title, the talk page shows it was biased and used invented language. It had to be changed. Talk⁄Louis Waweru 07:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After being reported User: Louis Waweru took to the talk page to call the WP:Consensus edits "bullshit" which is further edit warring behaviour and a violation of WP:Civility. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 2022 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66]
2. [67]
3. [68]
4. [69]
5. [70]
6. [71]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [72]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [73]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [74]

Comments:

6 reverts in the past 24 hours. Accusing unregistered editors of being "IP editors". Accused me of having bad faith and called my changes "not an improvement". Ecrusized (talk) 08:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also has been previously blocked for a week for personal attacks and has been warned by at least 5 other editors on their talk page for edit warring. [75], [76], [77], [78] , [79]. 09:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrusized (talk • contribs) [reply]

• I didn't do 6 reverts, only these two [80], [81] are my reverts in 24 hrs while the rest are my own edits mixed with partially removing IP edits. I didn't accuse OP of bad faith which they show no proof of, casting aspersions. I did explain in detail why their edit wasn't an improvement on the article and my talk. With their no consensus edits and edit-warring over them, they also hinder the current long ongoing discussion which tries to achieve consensus. Additionally, OP tried to AfD the article unsuccessfully and with subpar argumentation, and they're the one currently edit-warring over their own no consensus edit [82], [83] while hindering the long discussion on talk that they haven't even commented on single time. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:3RR. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. You have been warned by 5 other editors besides myself about this but still seem to go on with battle ground behavior. Your reverts, whether involving the same or different material count as a revert. Ecrusized (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're showing warnings from random users from 2021 and completely irrelevant, unrelated to this article. And as I said, I reverted 2 times in the article in the past 24hrs [84], [85]. My own edits aren't reverts as 4 of the diffs you show aren't even reverts [86], [87], [88], [89] and the IP didn't re-revert me for there to be an edit-war.

Also you haven't participated once in the extensive discussion which directly touched on and tries to achieve consensus regarding parts of your own edits as well (where you were making factual errors and wrong attributions), which you edit-warred over with no consensus or the discussion participation. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ZaniGiovanni twice removed a reference to Jamnews, claiming it was an Azerbaijani source, which it is not. [90] [91] He made many other reverts on this same article. He was previously banned for 2 months from Armenia-Azerbaijan related topics. [92] [93] He was also formally warned to refrain from edit warring: [94] Probably WP:AE is a more appropriate place to deal with this. Grandmaster 10:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS is on you to achieve consensus. Yes I did edits in the article, but editing isn't prohibited. I reverted 2 times in the past 24hrs. I also removed a "Jamnews" article which was published in Baku [95] and had no third party backing the cited claim and was egregiously in Wiki voice. You adding it with no consensus is what's the problem, per WP:ONUS, and not providing any non Baku published third party in its place when kindly asked to do so. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish Baku claims in Wiki voice no less, especially for exceptional claims of "humanitarian aid" while the whole world condems Azerbaijan for blocking the corridor for a week now [96]. And you were banned for 6 months from Armenia/Azerbaijan topic area this year, what's your point? What does you bringing up and browbeating me with the 2-month topic ban has to do with this report? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jamnews is an international publication. If it has reporters in Baku, that does not make it Azerbaijani, or unreliable. You cannot simply remove a source because you disagree with it. If you have objections to Jamnews as a source, the best is to bring it up at talk, not to remove it repeatedly. And that is not your only revert on that article within the last few days. You have been formally warned against edit warning in this topic area. Grandmaster 10:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an exceptional article published in Baku. Nobody else makes such claim of "humanitarian aid" and no WP:RS does. In fact WP:RS are pretty clear that supplies in the region are lost or are running low due to the blockade [97], [98]. You were adding "Jamnews" Baku published article, the WP:ONUS is clearly on you to achieve consensus when your edit or part of it was contested for being WP:UNDUE / having no WP:RS to back it up (WP:EXCEPTIONAL). And as I said, I reverted 2 times in the past 24 hours, my own edits aren't reverts. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Jamnews is not published in Baku, it is an international publication. You have clearly violated the 3RR by these 4 reverts on 21 December (not counting previous ones): [99] [100] [101] [102]. And that is despite previous warnings against edit warring and sanction for battleground behavior. Grandmaster 13:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only these [103], [104] are my reverts in 24hrs, and the Baku edition of an article from "Jamnews" which it clearly indicates [105] you used adding the exceptional claim contrary to what most RS say. This is my own edit removing the source along with other source denying it, as the claim is UNDUE/Exceptional to begin with per most RS [106], [107] clearly stating supplies are lost or are running short because of the blockade. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale. I am closing this report as stale, only because you both seem to have stopped reverting this morning. If not for that reason, I'd have p-blocked both ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs) and Ecrusized (talk · contribs) for edit warring. Please, take this to the talk page or blocks will become necessary. Salvio 14:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]