Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

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

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Bobi987 Ivanov reported by User:Laveol (Result:blocked 1 week)

    Page: Yane Sandanski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Bobi987 Ivanov (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. [5]
    5. [6]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on the user's own talk page: [8]

    Comments:
    I've laid out my concerns over the editor's behaviour at the incidents noticeboard. Since that report, he has been engaged in a fierce edit war on a number of articles (the most blatant example is Yane Sandanski, but there are others, such as Todor Panitsa, Boris Sarafov). Initially, I tried to contact him via the talkpage, since he was guaranteed to see it there. Later, I found out he was actually an experienced editor who was well aware of his actions. I also get the impression he is bringing his personal feud with another editor from mk.wiki to en.wiki.--Laveol T 11:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I just add some more useful info., and provide the sources. That's all. I never delete anything, unlike others. Bobi987 Ivanov (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You've been adding info directly from blogs, misinterpreted and misquoted a number of sources, and you've cluttered articles with unnecessary (mis)quotes. However, this is not the topic of discussion here. The question is why you continued to revert and revert, and doing it without a proper justification. You were warned that you needed to calm down. --Laveol T 11:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if one has got impeccable sources, this is no reason to edit-war. Here's a summary of five reverts on Boris Sarafov:
    1. [9]
    2. [10]
    3. [11]
    4. [12]
    5. [13].
    At this rate (5 reverts/ 7 hours) you would break even a 15RR, if there were one. Also, you ignored my comments on the talk page. This is not the way to go. Tropcho (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Berean! Just so you guys know, it seems that this IP Special:Contributions/79.126.250.162 is picking up Bobi987's cause. Tropcho (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've increased his block time to 1 week for evasion and semi-protected a couple of articles. His IP address is hardblocked one week as well.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks! Tropcho (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:‎24.77.232.213 reported by User:Richard Yin (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

    Page: Listen (David Guetta album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 24.77.232.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [14] (note that unrelated changes have been made since without being reverted)

    Diffs of the user's reverts (these are unsorted, sorry):

    1. [15]
    2. [16]
    3. [17]
    4. [18]
    5. [19]
    6. [20]
    7. [21]
    8. [22]
    9. [23]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by C.Fred

    Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The entire content and page history of Talk:Listen (David Guetta album), plus requests to participate on the user's talk page: [24] [25] [26].

    Comments:
    Looking at this page I see at least one report whose outcome was affected by the reporter continuing to edit war while logged out. There are multiple IP editors involved in the edit war I am reporting; this report only covers the one I have tried and failed to communicate with. To be clear, I have not edited while logged out since I registered this account. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. I had seen the IP's conduct independently of this thread. When s/he refused to respond to the requests of myself and other editors to discuss the edits on the talk page or even explain then in an edit summary, I ran out of options and blocked the IP to prevent further disruption of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Javier2005 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Stale)

    Page
    Anita Sarkeesian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Javier2005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "I won't give up to the truth"
    2. 13:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
    3. 13:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "relevant source"
    4. 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "why it is not relevant? it is a relevant source"
    5. 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Utah State University statement IS RELEVANT on the section "Terrorist threat at Utah State University""
    6. 13:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629978024 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"
    7. 12:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629974197 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) relevant sourced information"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bayonetta 2. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Warned for edit-warring on a different article, clearly should understand the rule + has flagrantly violated it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It takes two to tango (or three in this case). User:TheRedPenOfDoom and NorthBySouthBaranof were edit warring the exact same edit to remove the wrong version rather than discussing the validity of the reference as a reliable source at the talk page, as they should have done instead. They have stopped below the 3RR hard limit, but that's not an excuse for continuing an edit war. They should be engaging the new editor instead of WP:BITEing him. I'd say a WP:BOOMERANG is in place for failing to follow proper behavior policies. Diego (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If one is being reverted by multiple users, that's a good clue that they should stop. The user made no effort to discuss the issue on the talk page and blanked all attempts at discussing the issue on his user talk page. The idea that this is a WP:BOOMERANG issue is patently absurd. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's obvious that one editor is new to Wikipedia, that's a good clue to follow Don't bite newcomers and stop edit warring yourself. I've seen you making three reverts to the same edit and adding a threatening message to the warning notice, NeilN making two, and TheRedPenOfDoom making another three ([27], [28], [29]) and insulted the newcomer by implying that he had an intent to disrupt. Old-timers should know better than that, and a 24h block for edit warring would be a good reminder. Diego (talk) 14:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    ...no. That's laughable and you know it. It's not "gaming the system" for three different people to revert an editor who is singularly edit-warring. That is literally not even a thing. The entire point of 3RR is to remind a user that if they're getting reverted multiple times by multiple editors, that they're probably edit-warring. The reported user here was reverted multiple times by multiple editors. I'll be sure to waste your time in return and make unfounded demands that you be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If all these editors had limited themselves to a single revert and had cared to properly explain how Javier's behavior was wrong, I would agree. However, you and I know that's not what happens here. Diego (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Old timers" should also know not to pass themselves off as neutral observers when they're clearly not. Diego was cautioned for edit warring on a related article. --NeilN talk to me 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So what, you mean that civility and consensus-building can be thrown out the window when editors are involved? I've never said I'm a neutral observer (my edit history is clear at that very same article and talk pages), nor should that matter at the admin's noticeboard; what matter are documented breaches of policy. As a zero-tolerance editor against biters, my interest here is avoiding a newcomer being blocked by a tag-team. And I accept I may have been a bit leeway a couple of times recently, but you can see that I've been restraining from it, and you have yet to see mee tag-teaming against a newcomer. Diego (talk) 14:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus-building means using the talk page when you're bold edit is reverted, especially by multiple editors. Not reverting again and again, saying "I won't give up to the truth". --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know that, why did you revert twice? Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Has not participated in the talk page discussion here. --NeilN talk to me 13:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User is now at 7 reverts and shows no sign of being interested in complying with policy; all attempts at discussion on their user talk page have been blanked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also possibly related: User:187.210.189.223, which is repeatedly and without explanation section-blanking material on a related article that this editor had previously removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that @Javier2005: has stopped edit warring after someone actually cared to explain policy instead of tagging him and trying to win. Diego (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that you're playing the victim card for someone who auto-blanked anything on his talk page. You should be blocked for 24 hours as a good reminder not to support edit warriors. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No action is necessary here. We give leeway to new editors, since they can't be expected to know about our policies, but experienced people should know better. Since Javier now understands and has stopped, it would definitely be wrong to block him. It's tempting to block NorthBySouthBaranof, who clearly knows better and (judging by the comment of 14:10) indeed cares more about winning, but blocks shouldn't be punitive. Nyttend (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If Javier2005 has stopped, that's fine. The rest is a poor assessment, all around. --NeilN talk to me 14:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Your "has not participated" statement is out of date; since you said that, he's added three comments at the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the edit warring has stopped, so much the better. But blocking NorthBySouthBaranof would be ridiculous. The problem at these pages isn't with among the "editors who know better", it's with the high number of new accounts coming in with a agenda.--Cúchullain t/c 15:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why editors are expected to make the new editor feel welcome and explain the expected behavior to the newcomer, instead of throwing them full head into a trial, barely thirty minutes after the content dispute started. As an administrator you should know, follow and enforce this, instead of justifying the behavior of those who breach the guideline. Diego (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Administrators need to focus on the editors causing disruption rather than those reporting disruption. Here the disruption is coming from one direction: the SPAs coming here with an outside agenda, and those who enable them.--Cúchullain t/c 18:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So that's your official stance as an administrator, that biting newcomers is not a disruption that merits admin attention? No wonder that editor retention is dismal. Diego (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My official stance as an editor is that we spend far to much time navel-gazing and not nearly enough time dealing with blatant disruption so that content contributors can go about the business of building any encyclopedia.--Cúchullain t/c 03:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    And in any case, using an aggressive warning message as the first comment you make to a new editor is unacceptable. @NorthBySouthBaranof:, next time please use {{Uw-ewsoft}} instead; you may find that those new editors behave in a much saner way and tend to stop edit warring, instead of them becoming angered. Diego (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rob898989 reported by User:Dougweller (Result:Blocked as sock (along with 1 new sock) )

    Page
    Albinism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Rob898989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 13:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629950277 by Dougweller (talk) Actually there's no evidence about this guy's hypothesis. There's tons of evidence they have blonde and blue or green eyes though"
    2. 23:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Genetics */"
    3. 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629911759 by Noq (talk) Bias reference stating some white guy's hypothesis. Facts only. No biased studies allowed"
    4. 21:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Genetics */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 06:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Albinism. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    See also [30] where he added White people under "Delusion may also refer to:" and the same link to the dab page Trash.[31] Probably a sock of User:Cancer322. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note talk page discussion and another revert. --NeilN talk to me 13:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Everything written on the Albinism page is true. Everything they wrote is complete bullshit. Why do you think you should be able to lie on that page? Because "white people" are scared to admit that they're albino? It's the first search result for albinism, so it should be an accurate description of the disorder. It's not my fault that you have Albinism.

    Rob898989 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    That is just more evidence this is another sock.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cavefish777/Archive is the relevant page. Some of the edits from various socks with the same position are [32], [33], [34] and [35]. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what you're talking about Doug. You're seriously confused though if you think the lack of melanin in white people is different from the lack of melanin in Albinos. That's the only way people end up with lighter colored eyes, hair and skin. If brown melanin production were increased in people with OCA3, their eyes wouldn't turn blue and their hair would probably not be blonde or red(probably from pheomelanin, which is red). You've asked me to site my sources even after I posted two legitimate ones, and you can't even find evidence to prove your hypothesis yet think everyone should hear that over actual facts. I think it's obvious who is posting unproven and misleading content on that page.Rob898989 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rob898989 --NeilN talk to me 15:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:AntiTheJakAremania reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Persib Bandung (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    AntiTheJakAremania (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 14:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629981499 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
    2. 07:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629937131 by Walter Görlitz (talk)"
    3. 22:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629901345 by MbahGondrong (talk)"
    4. 08:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Undid revision 629686807 by MbahGondrong
    5. 07:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC) Undid revision 629677690 by MbahGondrong
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:40, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Persib Bandung. (TW)"
    2. 13:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 03:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC) "/* RfC: Should it be shorter? */ Reply"
    Comments:

    This is an edit war that goes back two days, 56 hours, and a total of five reverts. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I stepped in as one of the editors involved has been discussing and attempting to seek consensus (asking for my input and that of the football project and finally on the article's talk page) while the reported editor has only been reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The user did not breach 3RR but stopped at 3 reverts. However, he has been edit warring on the same page since October 15. In addition, the user is a new WP:SPA with troubling and disruptive edits elsewhere on the project in the short time they've been here. The user's limited English and repeated use of Indonesian on talk pages makes it that much more difficult to understand what he is doing. Even though he retracted the personal attack directed at Walter, at the same time he promised to revert as often as was necessary to maintain his version of the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:174.108.24.81 reported by User:Doniago (Result: 24 hours)

    Page
    Jason Schwartzman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    174.108.24.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    [36]
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. [37]
    2. [38]
    3. [39]
    4. [40]
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    [41]
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:FF-UK reported by User:Turkeyphant (Result: no violation)

    Page: Europlug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FF-UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&oldid=629795480

    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629820216&oldid=629795480


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629820216&oldid=629795480
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Europlug&diff=629943265&oldid=629929452

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: as above

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Europlug#FF-UK_is_edit-warring_again

    Comments:


    Hasn't violated WP:3RR due to de-escalation by me. However, is clearly edit warring and refusing to discuss outside of edit summaries. User has a history of edit warring on this page. Turkeyphant 18:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • No violation. I don't see any prior edits to that article by FF-UK; is there a prior name I supposed to be looking for? There's just two reverts, and you posted to the article's talk page maybe an hour before posting here. Maybe wait and see if he responds? This seems premature. Kuru (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems reasonable. I swear I saw warring on that article in their edit history but if you didn't find it I must be mistaken. How long should I leave it? Turkeyphant 03:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryulong and User:Butter and Cream reported by User:Titanium Dragon and User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Butter and Cream brought this up in ANI, I have moved it here) (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Gamergate controversy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    Diffs of Ryulong's reverts:

    1. [42]
    2. [43]
    3. [44]
    4. [45]
    5. [46]

    Diffs of Butter and Cream's reverts:

    1. [47]
    2. [48]
    3. [49]
    4. [50]
    5. [51]
    6. [52]
    7. [53]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Notification on his talk page (note that he reverted the notification; I was going to go back and note the diffs specifically, but he apparently does not want it on his user talk page)

    Previous warning: He was warned about this previously by Masem, for the same article no less.

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The relevant section.

    Comments:
    From a quick perusal of the history. The number may be higher, but they may not have been listed as such; that was just ones I found with the line "reverted" or "undid" in the edit. There appears to have been an edit war between him and @Butter and Cream: over closing a topic of discussion regarding a factual statement in the article. Ryulong has had something of an issue with regards to this in the past on the article, trying to close discussion over NPOV issues that the article has had. The article has had a DRN about NPOV and undue weight issues and is presently having mediation set up to deal with these issues as the discussion became too complicated for a DRN. Ryulong has steadfastly refused to be involved in either.

    Ryulong simultaneously claims that there is consensus for his point of view and that he has to continually close discussions on the subject matter, and yet refuses to participate in mediation or the DRN on the issue. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit war ended and has not continued for at least an hour. Anything now is long after the "dispute" so to call it has ended. And I did not do any such closing that he claims to have happened. I refuse to involve myself in those dispute resolution aspects because they are just new forms of forum shopping by people trying to push a POV and encountering opposition from established editors who know how the site is supposed to work. And I still stand by the fact that you, Titanium Dragon, should never have been unbanned from this topic area on that stupid loophole you discovered. And I will fight tooth and nail if I am going to be blocked over some fucking SPA meatpuppet garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And what the fuck is this shit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In my defense, my part of the "edit war" was simply opening the section Ryulong kept closing. At one point he also kept removing my additional comments to the section. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a valid reason to edit war. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Pot calling the kettle black. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no. I reverted precisely once and stepped away. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    At one point it seemed like even you were struggling with Ryu's edits, and seemed like you were editing out his goofs at that point. Which is what I were mostly doing in this "edit war". --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The other editor, User:Butter and Cream, is just as guilty of edit-warring. Note that the editor's complaint on ANI was closed as several editors noted that the issue is long-settled and Butter and Cream needs to drop the stick. The user's third edit was to ANI, which is rather suggestive that they know and understand policy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    NorthBySouthBaranof also edit-warred at one point. The only one who didn't partake was Titanium Dragon. --Butter and Cream (talk) 07:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    False, as above. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And Titanium Dragon, your "note that he reverted the notification" note, you warned me after you started the thread rather than before. And I'm allowed to remove shit from my page if I feel like it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, apologies. I misunderstood what the purpose of that was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=630076696"