Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 724: Line 724:


Damiens was [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User:Damiens.rf block review|Blocked]] twice recently for edit warring (once with me) and harassing other editors. Numerous editors have been driven off by his antics. &nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Redthoreau|<font color="#FF3333">'''Red'''</font><font color="#FFCC00">'''thoreau'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Redthoreau|talk]]) RT 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Damiens was [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#User:Damiens.rf block review|Blocked]] twice recently for edit warring (once with me) and harassing other editors. Numerous editors have been driven off by his antics. &nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Redthoreau|<font color="#FF3333">'''Red'''</font><font color="#FFCC00">'''thoreau'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Redthoreau|talk]]) RT 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::'''Comment.''' Since neither editor shows any interest in changing their approach, I'd now support a properly-escalated block for both, which would probably be one week in each case. Both users have a block history for edit warring. If either one would sincerely join in creating an article [[WP:RFC]] all this nonsense could be avoided. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:17, 5 December 2008


    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

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:24.180.21.121 reported by User:Movingboxes (Result: blocked at 09:12 by User:Shell Kinney)

    24.180.21.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Time reported: 2:48 AM

    • Previous version reverted to: [1]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [5]
    Note: Apparently an old report. Adding post-dated timestamp for benefit of MiszaBot II. 09:12, August 22, 2008 (UTC) — Satori Son
    Lets try with a current date... it is still here. —— nixeagle 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Slow edit warring at Tatars (result: block; semi)

    This has been going on for ages, and there is little sign of any attempts to discuss. Can someone protect the page or something?--Kotniski (talk) 11:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked User:Fnr Kllrb 48h for edit warring etc. Also SoWhy (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Tatars: IP edit-warring ([edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 11:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)))) (undo) which should help William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Date delinker reported by Locke Cole (Result: Declined)

    Date delinker (talk · contribs) is a sock/alt account of Ohconfucius (talk · contribs). Ohconfucius is currently involved in a dispute about whether or not date links should be automatically removed. He was warned not to remove date links in articles from either of his accounts or he might be blocked. Note that this user has used his alt account to edit while blocked in the past in (block evasion) so both accounts should be blocked if that is the result. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gosh, this really is harassment of the first order. This is totally out of order. Cole is stalking me, once again, still accusing me of date-delinking. I have already stopped doing what what I have been asked to do, because he has been so nice about it ;-). Well I am getting tired of having to go through this yet once again. I would applaud him for his tenacity, though he must be getting really desperate to screw me. Evidently, it appears that he has combed through every single one of my 80 entries from yesterday, and he has found more evidence of "massive date-delinking" (Gasp! Shock, horror!). Congratulations! out of the eighty articles and god-only-knows how many links undone, he found that I have delinked a grand total of 3 date instances and one solitary year, all of which are buried somewhere deep in the core of the articles concerned. Any reasonable person would say that these are totally incidental bearing in mind the semi-automated tools used to convert dates from mdy to dmy format. It must be pretty darn obvious that this is something quite personal for Cole, and that I am already doing my utmost to avoid him. Yet he still insists in following me around wikipedia and reporting me at every turn. Not a day goes by that I don't have to look over my shoulder, and to come here and review the entries. Please tell Cole to go away and quit bugging me. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You were instructed to cease date delinking activites until the matter is resolved. I stopped reverting your project wide changes with the understanding that any such reversion would result in my being blocked. If, however, this is no longer the situation I will happily begin reverting you because you have no consensus for forcing your changes. —Locke Cole • t • c 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohconfucius is also removing links from tables in contravention of the Manual of Style concerning tables. See, for example, the Date delinker edits to the Conchita Martinez article. He should stop making these kinds of edits and fix the damage he's done already. Tennis expert (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined The moratorium existed because of the absence of consensus on the issue. Looking at both relevant RFCs on the issue, consensus is now much clearer so I have no mind to block on the basis of edit warring. However, I do have doubts about whether this is an appropriate task for automated or semi-automated tools since often the date-link may need to be replaced with a "See also" link to a relevant article (1932 in cheese making or whatnot). If an editor seeks an extension of the moratorium then they should do so at ANI. CIreland (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Having looked at the RFC, I agree. LC should not make any further reports on this issue William M. Connolley (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Does this case set a precedent? In other words, is it valid to bring those trying to bring editors who are editing articles to comply with the MOS and consensus (i.e. date delinkers) to ANI any more (barring 3RR violations of course)? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This does set a precedent. Date-delinkers should no longer be reported here, or to ANI, purely for date-delinking William M. Connolley (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and will comply. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:45, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Then what is the proper forum? There is still no consensus that dates should be always delinked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nowhere. I think they are calling this one. Joy!--2008Olympianchitchat 10:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    True, deprecation does not mean mass delinking still. And since auto formatting is currently a no consensus (which means we keep it) I'm troubled that the solution the devs have worked on relies on date links to remain as-is. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ViperNerd reported by Jober14 (Result: No vio)

    • Previous version reverted to: [11]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [15] - I had to change the link since he deleted the warning off his talk page

    Based on previous edits by ViperNerd, he is a fan of the South Carolina Gamecocks. His team lost to Clemson University this weekend and now he is using Wikipedia as a means to "even things out". Even though I am a Clemson fan, my record shows that I have been unbiased in all my edits on this website. I ask for the same civility from ViperNerd but all he is concerned about is writing and editing articles to portray Clemson in a negative and biased viewpoint. This particular page has many many issues and unfortunately they (fans of USC) will not engage in positive constructive discussion about how to write the article in a neutral viewpoint. He's just causing trouble and it is dissuading passive editors from contributing on Wikipedia. Jober14 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No violation The three-revert-rule prohibits more than 3 reverts in 24 hours. See dispute resolution for ways to get more opinions on the contested issue. CIreland (talk) 16:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note Nothing against the closing admin, and to be honest I have not even looked over the circumstances of this case (so the close is probably 100% correct), but fallowing this discussion this noticeboard now allows for users to report cases of edit warring (not just 3RR) and as such cases can be closed with a block even if users have yet to violate 3RR. Tiptoety talk 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strikehold reported by FSUNolez06 (Result:Page protected )


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]


    • 1st revert: [16]
    • 2nd revert: [17]
    • 3rd revert: [18]
    • 4th revert: He asks me to cite it here, so I do in 5th revert. Appartently, that wasn't good enough, as he undid it again! [19]
    • 5th revert: [20]
    • 6th revert: [21]
    • 7th revert: [22]


    I have proven that what I posted was true, yet he doesn't want to believe it. I have been updating this page all year long and have never posted anything incorrectly. Everything I post is 100% true. Check out our talk pages to see our communication about this and many more details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FSUNolez06 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    FSUNolez06 reported by Strikehold (Result:Page protected )


    • Previous version reverted to: [23]




    I repeatedly tried to explain the reasoning for the exclusion of the information in question, due to being unsourced and speculative in nature. User FSUNolez06 repeatedly reverted to re-include this information, four times.

    I repeatedly asked him to provide a reliable source, where he could only respond with a link to a pay-only message board, and said he could not share the information verifying his edits due to that being in violation of the message board's terms of service. I asked him to link or find an open-source source to verify it, which he could not, and only became more combative.

    I warned him that his four reverts are a violation of the 3RR and asked that he remove the information he repeatedly reverted to include. FSUNolez06 then gave me a 3RR warning (though I had not violated the 3RR) in an attempt to report me preemptively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strikehold (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • This is FSUNolez06. I don't know how to respond to one of these, so please forgive me if I am doing this wrong. With that said, I have posted a link verifying what I know. It is not my fault he doesn't have a membership to the site. I have posted 100% accurate information (and it will come to light and appear all over the internet within a week). I'm not sure what all the fuss is about with this. Within a week, he will see what I posted was true, and he will be proven wrong. I'm sorry he can't find another link online verifying it. That doesn't mean it is not true. There are a lot of things on Wikipedia that don't have any online sources verifying it: instead, they have newspaper articles, magazine articles, etc verifying it. Because there is not an online source for those things, then it should be taken down? I don't think so. I have been updating the 2008 Florida State Football page all year long and have updated it with nothing but true information. I don't think it is right that Strikehold has come through and gotten rid of some valuable information, just because he doesn't believe it is correct information. It is kind of ironic that he can get rid of it because he doesn't think it is correct.

    FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just glancing at this, if the information will come to light in the next week through verifiable secondary sources, it would be best to wait until then. The main source of information right now appears to be a subscription forum. Dayewalker (talk) 05:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is also a second source. The FSView (Florida State University's campus newspaper) also supports what I posted. Aren't newspapers OK to cite? FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For admin's notice, I'm trying to discuss this on the relevant talk page with FSUNolez06. I've suggested he revert his edits and post his newspaper source to the talk page. Dayewalker (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry. I didn't check the talk page. I'll move all discussion there. FSUNolez06 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lima reported by LoveMonkey (Result: No violation)


    • Previous version reverted to: [link]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [31]

    Lima has repeatedly engaged in editing that is not collaborative and appears to be to frustrate and or censor additions into the East-West Schism article. LoveMonkey (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see 3 reverts, it takes 4 to technically violate 3RR. However if this disruptive editing continues without discussion on the talk page (more then just this section about this report) I will be blocking those involved. —— nixeagle 20:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation --B (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daly reported by 74.4.222.208 (Result: user warned)


    • Previous version reverted to: [32]
    • Previous version reverted to: [33]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [42]

    Daly refers to the Talk page in his edit summaries, but during his deletions of fork history in the "Axiom (computer algebra system)" and "Comparison of computer algebra systems" articles--in addition to, in the latter article's case, replacing said information with minor information that would best be handled in the Axiom article (in this case, a request that people search for a video, and later on a link to the video)--he had refused to engage in discussion on the "Axiom (computer algebra system)" Talk page, wherein it was already explained why his deletions and substitutions are inapproprate.--74.4.222.208 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User warned William M. Connolley (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DHawker reported by MastCell (Result: Blocked)


    DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account promoting colloidal silver. Constant edit-warring, blocked about a week ago. I vouched for an unblock provided he'd stop edit-warring. He was unblocked, and repaid me by calling me names and now going right back to edit-warring to promote colloidal silver. Needless to say, I'm having second thoughts. MastCell Talk 05:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24Ancient Chinese secret says "drink quicksilver and have sex to extend life" Ancient Chinese secret also say edit warring bad.--Tznkai (talk)
    Support a block, but feel the length is far too short. I would have gone with indef. Tiptoety talk 06:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Number_57 reported by User:Tiamut (Result: Israel-Palestine arbitration remedies enforced)

    • Previous version reverted to: [43]

    Please note that the first three reverts delete over 1,000 bytes of sourced material, relevant to the article, but that the 3RR report pertains to the replacement of the word Palestine (the word used by the source cited) with Palestinian territories. The fourth and fifth reverts are just the replacement of the terms, without the deletion of sourced material, which was done instead by User:Jayjg. No attempt to engage in discussion at the talk page was undertaken, despite my request to Number 57 that he do so [49]. Instead, he made personal attacks at my talk page, accusing me of "bad judgement" [50].

    • Diff of 3RR warning: No need for a warning, since Number 57 is an admin and knows full well what 3RR is. In any case, it seems he was warned by another userhere and his response was this. I did inform him of this report after it was filed. [51]. Tiamuttalk 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a complete nonsense. An article on a foodstuff is being turned into an attack article by the insertion of completely undue material (describing the "humiliation" of Jews for one thing). According to Tiamut, three editors (I assume including herself) have worked hard to include that kind of material, which I think tells you all that needs to be said. As such, I have absolutely no regrets, and were such material reinserted into the article, I would have no hesitation in taking it out again per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
      • As for the more recent edits, its nothing more than a couple of editors POV-pushing by trying to get the word "Palestine" into the article rather than the proper term "Palestinian territories", another action which should be reverted at every possible opportunity. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really disappointed by Number 57's approach here and at the article. Regardless of whether there is any merit to his editing position, the way he went about trying to get his concerns addressed violated Wikipedia policies - core among 3RR. He s not reverting vandalism. This is a content dispute that involved many editors, most of whom have taken the trouble to discuss their positions at the talk page. Number 57 has not and has reverted a number of time to pursue his POV to the exclusion of all others. This is not acceptable behaviour by any Wikipedian, least of all an admin. Tiamuttalk 12:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might further note that he's just reverted a sixth time now here. Are admins not subject to the 3RR or edit-warring restrictions at all? Tiamuttalk 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not vandalism in the sense of replacing the page with "F**K YUO ALL", but it is certainly vandalism in terms of completely messing up an article to push forward someone's twisted world view. As for it being described as my "POV", the existence of somewhere called the Palestinian territories is actually commonly referred to as a fact. It also worth noting that aside from a brief couple of edits back in May (actually to fix the same issue of misplaced terminology), this is not an article I am involved in editing - I saw the state of it yesterday and noted that something needed to be done. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, your opinion on what the correct name for the area being referred to is irrelevant here. The source cited uses the words "Palestine and Jordan", and not "Palestinian territories". We use the term used by the source and since "Palestinian territories" is not a synonym for "Palestine", your change is WP:OR. It is in fact you that are politicizing a food article with your persistent changing of this word to accord with your world view. Tiamuttalk 12:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There you go again, trying to push your idea that it is my "opinion on the correct name". It's not an opinion, it's a fact, and until editors such as yourself learn to differentiate between the two, your edits are not going to be very helpful. And, I'm sorry, but the claim that I am politicising the article, coming from someone who "worked hard" to include material about humiliating Jews in an article about Hummus, just shows how ridiculous your argument is. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not add that edit and actually removed the word "humiliating" completely when I restored a copy edited version of that other editor's additions (see [52] Do you see the word "humiliating" anywhere?) But that's beside the point.
    This report is about your inability to respect 3RR, which is contributing to all out edit-war at Hummus. Until you learn not to be so disdainful of the opinions of others, including the reliable sources we use to compose articles here, your editing will continue to be disruptive to the project, as it has been on the Hummus page. Tiamuttalk 12:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be frank, there is no way that 3RR should apply to clearing out nonsense from articles, as there are cases where little-seen articles can be dominated by a clique of a few POV pushers and attempts by occasional bypassers to weed out such crap need to carry more weight than those of the problematic editors. My editing is clearly not disruptive as anyone familiar with my editing history will know; however, due to the fact that much of my work is on Israel-related articles, there are occasions in which I come up against nonsense such as this, and have to deal with it in the way described above because there is no alternative. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) The terminology comes from the source, whereas your terminology comes from your holier than thou opinion that the existence of the Palestinian territories is a fact, while the existence of Palestine is not (and that people who cannot see that hold a "twisted world view", as you stated above). Stop trying to pretend your edits protect the article from disruption. They don't. There are always alternatives to edit-warring and if you don't know that, then you shouldn't have the tools. Tiamuttalk 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Do all 3RR cases involving I-P articles get referred to WP:AE? Tiamuttalk 12:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It states at the top of WP:AE that: Three-revert rule violations are best reported on the 3RR noticeboard (WP:AN/3RR). Even if an editor has an arbitration ruling about reverts, you will likely get a quicker response there. Tiamuttalk 12:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Isra Let me get this straight. I report Number 57 for violating 3RR, something they have clearly done. In response, Spartaz decides to give four different editors, who reverted Number 57's edits, warnings pertaining to the I-P Arbcomm decision [53]. Meanwhile, Number 57, an admin who violated 3RR, and continued to do so after this report was filed (see above discussion), gets no warning. What is going on here exactly? Tiamuttalk 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow! Not. Tiamuttalk 13:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. I have warned all users edit warring over the material of the Israel-Palestine arbitration remedies and locked down the article for 48 hours to allow discussion for a consensus on the matter. Once consensus is reached any editor trying to edit the article away from this will be topic banned under the discretionary sanctions. Number 57 is guilty of a breach of the 3RR and would normally be liable for a block but I would also wish to block some of the other combatants. Since the arbitration forbids blocks without prior warnings in related articles I feel that a singular block of Number 57 is unfair although I was sorely tempted to go ahead anyway. The bottom line is that Hummus is for spreading on my toast not a place for extending the Israel-Palestine conflict and I will be watching and taking steps to ensure that there is no further disruption to the article over this matter. Tiamut and Number 57 are already aware of the case so have not been warned. Spartaz Humbug! 13:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So let me understand what you are saying here. Number 57 is guilty of a breach of 3RR and is already aware of the I-P Arbcomm decision, having been a party to it. Four other editors, most of whom made one revert each, who have not been warned of the I-P Arbcomm case before, got a warning from you. You decided that it would be unfair to block Number 57 for edit-warring because the other editors, most of whom who again, made one edit each, cannot be blocked, since they were not previously warned of the Arbcomm decision and have not violated 3RR. Further, no sanction will be given to Number 57 for flouting 3RR both before and after this report was filed. Spartaz, you blocked me for 3RR over a year ago, even though I had only made three reverts and there were other editors warring with me. Could someone else maybe take a look at this report? I think your decision is patently unfair and sends a poor message to new editors. i.e. Admins can edit-war, break 3RR and not be blocked, but newbies who make one edit reverting their actions get a warning about being blocked for possible future disruption. Tiamuttalk 13:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could it possibly be because, as an admin who had never heavily been involved with this article before, I was merely trying to impose WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV on an article which sorely needed attention? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no excuse for breaking 3RR. Because you were not blocked for breaking 3RR, you may think that there is. Which is exactly why this decision should be reviewed by another administrator. I think you've been let off far too easily. You show no remorse for your actions at all. In fact, you seem to think they are justified. Tiamuttalk 13:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually no, its only because if I feel that parties on both sides deserve block then I won't block one side if I can't block the other (as enjoined in the arbitration finding that users should not be penalised under the discretionary sanctions without a prior warning and some of the users are new as well). Experience on Israel-Palestine related articles is that blocking one side and not the other leads to major DramaTM. Since I had locked the article anyway to force debate a block would have been slightly punitive but Number 57, mark my warning, There is no right or wrong in 3RR. Just a crossed bright line and being an admin gives you no dispensation to cross the expected norms of community behaviour. Can you two stop arguing over this here. Its causing the page to flash like crazy in a million users watchlists and I have closed the report. if you don't like it take it to ANI or AE but if you carry on I'll block you both. Spartaz Humbug! 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should get off the 3RR high horse nonsense here. That's just wikilawyering to mask the fact that Number 57 was acting as an admin to preserve a neutral consensus in an article. There was clear tendentious editing going on here, and to frame Number 57 as the bad faith actor is simply ludicrous. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that isn't how admins should behave. Protecting an article is sometimes justifiable, continuing an edit war isn't. I think Spartaz's handling of this situation has been spot on. PhilKnight (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, Spartaz did the right thing. I'm just showing some empathy for Number 57 getting rung up by a tendentious editor. I think there needs to be a greater definition of what an edit war is, and is not. Afterall, we probably make a bigger deal about this, than if Number 57 had just issued a block. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we don't agree. I think the opposite happened. Also, I don't think continuing this discussion is helping matters. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agreed with you that Spartaz handled things correctly. Of course, if Number 57 had simply reverted and protected in the first place, we'd also be discussing that. If he had requested another admin's help to do that, he probably wouldn't have received it. That we have different views on the larger issue, I think, is just a matter of what we have experienced as individuals on the Wiki. At the end of the day an admin was trying to depoliticize an article on food. Food, I say! Hiberniantears (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Otterathome for repeatedly deleting content on uTorrent (Result: no violation)

    I'm reporting it here even though it's not technically a 3RR, mostly because Otterathome has been blocked for reverting/deleting edit-warring in the past, and I've tried twice to reinstate my edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Otterathome#3RR_warning (and because to be brutally honest, I've got better things to do with my time than spend an hour researching where this goes. If some "wikipedian" would like to file this in the right place, be my guest.)

    See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9CTorrent&diff=255498103&oldid=255490013 ....apparently, it's "original research" to state that bugs have been reported (as opposed to stating that the bugs exist!), and then link to the bug reports as references. Note his comment in the edit: he doesn't like it because "bug reports are normal". WTF? We don't cover "normal" in Wikipedia?

    and see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%CE%9CTorrent&diff=250218782&oldid=250213369 for another example of Otterathome deleting content wholesale from the same article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.174.140.200 (talk • contribs)

    MTorrent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Otterathome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    Added unsigned and links above as a convenience to examine --B (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: no violation - he has two edits in nearly a last month. His policy interpretation is also correct - we do not report things only sourced to message boards. --B (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Viven reported by Roadahead (Result: protected)


    • Previous version reverted to: [55]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    A detailed analysis if problem with this content (that Vivin) is stubbornly pushing on by reverting has been given here awhile ago. Still Vivin keeps reverting without addressing the problems. He has editing experience on Wiki and very well understands the 3RR rule. Thanks,--RoadAhead =Discuss= 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2008-12-03T21:50:13 Ioeth (Talk | contribs | block) m (Protected Sikh extremism: Full protection: dispute. (using Twinkle) ([edit=sysop] (expires 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 21:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)))) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tookyman| reported by Spotsbooks342 (Result: Indefblocked)


    • Previous version reverted to: [61]


    [62]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

    3rd party mediation requested. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing to mediate. I have indefblocked the user for repeatedly adding unsourced nonsense to a BLP. --B (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Word. -Spotsbooks342 (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bostbart. I take a rather dim view to Wikipedia being used for advertising and there are six accounts that have been used soley to advertise this book. --B (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Abog reported by Wrad (talk) (Result: 24 hours )

    2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Abog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 20:48, 2 December 2008 (edit summary: "re-adding item of international notability; see talk")
    2. 04:39, 3 December 2008 (edit summary: "rv; 2 or 3 vs. 1 or 2 is not a consensus")
    3. 05:08, 3 December 2008 (edit summary: "rv - 4 wrongs don't make it right; also adding Finnish shooting. please discuss before reverting")
    4. 22:20, 3 December 2008 (edit summary: "to be consistent with the other year articles, these two well-sourced globally notable events shall remain until a consensus regarding school shootings overall can be reached on the talk page")
    5. 23:57, 3 December 2008 (edit summary: "reverting until a consensus on school shootings overall has been reached")
    6. 00:20, 4 December 2008 (edit summary: "revert; please come to an agreement before engaging in an edit war and please stop with the sarcasm and cyncicism")
    • Diff of warning: here

    As you can see, this user has reverted changes made by multiple users 5 times in less than 24 hours, despite being warned. He has argued about making his addition before and has come back, even more insistent that it be added in, despite other editors' opinions to the contrary.

    —Wrad (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Collect reported by User:Newbie, not yet registered (Result: No violation)

    Expand to see full text of report
     


    • Previous version reverted to: [63]


    • And Multiple Other Reverts by same user to different sections of same discussion page: [69]


    "Collect", Wikipedia has a code of conduct: please review it. You are also preventing other opinions and concensus from being heard.
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]
    "COLLECT" Please Stop Deleting Opposing Opinions From Your Own.

    I feel my points are just as valid as yours; please give others a chance to weigh in with their discussion instead of deleting them. (unsigned)

    "Turd Gurgler" and the like "Plumbers Ass" are not valid topics for improving an article. You want your immortal words here? I suspect that will not last long, oh unsigned one. Collect (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    "COLLECT" - it is inappropriate to attempt to BULLY your way through what is supposed to be an open discussion and consensus process for improving the main page. You have immediately deleted - repetitively - various content, opinion & sources as it was posted, which also violates the purpose of this forum.

    If you don't like someone else's humorous use of contemporary language to make their point (exactly opposite of what your "about user" section says - you sound positively distraught about simple puns), then just say so, but allow others a chance to weigh in, too. Someday you might be surprised to realize that not everyone has the same opinion or sees the world the way you do. Hence, Wikipedia.

    Keep in mind too that you have not been appointed the personal watchdog or sole overseer of this article. It's one thing to state your own opposing opinion; it's quite another to continually suppress & prevent anyone else's from being heard or posted. (unsigned)

    Ah -- so you find your deathless prose of "turd-gurgler" and the like to be relevant to discussion on improving the article? I suggest you read the guidelines at the top of this page to see why Talk pages exist. Thanks! Collect (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, it is relevant to suggest improving the main page by adding a section which is neutral in nature, yet acknowledges the many, many, sources, citations etc., that deal with Wurzelbacher’s chronic credibility issues. It is descriptive of how the man in perceived prior to, then post-election, and so on.
    One cannot research sources, citations etc. about him without coming across a tremendous amount of credible references to the many fabrications and tall-tales he has spun for the public then later at least recanted. It is a solid part of his public persona and so I suggested including it. It is astonishingly appropriate for discussions of Wurzelbacher's public image.
    If your concern is with the contemporary phrase “Turd-Gurgler”, it is referenced here as a legitimate word and is growing in common usage. Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Turd%20Gurgler
    If your concern is that it is possibly libelous to write that the man behind "Joe the Plumber" is seen by many people to be chronically lacking in credibility, rest assured that the legal defense against libel is: truth.

    Your posts are beyond any description. And it appears you have no interest in actually improving any article on WP. Thank you most kindkly. Collect (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    Thank you for simply stating your own opinion this time, instead of deleting mine. 70.58.88.104 (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

    63.226.213.157 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    {"Collect" then went on to delete my suggestions for improving the article, etc., AGAIN. A little Admin oversight here would be greatly appreciated.} 63.226.213.157 (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blocked - unhelpful commentary that has nothing to do with writing an article is routinely removed from talk pages. --B (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Malleus Fatuorum reported by Gimmetrow (Result: No block - watching page in question )

    • Previous version reverted to: [70]

    This is a report for "edit warring" of a personal attack, not a 3RR. "Edit warring features a confrontational attitude." Malleus Fatuorum confrontationally posted a personal attack on me phrased under the guise of a "question". I have attempted to remove it. Rather than constructively address the issue, MF has made three reverts in 13 hours including a threat. I avoided this editor after he attacked me and insulted me a month ago.[72] Since then this editor has disrupted a GA nomination of mine,[73] and now edit warred to repeatedly reinsert a personal attack. This editor has previously been blocked for disruptive editing and incivility, and barely one month ago had a Wikiquette alert after this. There is obviously history between the two of us, but MF is not helping to resolve anything. Gimmetrow 03:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am looking into this. I ask that other admins hold off for a few minutes (though comments are more than welcome!) Tiptoety talk 03:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. The personal attack appears to have been removed by a third party, and has yet to be re added making a block purely punitive at this point. If MF reverts or continues to make such attacks he will be blocked. MF, consider this your only warning. Tiptoety talk 04:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: there's no personal attacks here, as far as I can see. I suggest Gimmetrow gets a grip, and starts acting in a manner expected of an administrator. This dispute is ridiculous beyond words. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess "personally directed critical comment" would be a better phrase than "personal attack." HDYTTO, I guess I am was more concerned with the edit warring and would have blocked either party if they chose to continue. Seeing as the issue appears to be resolved (using discussion *what an idea!*) I hope everyone can just move on. Tiptoety talk 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Kuebie reported by Caspian blue (Result: Protected)



    • After I spot edit wars at Koreans, a newly added information by a newbie named Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk · contribs) was contested for its dubious contents. So I gave a 3RR note to Kubie, and a "no original research" warning to the newbie. But I got an insulting message from him.[77]. The removal of the contents by Kubie gave an impression to Lazylaces (talk · contribs) a kind of vandalism. After reverting it, I visited to say that he gave him a wrong warning[78] because the content was disputed for the reason.[79] The newbie even confessed that he knew his content contains"original research"[80] but deliberately inserted it He also had shown he would not be willing to take the matter to the talk page and then violate 3RR. After that, Kubie also violated 3RR. The both did not even care about the warnings, so well there should be consequence. But the most upsetting thing is that the seemingly newbie made an absurd threat to me with very disruptive behaviors.[81] Given his in-depth knowledge of Wikipedia rules, I don't believe this user is not a newbie to disrupt Wikipedia. --Caspian blue 04:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    in case you didn't notice, i took out the original research, plus you DID mention the wrong article, you said Korea, not koreans. and first of all, kuebie violated 3RR first, and after my original first edit i rewrote the whole thing.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Caspian Blue falsely accused me of editing the article Korea. I did not touch that article.

    You made disruptive edits with original research contents. You know I typed a typo, and you ridiculed me like learn how to spell plurally. Koreans not korea. [[User:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk|Mustafa Kemal Atatürk]] ([[User talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk|talk]]) 01:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) You even blatantly harassed me for your wrongdoings and accused me of a liar. You must apologize for your disruptive behavior. --Caspian blue 04:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    you did lie. you said i repeatedly reverted back to the original version WITH the Original research. i did not. i changed the content and rewrote it, and there was nothing wrong with it.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I never lied unlike you. Nothing wrong with it? You might have explained your edits first to talk page since it was contested. Even after you got the warning, you violated 3RR for your POV. You also altered "Korean immigration in China" without any backing up source. That is also original research. A good editor who wants to develop articles does not intentionally insert "original research" unlike you. Your hoax allegation is just to divert attention from your own fault which is indeed a gaming the system. Anyway, you and Kuebie violated 3rr regardless of my warnings to you. --Caspian blue 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how my edit to "korean immigration in china", somehow enhances my POV. and it is disconnected to what Kuebie repeatedly reverted for. from the edit summary, kuebie accused me of copying and pasting from the source. i had reqrote it by that time, and it did not match the source even before that.Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian blue lies about his block record Caspain blue's extensive block record, 3RR, edit warring, "Gaming the system". he just denied he had this block record
    This is a 3RR report on your violation because you violated so after ignoring my warning. Read the log carefully and do not make such personal attack misquoting it. Besides, This in-dept-Wiki-knowledge newbie, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk clearly is gaming the system to cover up his wrongdoings WP:DISHONESTY is very unhealthy.--Caspian blue 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian this is the 3RR noticeboard, please report edit warring here, and nothing else. This is not a place to have long drawn out whining sessions about how an editor must apologise to you. User name/Article/Orig version/Revert diffs/Warning Diffs - done. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As you see, this is the 3RR noticeboard, and why are you even here? --Caspian blue 04:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian blue is clearly with kuebie and has his POV
    Caspian blue's name calling and incivility.
    Do not lie on the diffs. You can't cover your behaviors.--Caspian blue 05:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You mind showing me where i lied?Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keubie

    I initially made a report regarding the above user, but then I noticed this one. Blatant breach of 3RR by a user with past history of edit waring. The following are diffs for Keubie on Koreans article.

    Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    note this is not a 3RR report, this is just additional information, related to the above case

    Page protected 1 week by User:Jossi. EdJohnston (talk) 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Grant.Alpaugh reported by User:Gateman1997 (Result: 24 hours )

    Just a note that tiptoety blocked Grant.Alpaugh for 24 hours. —— nixeagle 18:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Previous version reverted to: [87]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [94]

    User continues to revert a consense decision that was come to on the talk page while refusing to discuss his objections on said talk page. Insists on continuing his edit war in the face of a minimum of 4 users who oppose his viewpoint. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Tiptoety talk 17:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    38.116.202.115 reported by User:HairyPerry (Result: already blocked for vandalism)

    Edited this article 14 times and still keeps going, including: [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105] [106][107][108] HairyPerry 18:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked for vandalism. --B (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lordelvis666 reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to: [109]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [114]

    ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    123.211.81.249 reported by Andrew c (Result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to: [115]
    • 1st revert: 22:02, 4 December 2008 (edit summary: "Undid See talk page")
    • 2nd revert: 02:26, 5 December 2008 (edit summary: "Undid Talk before blanking Andrew. The Trinidad Guardian is a reliable source.")
    • 3rd revert: 03:23, 5 December 2008 (edit summary: "A formal, published MHWA letter is a reliable source. The statements mirror exactly thise made by the authors. I will tweak a little.")
    • 4th revert: 04:48, 5 December 2008 (edit summary: "/* History */ I have a copy of the press release by Harrack, given to me by Mr. Gouldson.")

    This case involves reverts that happened on the same article, but with different content each time. This user has undone almost all the work I have done to the article, including continually removing notice tags that I placed. I'll go over the reverts: I tagged the article needing a rewrite, and that was reverted (#1). I rewrote the lead, and that was reverted (#2). I removed content that was sourced to what appeares to be a private correspondence, and the section had severe tone and encyclopedic issues, and that was reverted (#3). Finally, I tagged another sources as dubious (instead of outright blanking) and that was reverted (#4). I am editing in good faith, and not re-inserting my contributions after they were reverted. I've been using the talk page (but please, scrutinize me as well just in case I have lost sight). Despite my good faith, my efforts to improve the article are being blanket reverted, and this user continued to revert after being warned of 3RR.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: here

    -Andrew c [talk] 05:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tony May reported by MickMacNee

    At the start of this edit war at LNER Peppercorn Class A1, I actually 3RR warned Tony May twice, [116][117], but he did not break 3RR, returning only now and again to the article. The lengthy discussion since this all kicked off has got nowhere, so at the behest of another editor, I opened an Rfc. We have all commented and await outside opinion, however, Tony May on his latest return continues to edit war even while commenting in the Rfc. This is extraordinarily bad faith and disruptive, so I requested page protection to allow the Rfc to proceed, which was declined, advising other venues. So, while not a technical 3RR violation, can somebody please stop Tony May from edit warring while the Rfc is open. MickMacNee (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks quite symmetrical to me. You're both edit warring: why exactly is TM expected not to revert during the RFC but you are allowed to? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody should. I will merely invoke the principle of first mover. He was first to revert after a warning, and he was first to revert after the Rfc was set up. He has shown many times already that when his version is intact, he does not return to the article to reply on talk or to defend his preferred version, he only returns when he needs to revert, and then afterwards comments along the lines of 'I am still right' (often merely a single dismissive few words), moving now into the 'whatever you said about me is true of you' region, with no diffs at all. I am not acting alone either, two other editors early on rejected his 'I am right' reasons, but they simply did not stay around to enact consensus by edit warring with him. But their opinions are on the page nonetheless. MickMacNee (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want an idea of what he is like, look at this 'vandalism revert' [118] of re-adding a redlink to a dab page. And compare the statement on his user page. MickMacNee (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And as I was typing that, he performs a 'vandalism revert' of the very page we are discussing here [119]. MickMacNee (talk) 09:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yournumbertwofan reported by Politizer (Result:moot)


    • Previous version reverted to: [120]



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [128]

    This user has already been reported at AIV for vandalism in addition to this, but I figured I should open a report here for his edit warring as well. I have given him links, explanations, and warnings several times about edit warring, and he has stated twice at my talk page that he doesn't care and isn't interested in learning what edit warring is. Has demonstrated a persistent refusal to engage in discussion with other editors. Blocking will probably not be necessary, as he is already blocked for 31 hours, but a reprimand from an administrator, or a longer block, might be useful. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I should also add that the user's first edit was an addition of unsourced and non-notable information that had already been deleted earlier by J.delanoy and others (this user had added it before, several times, from an IP address); I removed it originally for being unsourced and not demonstrating notability, and explained that to the user at length on his talk page. It was after this discussion that the user began to engage in edit warring again and purposely ignore 3RR. —Politizer talk/contribs: 10:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    74.4.222.208 reported by Ilkali (Result: 24hours )

    • Previous version reverted to: [129]
    • 1st revert: [130] (01:20, 5 December 2008)
    • 2nd revert: [131] (03:39, 5 December 2008)
    • 3rd revert: [132] (03:49, 5 December 2008)
    • 4th revert: [133] (04:38, 5 December 2008)
    • 5th revert: [134] (06:18, 5 December 2008)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: None given, but user is assumed to know the rules since he/she has previously filed a 3RR report.

    Ilkali (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The 5th edit is not a revert. I am however concerned by this user's approach to collaborative editing. -- lucasbfr talk 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Til Eulenspiegel reported by Student7


    • Previous version reverted to: [135] (doesn't seem to be the same as others baseline. Sorry. I don't see how this is done)


    Two editors are attempting to get a citation (fact) on a statement that contains a percentage. The reverter has taken this as an insult! We really need to get his attention that this is an objective request not a subjective one.Student7 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, only 3 reverts from me yesterday, discussion now underway, 'warning' delivered (to article talkpage!) only just now, no further reverts since yesterday. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Redthoreau reported by Damiens.rf (Result: )

    Che Guevara (photo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

    1. 15:36, 5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 256039165 by Damiens.rf (talk) Find someone else to endorse your hysteria about good research")
    2. 15:51, 5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 256055804 by Damiens.rf (talk) if it's so obvious, find someone to endorse your view")
    3. 16:43, 5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "The template declares definitively that the article "contains too many quotes", this matter is under dispute on the talk page, and not agreed upon")
    4. 17:02, 5 December 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "It was no mistake, the tag you are trying to place on this article declares definitively that it contains "too many quotes", this is disputed on the talk page with a vote of 1 to 1")
    • Diff of warning: here

    User has been insisting in removing a "quote-farm" from the article he owns, despite many efforts on the talk page to pass through his denialism, and convince him that 60 quotations per article is too much even for an Wikiquote entry.

    —Damiens.rf 17:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Redthoreau has made four reverts on December 5, while Damiens.rf only made three. I believe that both of them are edit-warring. Redthoreau is actually making edits to the article to address some of the objections, while Damiens.rf's recent edits only seem to restore the tags about 'Too many quotes'. Putting full protection on the article is an option but might not cause these editors to change their behavior. I encourage the closing admin to consider blocking both, unless one of the editors participates here with an offer to change his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. Redthoreau is making no attempt to fix the over-quotation problem (he actually denies the problem exists) . Since he would revert any tentative fixing I would do to the article text, I used the {{quotefarm}} template to call the attention of uninvolved users, and stated my concerns on the talk page. I even had to list all the 61 quotations used in the article to try to make him stop denying the article has too many of them.
    The point is, he's edit-warring to remove a warning-tag that could bring attention to a problematic article he believes he owns. --Damiens.rf 17:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    -(Counter)- Damiens.rf reported by User:Redthoreau (Result: )


    +

    Damiens was Blocked twice recently for edit warring (once with me) and harassing other editors. Numerous editors have been driven off by his antics.   Redthoreau (talk) RT 17:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. Since neither editor shows any interest in changing their approach, I'd now support a properly-escalated block for both, which would probably be one week in each case. Both users have a block history for edit warring. If either one would sincerely join in creating an article WP:RFC all this nonsense could be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=256081975"