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
add link to user talk page for sakes of clarity
Line 612: Line 612:
*LOL, the anonymous user who uses Japanese ISP makes this fake report as implying that the four editors are not only vandals but also ''sock''s because we think that his disruptive blanking is not from consensus at the talk page? I guess the anon should be blocked more than 48 hours.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
*LOL, the anonymous user who uses Japanese ISP makes this fake report as implying that the four editors are not only vandals but also ''sock''s because we think that his disruptive blanking is not from consensus at the talk page? I guess the anon should be blocked more than 48 hours.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


:::::::::Thank you. Please see note on talk page. --[[Special:Contributions/222.150.193.35|222.150.193.35]] ([[User talk:222.150.193.35|talk]]) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Thank you. Please see note on talk page, here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:222.150.193.35]. --[[Special:Contributions/222.150.193.35|222.150.193.35]] ([[User talk:222.150.193.35|talk]]) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[WP:SOCK|Sockpuppeting]] and [[WP:BLOCK|block evasion]] are the best way of expressing your point of view? You're blocked for 24 hours second time, you can't leave any comment during your block.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::[[WP:SOCK|Sockpuppeting]] and [[WP:BLOCK|block evasion]] are the best way of expressing your point of view? You're blocked for 24 hours second time, you can't leave any comment during your block.--[[User:Caspian blue|Caspian blue]] ([[User talk:Caspian blue|talk]]) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
'''Decision:''' Reported user and reporting IP both blocked for 24 hours. [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] ([[User talk:TigerShark|talk]]) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
'''Decision:''' Reported user and reporting IP both blocked for 24 hours. [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] ([[User talk:TigerShark|talk]]) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:16, 14 June 2008

Template:Moveprotected

    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


    Violations

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


    User:Molobo reported by User:Sciurinæ (Result: one week)

    Notes
    Summary

    Molobo resumed revert warring once his latest block ended again: [1](prev), [2](prev), [3] (prev), [4] (prev), [5](prev), [6] (prev), [7](prev), [8](prev), [9](prev). Sciurinæ (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is indeed a 3RR violation, if the revert from the IP is included. Please take this to WP:RFCU first. Khoikhoi 01:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sciurinae has asked for a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked Molobo for one week. Given that he has resumed edit warring on multiple pages immediately after I blocked him (including the above 3RR violation), I think that this is a sufficient amount of time. Also, the length is based on his previous block history. Khoikhoi 04:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WesleyDodds reported by User:Cyrus XIII (Result: No Violation )

    • Editor first contributed with this account in September 2005 and has been very active since (25.000+ edits), so no warning was issued.
    COMMENT: All three of those edits are back to back, not reversions. Dayewalker (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No violation. yandman 07:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Zyxwvuabcdef reported by User:Wikipedian06 (Result: 24h)

    24h. yandman 07:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:WorkerBee74 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result: 24 hour block )

    Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 18:11, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Restoring earlier version of Rezko paragraphs that were gutted without consensus. Please see Talk page.")
    2. 22:46, 10 June 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 218467926 by Quartermaster (talk) You were right the first time")
    3. 01:31, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "Estoring Last version before massive POV push (in violation of WP:DE and WP:TE by Scjessey, Loonymonkey and Johnpseudo. As K4T suggests, read WP:YESPOV.")
    4. 17:45, 11 June 2008 (edit summary: "This restores, as closely as reasonably possible, the Rezko paragraph at the time protection was removed. AFP source added, charges correctly identified. Those are the only two significant differences")
    • Diff of warning: here
    I have blocked WorkerBee for 24 hours. Someone seriously needs to do something about the edit warring over at the Barrack Obama article. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ongoing discussion here --Bobblehead (rants) 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Badagnani reported by User:Jerem43 (Result: 48-timmars blockering )


    • 1st revert: 09:14, 11 June 2008 Summary comment: restore highly important editing comments that need to be addressed; removal was disruptive
    • 2nd revert: 08:11, 11 June 2008 Summary comment: rv disruptive blanking of editing comment
    • 3rd revert: 19:52, 11 June 2008 Summary comment: rv repeated blanking (vandalism)
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 20:16, 11 June 20083 Revert violation: new section
      • Diff of first warning in regards to putting comments on talk pages and not in-line in article: 14:26, 11 June 2008Talk goes on the talk page, not in the article

    --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also would ask that this editor, who has a history of disruption on this article, be banned from editing it in the future. This is not his first incident of a 3R violation resulting in a block on his account; he has a history of edit warring on other articles as well that did not result in a block. He was one of the primary editors in a major edit war last year that ended up with the Korean cuisine article being completely locked down for a month. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vi får se. (We'll see. If he continues the blocks will just escalate etc. etc.) ScarianCall me Pat! 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:152.131.10.133 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: 48 hours)

    Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.131.10.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 23:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All edits move the {{911tm}} template from where it belongs, near the top of the article, to the bottom of the article, where it mangles the layout.

    1. 18:18, June 9, 2008
    2. 00:08, June 11, 2008
    3. 21:58, June 11, 2008
    Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Violation of his 1RR/week restriction on 9/11 articles: "Bov and all IPs limited to 1RR per page per week", per Rlevse. See the previous 3RR report on the same editor above. EdJohnston (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: 124.124.0.1 reported by User:Rockybiggs (Result: 24-timmars blockering )

    Please note this user is aware of 3RR rule and is engaged in an edit war, it is also suspected this is in fact the banned user User talk:DemolitionMan --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User: Thaddius reported by User: Thaddius (Result: Already protected)

    Silent Hill. I've reverted a few too many times and I admit it was a mistake. Maybe a temporary edit ban might give me an excuse to cool off. --Thaddius (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Page protected by Metros. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:60.42.252.205 reported by User:Jaysweet (Result: 24 hours)

    Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Chaldean and User:WestAssyrian reported by User:The_TriZ (Result: Stale. )

    [18] First, none of them has been "breakin" the rule, since its not 24 hours between it, but then, the purpose of the rule is to avoid whats just happened here. I changed Syriac people to Aramean-Syriac people, since it redirects to that page, in the "See Also"-section, and then User:Chaldean for some reason reverted it (not the first time, [19]). And when Chaldean reverted it three times (not within 24 hours), User:WestAssyrian shows up and revert it again. And now the thing is, Chaldean reported me a couple of weeks ago when I broke the rule, again he reverted it three times himself, and then WestAssyrian reverted it when he had reverted it three times, "trapping" me to break the 3RR rule. See [20]. Again, technically they haven't broke the rule, but again, they are cooperating with eachother so that they can get around the rule. The TriZ (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Result - Stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In any case, there are not enough reverts in any 24-hour period, even if you go back to May 1. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, but what can I do against them? They are two, they have six reverts, i've only got three before I break the rule. And they are obviously wrong, right? Why have a redirect and not a directlink? It's purely cause they don't like the directlinks name (Aramean-Syriac). The TriZ (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Next time know what the 3RR means. The page you are refering to is inaccuratly titled right now. And the Syriac Orthodox Church has not offically changed its name to the Syriac Aramean Orthodox Church yet, so for you to push your agenda is legit enough for me to check it. Chaldean (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please, no one is interested in your lies. The facts are, the pages name is Aramean-Syriac people, and not Syriac people which is a redirect to the Aramean-Syriac people page. And I know what 3RR means, and I've explained it. The TriZ (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lyonscc reported by User:Adminster (Result: Protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: [21]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [26]

    Please note also that Lyonscc is using an obvious WP:Sockpuppet, User:Thunderbolt2002, which has made no substantive edits, but has only taken sides in Lyonscc's frequent edit wars. Adminster (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that revisions must be non-consecutive. Anyway, I'm going to protect the article because you were both revert-warring. Further, your tenor in this dispute is less than ideal. "Frequent edit wars"? I don't see that many instances of the use of Thunderbolt to circumvent 3RR violations (although I have blocked the account). You also shouted WP:OWN for what seems to be absolutely no reason, and made a sweeping accusation ("I notice you consisten[t]ly delete anything you disagree with") based on what appears to be little to no evidence. (Let me also add that your interpretation of WP:NPOV is off the mark.) Ultimately, you're creating a tempest in a teapot, trying to get Lyonscc blocked for no reason. No, sorry. -- tariqabjotu 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Pertinent information from user talk pages for future reference:)

    I will be reverting your changes tomorrow - specifically the ones in violation of WP:V - blog-sourced information from Phil Johnson, etc. and all of the unsupported material added. You've only added unsupported speculation and innuendo to this point. The legitimate complaints about the ECM are already contained, with many of them being fair ones. The stuff you've added to this point is mocking (which IS violation of WP:NPOV) via the image - which Phil does NOT own the copyright to, apart from the border. The Spurgeon Archive, itself, is a self-published blog, which also violates WP:V as a source. Please refrain from making changes without discussing them first on the discussion page, or we could have avoided this. In short - there is no need for a new section, as the key criticisms already are documented.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    I will be reverting your changes immediately upon the expiration of the lock (which was certainly the coward's way of approaching disagreement) - specifically the ones in violation of WP:V - blog-sourced information from Phil Johnson, etc. and all of the unsupported material added. You've only added unsupported speculation and innuendo to this point. The legitimate complaints about the ECM are already contained, with many of them being fair ones. The stuff you've added to this point is mocking (which IS violation of WP:NPOV) via the image - which Phil does NOT own the copyright to, apart from the border. The Spurgeon Archive, itself, is a self-published blog, which also violates WP:V as a source. Please refrain from making changes without discussing them first on the discussion page, or we could have avoided this. In short - there is no need for a new section, as the key criticisms already are documented.--Lyonscc (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    A couple of things -
    1. Thunderbolt2002 is a friend of mine from work who I've asked to help me mediate a couple of times in the past. I called him before leaving from work today. My understanding is that he rarely logs in, though we do have some common interests.
    2. Adminster has refused to discuss changes before making them, even after a reasonable request to do so. Some of the information he's trying to add is unsupported speculation from a blog source (spurgeon.org), and the image, itself, has copyright issues - the border is copyrighted by one individual, but the internal image is not his to copyright. Additionally, the image itself is a parody and violates WP:NPOV. While I'm willing to get a third opinion/arbitrate the issue if Adminster will discuss it, the changes don't belong on the main page until consensus is reached.
    3. OK-one more: If you're going to block editing the page, can you return it to its form as of June 10 before the edit-warring occurred, as the current version has multiple issues requiring discussion, as noted above??--Lyonscc (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks everyone! Adminster (talk) 21:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Dematt reported by User:QuackGuru (Result: Already protected)

    Page protected by Kingturtle. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:InaMaka reported by User:Catuskoti (Result: 24 hour block )



    • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]
    Result - InaMaka blocked for 24 hours. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:THAMARIH reported by User:MARussellPESE (Result: Already blocked one month)

    • Previous version reverted to: [33]


    • Diff of 3RR warning: [38]
    Already blocked Just as a note, those diffs are over three days or so, which means this doesn't qualify as 3RR. The block was for the editor's behavior in general. --jonny-mt 07:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.229.0.162 reported by Ndenison (talk) (Result: Declined)

    Flagship university (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.229.0.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 03:49, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
    2. 21:40, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
    3. 04:59, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* California */")
    • Diff of warning: [User_talk:69.229.0.162 here]

    —Ndenison (talk) 05:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined No single editor has reverted more than three times in 24 hours. All the IP editors are behaving poorly, since they never participate on the article Talk and don't respond to comments left on their own Talk. The edit war will be ending soon if the prod goes through. Protection's not advisable because there is an active prod, and an AfD may be necessary if it is contested. EdJohnston (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:157.228.x.x reported by User:BalkanFever (Result: 24h )


    This user is edit-warring in a number of articles related to the Republic of Macedonia in the Eurovision Song Contest. He continually inserts redundant information in the introduction and either does not use an edit summary or simply says "do not remove sourced material", refusing to listen to any other points. Using sources is no excuse for breaking 3RR. BalkanFever 07:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24h. yandman 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LedAstray reported by User:Sigma 7 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)


    Blocked for 24 hours. --Selket Talk 16:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:LedAstray reported by NeilN talk ♦ contribs (Result: Already blocked)

    Dell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). LedAstray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    1. 04:01, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    2. 15:07, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    3. 19:48, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    4. 23:03, 12 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    5. 15:26, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    6. 15:40, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    7. 15:42, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    8. 15:44, 13 June 2008 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
    • Diff of warning: here

    —NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked for 24 hours per violation above. --Selket Talk 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lakinekaki reported by User:Dyanega (Result: 24 hour block )

    I cannot give the specific revert that violated the 3RR rule, because there was no fourth revert; however, this editor has smugly stated that they will continue making the same revert (e.g. here) "forever" but keep it to 3 reverts every 24 hours. They have explicitly admitted here that they intend to violate the intent of 3RR without technically violating the policy. Not only that, but encouraging other editors to join in the reverts - "FYA, I will continue changing the introductory forever, being careful I don't do it more than 3 times in 24 hours. I invite other editors with common sense to join me in this."

    Surely, that sort of admission of malicious intent merits some sort of administrative response? Dyanega (talk) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    24 hour block. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog reported by User:Aheadnovel55 (Result: Editor warned)


    The user deletes massive chunks of sourced information refuses to have any direct dialog, and writes gibberish in the edit boxAheadnovel55 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Warned Warning came ten hours after last revert. --Selket Talk 18:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Yobkcis reported by User:Scarpy (Result: 24 hours - Ndphil21 also blocked)


    Decision: I have blocked Yobkcis for 24 hours. I have also blocked User:Ndphil21 who reverted many times during the edit war. This edit summary seems to make it pretty clear that he understands the relevant policies and that he actually considered himself to be edit warring. TigerShark (talk) 08:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:69.124.40.76 & User:Hu02138 reported by User:MrPrada (Result: blocked )

    A similar IP was previously blocked for 3RR/edit warring on this article. This IP appears to have used his/her three reverts, then purposely created an account to get around 3RR. Both are User:Hu02138 and 69.124.40.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have violated 3RR and are self-admitted WP:SPAs.

    Decision: The account made identical edits to the IP, so it seems that it is the same individual. I have blocked both for 24 hours. Also the IP address does share the same location with the previously blocked IP address (Hicksville, NY). TigerShark (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:kestasjk reported by User:Lawine (Result: )

    Although a 3rd opinion was asked to ensure neutrality, User:kestasjk keeps reverting the article to his point of view. User:kestasjk is the webmaster of phpdiplomacy, so his point of view is obviously biased.


    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawine (talk • contribs) 09:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    I've responded to this on the Talk:Internet_Diplomacy page. I actually removed as much bias as possible, but IP edits from one source have been removing cited facts, adding opinion, deleting sections added by others which favor other sites (not just mine; even edits from others which reflect badly on his site are removed by this one IP).

    Lawine has only contributed edits relating to this one page, and only seems to care about reversions of vandalism against my site.. Since the last reversion posted here more vandalism has occurred, which Lawine is protecting against reversion. Rather than any of the versions which were posted above, the latest version with further edits from the IP user is protected.

    Kestasjk (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    As it is now: Started in December 2007, PLAYdiplomacy.com is the newest version of online Diplomacy. PLAYdiplomacy.com is based on the open-source phpDiplomacy, but offers a point-and-click interface for order submission, and hosts a range of variants for more experienced players.

    How Kestasjk (talk) would like to see it: Started in December 2007, based on phpDiplomacy, PLAYdiplomacy.com is another such site.


    Don't tell me that this is unbiased information. You just need to get the name of your website in there first, while the current article also says it's based on phpDiplomacy, but makes it less urgent.

    I tried to talk to Kestasjk (talk) about this on his userpage, but he keeps removing comments from all Wikipedia users from his Talk page.


    Lawine (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response

    That's not true; I actually removed "another such site" and replaced it with the existing feature list because I thought it was trying to sound bad: I really am trying to make everything as unbiased as possible. But then someone came and reverted it, and kept on removing the image that went with my site along with its feature list. If you're trying to "balance out" perceived bias with vandalism I don't think you're going to get far.

    Also you just edited my user:talk page stating "Kestasjk is biased. He is the admin of phpdiplomacy.net and should not be doing this. This is bad for Wikipedia. Etc". When I removed that it was quickly re-added. That doesn't really count as "talking"

    And you mention that it's the "newest version"; it's not, Strategery is just one example of a newer web-diplomacy site I can think of. You mention that I try to move mine to the top, but if you look you'll notice that they're all in chronological order. This puts my site below many others, and this is how it has always been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kestasjk (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Finally I noticed that the above comment was added by 84.193.140.205; the IP which has been doing all of the vandalism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.193.140.205). Does this mean Lawine logs off to perform the vandalism, then logs back on to complain with a user account when I revert it? Or is 84.193.140.205 pretending to be Lawine above?

    Kestasjk (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (Added Userlinks.) — Athaenara ✉ 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: 24 hours for reported user and reporting IP)

    • Blueshirts and other contributors are all reverting to his previous version of: 19:27, 12 June 2008
    • As of this date, I have developed the article to this version and placed in use tag: 14:46, 14 June 2008

    Its difficult to continue productive work while dealing with all this stuff.

    Please bear in mind that my very first edit was on 16:41, 12 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.42.252.111 (talk)

    Identical WP:3RR eversion to own his version

    Additional identical revision without discussion

    Identical revision by forth contributor User-multi error: "Jaysweet" is not a valid project or language code (help).

    Identical reversion by second contributor Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Continued gaming by unblocked second user Caspian blue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Identical reversion by second contributor Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Identical reversion by third contributor Flying tiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (see Youtube contribution [39])

    'Note, no engagement in discussion on talk page again.

    Diff of 3RR warning:

    Response The accuser is the same user as User:60.42.252.205, who was banned previously. While I recognize that the user has removed blog/youtube/dead links, the user has also removed chunks of sourced information and has also rewritten statements that already have citations, some of them book citations, to suit his own pov. As I have said on the article's talk page, I have no problem with the user copyediting the article, but blatant removal and misrepresentation of sourced information is vandalism and that is why I'm reverting to the previous version. Blueshirts (talk) 10:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Right after the NTT Plala anon got off from his/her block, he/sh commitited the same thing on the same article regardless of several warnings and the previous lesson. My one time revert of the anon's was identical to several people including an admin, blueshirts, and two more others. However, the NTT Plala anon digs his own grave again because this report is nothing but a clear evidence on his blatant disregard as to our 3RR policy again. Admins, please look at the below file on his violation on 11RR.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reversion means reversion. If one looks at the edits, it is clear that I continue to develop the article removing deadlnks, blogspots, Youtubes etc. Both users reverting to that same version. Thank you --60.42.252.111 (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reversion means reversion, not necessarily to be identical at each time. (more than 5 reversion are identical though). Besides, why are you dragging me into your revert-wars or vandalism activities? I restored your blanking campaign one time and put up with your insult at my talk page (you also violated 3RR there) Sadly, more than 2 editors are against your massive deleting compaign with no consensus. --Caspian blue (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, this looks like a POV-based move by anon IP 60.42.252.xxx to remove material and references that make the abuse of comfort women look more like voluntary activity. It's not vandalism, but it is taking sentences supported by reference and rewriting them to give them new meaning unsupported by the reference. Binksternet (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been very clear in my summaries (please check them), and on talk and discussion pages and added citations supporting the atrocities. I am not denying any facts nor reducing the debate to a simple polemic.
    'I have also pointed out to the chief antagonist that I am not Japanese despite any attempts to target me as such, e.g. see above and [40].--60.42.252.111 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NTT Plala is a Japanese ISP located in Japan that you're currently using. Japanese Plala IP user is not equal to Japanese user. I already said you that I don't think you're Japanese. However, that is a simple fact that you're Japanese ISP's anon. Besides, whoever objects to your massive deletions, you label the people as pro-Korea, Taiwanese, Hong Kong, Chinese, which is all contradiction to your resentment on my edit summary. Regardless, you now violate 11RR. --Caspian blue (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never mentioned Chinese, Hong Kong etc ... please show diffs if you can. I understand from your talk page you are Korean or Korean American, Caspian blue clearly advertises they are Taiwanese. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You label whoever object to your massive deletion without consensus, as "Pro-whatever-country" I do not know what ethinicity others have, but you're distorting my comment and you're the one keeping advertising editor's nationality or ethnicity here and there. Nevertheless, the record of your 11RR violation does not go away. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL, the anonymous user who uses Japanese ISP makes this fake report as implying that the four editors are not only vandals but also socks because we think that his disruptive blanking is not from consensus at the talk page? I guess the anon should be blocked more than 48 hours.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Please see note on talk page, here [41]. --222.150.193.35 (talk) 16:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppeting and block evasion are the best way of expressing your point of view? You're blocked for 24 hours second time, you can't leave any comment during your block.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: Reported user and reporting IP both blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:60.42.252.111 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: 24 hours - please see report above)

    The NTT Plala ISP anon who resides in Japan is identical to 60.42.252.205 (talk · contribs · logs) who was previously blocked for 24 hours for his 5RR violation and POV pushing on the same article. It is so irony that the 8RR violator filed the above bad-faith report on other and he/she claims other editor's 3RR violation. This edit summary tells the anon's attitude well

    Blueshirt only restored the properly sourced material and the report misleads that the anon's massive deletion of cited contetns from consensus or proper discussion. Nope. At my first glance, the anon who resides in Japan does not listen to other's opinion, and commits (near-)vandalsim on the article. We don't know who the person is with a self-claim that he has no prejuidice but his edits just prove contradictions. If you look at the talk page, you will find the opposite facts from the anon's claim. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addendum, now the Japanese ISP anon violated 11RR in a row. I guess WP:RFCU is necessary on this case to prevent further disruptions by the anon. If h/she dits under his static account, the anon could possibly violate 11RR within 7 hours? I guess not. The anon is very knowledgeable of Wikirules, so I guess s/he is not a new user.--Caspian blue (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Please note that is 12 IDENTICAL reverts on your side while I continue to work on developing the topic and have placed extensive discussion on the talk page; see 15:07, 14 June 2008. --60.42.252.111 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. Also please see the previous report, above. TigerShark (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:William Saturn reported by User:Wiendietry (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to: [43]
    • Diff of 3RR warning: [48]

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) ==

*[[WP:3RR|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~

*Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VERSIONTIME] <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->

<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->

<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->

*1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]
*4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

*Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME]

<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=219315750"