Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:11, 14 June 2008 editCaspian blue (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,434 edits →User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: )← Previous edit Revision as of 13:16, 14 June 2008 edit undoMaIl89 (talk | contribs)77 edits →Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator: Remove the complaine FOR NOW since there's a vote.Next edit →
Line 623: Line 623:
* ] or ] * ] or ]
* &ndash; helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected. * &ndash; helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.

==Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator==
We really need help at some place.
On the ] page. A long time ago after a long discussion it was decided that a one-piece collage will be created. You can see it . It had no problems, and it was agreed. Then ] for a not understood and not explaned reason for her did . She was explaned on her talk page that she hurts a concensus and that we prefer it as a one piece collage, and you can see it . Yet she ignored it and without explanation insisted on . I dont want an edit was to continue so please explane her that even thought she's an administrator Misplaced Pages is not her private property, and that she can't go against a concensus and she must have a discussion before doing something.

Note that i'm not the first complaning on her one-sided ignorant towards the editors actions. . Please get into this. ] (]) 09:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:16, 14 June 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    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.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links


    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: (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev), (prev). Sciurinæ (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    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)
    User:Sciurinae has asked for a checkuser. EdJohnston (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    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)
    No violation. yandman 07:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    • Comments: Despite repeated warnings, this user keeps removing sourced criticism from the Ocarina of Time article. Made six reverts in past 24 hours removing a source that at least three editors (User:Urutapu, User: Kariteh, and I) have agreed to be valid and noteworthy. 3RR warnings have been given on the said user's talk page by two different editors, but he/she has blanked it each time. This user has had a history of removing valid, sourced criticism, suggesting a possible conflict of interest issue. Wikipedian06 (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    24h. yandman 07:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    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. Scarian 18:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    Ongoing discussion here --Bobblehead 19:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    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)
    Vi får se. (We'll see. If he continues the blocks will just escalate etc. etc.) Scarian 21:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 21:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

    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)

    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)

    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)

    • Blockerat denna användare i 24 timmar. Scarian

    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)

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


    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)


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

    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, ). 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 . 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)

    Result - Stale. Scarian 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
    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)

    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)

    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)

    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)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    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)

    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 consistenly 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)

    (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)

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

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

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

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


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Result - InaMaka blocked for 24 hours. Scarian 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    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)

    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)

    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:

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

    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)


    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)

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

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


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

    User:LedAstray reported by NeilN (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)

    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 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

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

    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)

    24 hour block. Scarian 17:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


    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)

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

    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)

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

    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)

    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.


    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)

    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 Misplaced Pages users from his Talk page.


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

    User:Blueshirts reported by User:60.42.252.111 (Result: )


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:

    Previous pattern of identical WP:3RR eversion to own version

    Identical reversion by second contributor

    Diff of 3RR warning:

    • 1st
    • 2nd
    • 3rd ,

    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)

    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 others. However, the NTT Plala anon digs his own grave again because this report is nothing but a clear evidence on his 8RR violation again. Please admin look at the below file on his violation on 8RR.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

    User:60.42.252.111 reported by User:Caspian blue (Result: )

    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)

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

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- 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 Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: