Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive84

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Londo06 (Result: 10 days for edit-warring)[edit]

If you look at this user's (who has just recently got past a temporary ban for sockpuppetry) recent edit history it's out of control. He has misinterpreted some wikipedia guidelines at Wikipedia:Captions and even edited them himself to suit his bizarre needs.--Jeff79 (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Refined to bring further clarity as someone clearly has a grudge here.Londo06 15:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Note: Please present this case in the proper format as given here. Thank you, Metros (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 10 days Londo06 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is a long-term productive editor who has been showing very strange judgment since 1 October. He has already been blocked twice since that date, once getting a week for sockpuppetry (WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fronsdorf), and then 31 hours for edit warring.

The present case is one for edit-warring on figure captions, not a 3RR. You can see the problem by looking at his last 100 contributions (which cover just a 5-hour period). He has reverted to his own preferred language at Wikipedia:Captions and then boldly raced through a large number of sports articles removing their captions, citing as a reason the policy language he has just inserted himself! (For instance, this edit in which he removes a caption). His last block for edit-warring was lifted by Tiptoety on 23 October with the note Per users agreement to not edit war. Please re-block if they continue. I am taking that advice to re-block, for a period of 10 days, thinking that escalation should continue upward from the one week that Londo06 received earlier. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Historicist reported by Wikidemon (Result:24 hours )[edit]

note - the section identifying the subject of the author, a Barack Obama contact, as a reputed Palestinian Liberation Organization "spokesman" was previously revert-warred into the article by at least two other editors, and removed among other things as a WP:BLP violation, e.g.[1]. The editor's first insertion was therefore a revert, to re-instate the material.

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

  1. 13:33, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */")
    13:52, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
    14:32, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
    14:55, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */")
  2. 17:43, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 249222628 by G-Dett (talk)")
    17:44, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* PLO connection */ keeping this objective.")
  3. 18:03, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */ please stop slanting the page by removing an important job the man is documented to have held.")
  4. 18:18, 2 November 2008 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Family, education and career */ this was an important, well-documented part of the man's career.")
  • Diff of warning: here
Warning asks editor to promise not to edit war; editor instead issues a malformed tit-for-tat cut-and-paste warning,[2] canvasses one of the other editors who had been revert warring the material to "come back" (and presumably revert),[3] and adds a POV tag[4] with an edit summary that itself may be a BLP violation by re-asserting the poorly sourced claim. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Metros (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon reported by User:Historicist, November 2, 2008[edit]

Wikidemon has been arbitrarily and repeatedly removing sourced, sinificant material without discussingh it on the talk page or giving reasons.Historicist (talk) 19:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist. He is very aggressive and is attempting to cover his inappropriate edits by flinging accusations at me for attempting to keep the page objective and inclusive of important nformation.Historicist (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Historicist

Not sure of the point of this malformed tit-for-tat retributive report (see above re. a tit-for-tat warning). I have reverted the BLP vio (noted above) three times, not four, and though a BLP reversion does not count I will nevertheless not revert more than three times over it.Wikidemon (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


User:70.13.117.97 reported by Scjessey (talk) (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Stanley Kurtz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.13.117.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:34, 2 November 2008 (edit summary: "pls don't remove a cited a relevant part to this section")
  2. 01:33, 3 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 249297062 by Scjessey (talk) No violation of BLP here, just an instance of the controversy around him")
  3. 01:37, 3 November 2008 (edit summary: "Undid revision 249306989 by Scjessey (talk) its what he is most known for")
  4. 01:53, 3 November 2008 (edit summary: "3rd rv - though this time it seems two editors are coordinating their efforts")
  • Diff of warning: here

Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments

The IP editor (who has edited this article exclusively) is adding material in violation of WP:BLP (since it is not biographical), ignoring warnings and ignoring/eschewing talk page discussion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

First Diff is not a revert but was an attempt to answer the request for a valid cite. Scjessey removed cited material saying the cites were dead. That edit was including the material and two subsequent edits added new cites to replace the dead links. There hasn't been a discussion but more of a "you are wrong and must stop" conversation. 70.13.117.97 (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Metros (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Scjessey reported by Amwestover (Result: )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [5]


  • 1st revert: [6]
  • 2nd revert: [7]
  • 3rd revert: [8]
  • 4th revert: [9]
  • 5th revert: [10]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [11]
Warning Comment: The warning was removed by the user and the user's contribution log indicated that further Wikipedia editing was performed afterward.

Scjessey has been edit warring on Public image of Barack Obama, reverting edits made by myself and Britneysaints. Edit warring started when Scjessey removed two whole sections from the article, one which was recently added and another which had existed for about a week unchanged. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing content that doesn't belong in Obama's bio and "public image..." is a sub of it, (but if, then rather in his campaign article) is nothing more than maintaining the page. I comment here on this because if he wouldn't have beat me regarding the"Lipstick-issue" I would've reverted it in good faith. Just my 2cents about this as I'm going thru this page. Yes, I'm a curious one, hoping not to get killed like a cat.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
It was his opinion that the content didn't belong, and he somehow believes that he has a golden ticket with reverts because he claims they're all in the name of BLP. However, I didn't think any of his explanations were valid and judging by his talk page comments, to me it seems like he's using "consensus" as a way to block content that he just doesn't like. He made it very clear that he's biased in regard to the issue.
And regardless of all that, he was still edit warring which is all that really matters. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 00:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:147.52.67.230 reported by Dr.K. (talk) 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC) (Result: Malformed )[edit]

147.52.67.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [13]
Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.. Apart form the report being malformed, the reported IP has of now two total edits in the last 24 hours and it isn't obvious whether the previous Ip is same. Nom should watch for 3RR themsleves. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. This system does not catch long term edit warring. This IP has been edit warring for about a month now but, technically, it is not over the 3RR currently and only because I did not revert due to my 3RR limit since I had two IPs reverting at the same time. I had one blocked at WP:ANI due to incivility. As the one got stopped this took over. It is an absolute mess and very discouraging for legit users. This opportunistic edit warring, unfortunately, is not caught by the 3RR system as it currently stands. I tried WP:AIV but no luck there either. Dr.K. (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand. Nevertheless, semi protection hasn't resolved the problem either. Hopefully, what you're trying now helps more.--Tikiwont (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your nice comment. I hope so too. Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rebecca reported by Damiens.rf (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [14]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [19]

Rebecca has recently received a "friendly reminder" from another admin about how, in an unrelated article, she had violated 3RR and was not blocked simply because her actions were overlooked. Now, less than a week later, she's back to edit warring. She's here long enough to know better.

Also, Rebecca is about to violate 3RR in Amanda_Milan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) just was well (she has just been warned about that). --Damiens.rf 16:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
R has 2R at AM. Pondering the rest, including all parties William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Based on her bad faith assumptions on the talk page and the fact that she already ignored it after I reminded her, I'm not totally convinced she won't restart later on the same page...I'm going ahead with the block. --Smashvilletalk 21:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert137 reported by User:Airwolf754 (Result: Protected)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [20]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [25]

this article was checked extensively and approved on August 6 by Rillian (talk · contribs) Airwolf754 (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Besides the report being malformed, it seems to me that the first edit by Hilbert todat was not a revert, after whci I see two reverts for each side.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Sourcechecker419 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [26]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [32]

The reverts aren't all exactly the same, but they are substantially the same. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This article is on probation and essentially under a "1RR" rule. DigitalNinja 20:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Also - the editor in question attempted to delete this report.[33] - Wikidemon (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Additionally: Evidently, this user thinks this is a joke. DigitalNinja 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
And not like this joke :) DigitalNinja 20:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems clear enough; 24h. Didn't check up the article 1RR policy as didn't matter in this case William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

217.157.207.37 reported by Camaron (Result: 24h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [34]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [39]


Single IP engaging in an edit war with multiple users on Eurovision Song Contest 2009 over inclusion of content in a table, s/he has ignored requests to stop. I would normally block on sight as I am an admin, but as I am involved and I have reverted within 1RR I am requesting independent assessment. The above revert diffs are only the last four, the user has actually reverted more times. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Its a fair cop guv William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the speedy response. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

79.74.86.83 reported by O'delanca (Result: 48h)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [40]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [45]

His revertions have caused me to violate it, but as it is obvious vandalism, I hope I don't get blocked as well (I won't be editing for the next 19 hours anyway).--O'delanca (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Anon blocked for 48h for being a waste of time. *Please* mark anti-vandalism reverts with "rvv" or somesuch, or you risk being blocked yourself. Also consider reporting such to AIV rather than 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemon removed sourced material for a third time reported by User:Historicist (24h for Historicist)[edit]

Page: Rashid Khalidi

My most recent edit is the only one given in a 24-hour period. The old reverts were on legitimate BLP grounds and did not exceed 3RR either. This is the second bogus report against me by a retributive editor, edit warring disputed content into a BLP, who was just blocked for 3RR and returning to edit war immediately after his block. Please consider longer-term block for Historicist. (diffs coming in a moment) Wikidemon (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I got caught up in a meeting and didn't have time to do the diffs. It seems moot at this point. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria.--Smashvilletalk 21:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the page has now been fully protected for a week because of the edit war, Either way (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked H for 24h for vexatious litigation and edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

81.149.211.246 reported by BMW67 (Result: Declined and moved to WP:BLPN)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [49]

[54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]

This article has been extremely damaging to my personal and business reputation.We have taken appropriate steps to edit/undo article each time but the user continues to redo.The original article is based on fact and the edits by the reported user are malicious and extremely damaging to my business.I request that this user be blocked and that some editorial lock may be included on this article to prevent a repeat. (Miss B.M.Walsh pp Mr.Duncan Campbell/Airlie James) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.162.251 (talkcontribs) 11:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Malformed and no obvious violation of the 3RR rule. Rather long-term BLP relevant edit warring. Opened a thread at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Duncan_Airlie_James.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the formatting of this report. See the new entry for this case at the BLP Noticeboard. The case was filed by an IP, 78.150.162.251 (talk · contribs), who identifies herself as BMW67 (talk · contribs) (B.M.Walsh), a representative of the subject of the article. EdJohnston (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Very nice, I was too lazy.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Opcn reported by Damiens.rf (Result:24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [64]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [69]

In the edit summary for his 4th revert, Opcn says "This is my third revert...". This appears to be so because he wouldn't count the removal of my comments on the 1st revert as a revert.

Also, he will sometime do minor changes to the reverted text (like strangely adding delete at the beginning of the deletion nomination so that it looks like a vote[70]) , and the revert may appear disguised. --Damiens.rf 14:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Opcn has been discussing his edits on this forum[71] (warning: explicit language in offwiki attacks, etc). --Damiens.rf 14:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours either way (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Does that I mean I can undo his revert? It would technically my 4th revert... but doesn't this count as an exception?
Anyway, I would be glad if someone else could simply go there and do that for me... I would certainly avoid wasting some future time in explanations...--Damiens.rf 15:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Since Opcn's removal of others' comments from the AfD violates WP:TALK I have undone his last revert. I also left a note of explanation in the AfD. EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for that. It seems Opcn is evading his block by using meat puppets and editing anonymously now, but I've already reported it to ANI and it will surely be dealt with there. --Damiens.rf 16:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Orkhan ankara reported by User:Aramgar (Result: No action - User stopped after warning)[edit]


  • Established version: [72]



User persists in adding an unsourced flag and an unsuitable succession box, while declining to participate in talkpage discussions. I have offered several invitations on his talkpage [79] [80] and provided pointed links in my edit summaries [81] [82]. I thought that there might be a language barrier [83], but this belated edit suggests otherwise [84]. It is my belief that Orkhan ankara understood the 3RR warnings on his page.

I might add that while this editor exhibits characteristics typical of a new user, all of his comprehensible edits are tendentious and designed solely to aggrandize the Turks.


  • 1st diff of 3RR warning: [85]
  • 2nd diff of 3RR warning: [86]

Aramgar (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined The user stopped after their second warning. Although they did continue after the first warning, any block would be used as a preventative measure, which does not apply if they have already stopped. TigerShark (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for looking into it. Aramgar (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Cumulus Clouds reported by User:Orpheus (Result:24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [87]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [92] (and see also [93]).


User has declared his intention to continue reverting regardless. Orpheus (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • You have to notify first, then wait for another reversion. Anyway, this still falls under the BLP exemption for 3RR since you are attempting to smear a living person with no credible evidence (sources provided do not indicate guilt). This also falls under WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, both of which are BLP violations in this case. I invite an administrator to review my actions and advise. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I declared my intention to continue reverting this article until 8 o'clock PM tonight, when we will be clear of any direct influence on the Washington State Legislative election. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours either way (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Josephjames21 reported by Amalthea (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [94]



I have not explicitly warned the user of 3RR since I didn't realize at first that he reverted to one of his earlier versions of the article, and didn't just strip the article of some of its content and all of its references. He has though been warned and urged to explain his edits multiple times by several editors on User talk:Josephjames21 however. His only response was that the article as it was doesn't "make sense". He never provided any specifics, although asked to [99] [100].

He also tried to bully editors not to undo his changes (1 2 3).

AmaltheaTalk 19:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I understand that Tiptoety doesn't object if a different admin closes this case, which is related to the one below. Josephjames21 clearly went over 3RR and has a tendency to make large reverts without much explanation. In the future, consider WP:3O, WP:RFC and more discussion when conflicts occur. EdJohnston (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. --AmaltheaTalk 22:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Amalthea reported by Josephjames21 (Result: Decline )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [101]


He also hoarsly lied and took things out of contex. "He also tried to bully editors not to undo his changes (1 2 3)." There was no bullying whatsoever, I was trying to get those users to stop reverting the correct version into the incorrect and badly worded verison. Having mispelled words, and fragments [105]. There is also no wikipedian law that says you can try to stop people reverting to the wrong edits, by telling them that you will block them, if there is a law that says you can't do that, Amalthea did the same.November 2008 He was also very rude, and kept reverting to the wrong edits. I was urged to explain my edits only by Amalthea, and hadn't done so because the other editors had not done so either.

Josephjames21 (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation While I do agree that both parties are engaged in a edit war neither have violated 3RR. I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned both parties. Any further reverts/edit warring will be met with a block. Tiptoety talk 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Quartus81 reported by Ben Tillman (Result: no vio)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [106]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [111]
Ben (talk) 07:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Not within 24h, sorry. Warned William M. Connolley (talk) 10:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, I think (but can't verify) that [112] and [113] were 2 more attempts, this time anonymous or perhaps not logged-in. DVdm (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Another anonymous attempt: [114], immediately following some kind of threath ([115]): "One thing is very clear - the word "myth" IS to be removed". DVdm (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Arzel reported by 66.86.173.180 (Result: 24h)[edit]




  • Diff of 3RR warning: [link]


User continues to work against talk page consensus, erased multiple warnings and has broken 3RR rule countless times in the past on a variety of articles.

What a bunch of BS. There is no consensus, and this anoyn is is not even bothering to discuss on the talk page. The section in dispute is Original Research, and undue weight for the lead. There are two editors which are currently discussing, both of which agree that the material does not have concensus. The date stamps on the vandalism by the anoyn do not fall within 24 hours, and even if that was the case the Anoyn has made the same number. I move that this bad faith submission be closed immediately. Arzel (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Submission denied. 66.86.173.180 blocked for 24h for 3RR/edit warring (not 4R within 24h but close enough). I decided that A's revert of 65.246.42.2, which he marked as rv vandal, was fair enough, given the anon's edit comment, even though the edit was removing exactly the same material as was at issue William M. Connolley (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

User:PatGallacher reported by User:IronDuke (Result: no vio)[edit]



  • 2nd revert: [117] (this edit reverts a different section than the other three, but still, of course, counts as a revert)


Three reverts consist of removing a quote by noted scholar Alan Dershowitz, using an imaginative reading of BLP to say that negative material can be removed as long as you disagree with the conclusions raised by the source.

(FWIW, I have technically only reverted twice -- the first reversion I made was to undo the edit of a banned editor. I mention this only to emphasize that I like to keep reversions to a minimum.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronDuke (talkcontribs)

IronDuke did not inform me that he had raised this complaint here. I consider that this was a case of removing a poorly sourced claim from a BLP, where the 3RR does not apply. I am not disputing that Dershowitz said this, but his statement contained factual claims which were not and have still not been clearly sourced. I would add that BLP concerns were even greater than normal since this article was the biography of a candidate in an important election on the day the poll was taking place. PatGallacher (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Not sure I buy the BLP stuff. For future ref: please make claims of BLP-exemption very clear in your edit summaries. However [120] appears to be reverting anon vandalism (again, please be clearer).William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

70.248.192.203 reported by Malik Shabazz (Result: 24h)[edit]

  • Previous version reverted to: [121]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [126]

Please see history where Malik is likewise reverting 3 times http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:African_American_ethnicity&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.248.192.203 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Jmh649 reported by scuro (Result: no vio)[edit]

Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Previous version reverted to: [127]
  • Diff of 3RR warning: [131]

[132] [133] [134]

There have been several long standing issues and attempts to engage this user in talk. Currently we are in a med cab [135] but the behaviour hasn't stopped. The med cab has stalled and I have seen no post from the administrator in three days. The user continues to revert and use this as a tool to block material off of the article.--scuro (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think its an excellent idea not to bother tell us which article the reverts occurred on. Its far more exciting that way - we can click through all 2M wiki articles trying to guess! (yes I know.) Or... you could actually bother to fill out the report properly William M. Connolley (talk) 08:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it's my first attempt to do this and it didn't look right in the preview.--scuro (talk) 12:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. But thats only 3 reverts, the last of which was on the 3rd. 3RR warnings should be on the users talk page, normally, not on some medcabal page. And I can't see the warning there William M. Connolley (talk) 13:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Ragusino reported by AlasdairGreen27 (Result: 31 hours )[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [136]
  • Previous version reverted to: [137]
  • Previous version reverted to: [138]


Junije Palmotić

House of Bunić/Bona

Marin Bunić

  • Diff of 3RR warning: [153]


Please note, first of all, that this is a Balkans related issue that falls within the scope of the ARBMAC decision.
Ragusino is edit warring on these three obscure articles to ensure the primacy of the Italian versions of the surnames in question. He may in addition be editing while logged out to pursue this battle, see Special:Contributions/190.21.87.162. These edit wars have been ongoing for weeks. See, for example, the revision history of House of Bunić/Bona since 23 October [154]. Ragusino's version is the one with 4,448 bytes; the consensus version (supported by me, User:DIREKTOR, User:Pip2andahalf, User:Edward321, User:Admiral Norton, User:JdeJ and User:Ivan Štambuk) is the one with 4,225 bytes. In the case of Marin Bunić, his reverting also removes its AfD notice. Enough is enough. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours For the time being I am not going to place any of the involved editors on any arbcom restrictions outlined here, as I am hoping they will not be needed. Tiptoety talk 19:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

68.46.139.114 reported by Boodlesthecat (Result: 24 hours)[edit]


  • Previous version reverted to: [link]



  • Diff of 3RR warning: [159]

IP that has vandalized a number of other articles [160]; [161]. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The IP's claim that he is reverting vandalism is not credible. In any case, edit-warring to add contentious claims to a biographical article is never wise. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The359 reported by Sennen goroshi (Result:no action taken)[edit]

do talk pages not link on the 3RR report page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lewis_Hamilton

the talk page is where the possible violation occurred



ooops I seem to have messed up which diff to show. the fourth diff should have been:

the last diff was a strange one.. if I assume good faith I will assume that he only thought certain elements of my comment required removing. if I assume bad faith I will assume that he knew he had reverted me three times and decided to remove a small element in order to avoid hitting four reverts.


  • Diff of 3RR warning: [167] not a warning to him, but a warning from him..does that count?

oh and this is about an article talk page, does 3RR apply there? Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The fourth revert isn't a revert at all; it's him adding a comment, Metros (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The first is also not a revert, as I was removing off-topic discussion (from two separate editors) from a talk page, as well as adding a necessary template. The359 (talk) 03:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
No, the first one is. People posted comments and you took them off, which is reverting. There was no need to revert that discussion,