Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive37

Contents: July 21, 2005 - July 31, 2005

3RRs

User:BernardL

Three revert rule violation on Noam Chomsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). BernardL (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:40, July 20, 2005
• 1st revert: 10:18, July 21, 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:11, July 21, 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:27, July 21, 2005
• 4th revert: 21:51, July 21, 2005

Reported by: --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Please note that he is removing the same passage in all reverts, even with an attempted compromise wording. Also note that he is using anonymous IPs for some reverts, whether by coincidence or in attempt to avoid block. However, he openly uses the IP account for his BernardL one, and signs comments. In regards to two IPs used here, User:69.157.232.214 and User:69.157.233.37, note that he signs his comments as BernardL and does not disassociate himself from the anons. --TJive 02:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

have to agree with TJive here, and the user's been especially unwilling to compromise on the page. J. Parker Stone 03:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

So....nothing? --TJive 11:47, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Hallo.... --TJive 00:24, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

BernardL (and the IP addresses) haven't edited Noam Chomsky since the request was made here. Since he stopped edit warring more than two days ago, there's little point in blocking. The 3RR is meant to throw cold water on edit wars in progress, not to punish afterwards.

It is also customary to warn users on their talk pages that a 3RR violation has been posted here—particularly new users who may not be familiar with the policy. (I have now done this.) I consider the matter closed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

Three revert rule violation on User_talk:Boothy443 (edit | [[Talk:User_talk:Boothy443|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 04:52, July 21, 2005
• 1st revert: 07:30, July 21, 2005
• 2nd revert: 07:46, July 21, 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:50, July 21, 2005
• 4th revert: 08:06, July 21, 2005
• 5th revert: 08:27, July 21, 2005

Reported by: Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I have no involvement in this, but it is has been showing up on my watchlist all day. Boothy kept trying to redirect his talk page, which was seen as hostile. --Dmcdevit·t 02:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's proper for Boothy to redirect his talk page to another page, but since he has stopped doing that I don't see any problem here. Not a blockable violation, anyway. It's his talk page, he can revert it as many times as he likes. Rhobite 03:10, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Gads. Poor behaviour all around here, really. Wikipedia:Sheep vote for a while incorporated a section that might be taken as an attack on Boothy443. Boothy443–instead of editing or VfDing Wikipedia:Sheep vote–redirected his User Talk page there, which led to the edit war over his redirection.

I'm not sure what point Boothy443 is trying to make. I would suggest that we cut him some slack since a) he was made fun of, and b) it's in his userspace. That said, he should be strongly cautioned not to redirect his User Talk page, as it makes it very difficult for other users to communicate with him.

I also wish that he would at least explain what point he's trying to make with his votes at WP:RFA; it might reduce some of the bad feelings that surround him. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell

Three revert rule violation on Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pastorrussell (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 09:16, 21 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 2:28, 21 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:48, 21 July 2005
• 4th revert: 21:27, 21 July 2005
• 5th revert: 21:57, 21 July 2005 (By 71.65.65.165, probably Pastorrussell)
• 6th revert: 22:15, 21 July 2005
• 7th revert: 22:52, 21 July 2005
• 8th revert: 23:08, 21 July 2005
• 9th revert: 23:41, 21 July 2005
• 10th revert: 23:50, 21 July 2005
• 11th revert: 00:17, 22 July 2005
• 12th revert: 00:28, 22 July 2005
• 13th revert: 09:03, 22 July 2005
• 14th revert: 12:08, 22 July 2005

Reported by: Carnildo 07:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pastorrussell has been persistently removing any dispute tag from the article. I've been holding off on reporting in the hopes that talk-page discussion would resolve the issue, but the most recent edit by Pastorrussell indicates that would be futile.

• I've warned Pastorrussell and will block him if he reverts again. Gamaliel 19:52, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Theathenae

Three revert rule violation on Arvanites and Arvanitic language. (History. Arvanites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Arvanitic language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Theathenae (talk · contribs):

• Comment

He reveted more then three times without taking part of the discussion. I told him to take part of the discussion but he ignored. When I send him a message to his talk page he erased my message [1], this is also clearly a violation and trying to total ignore discussion and revert articles in his own way. He was made aware about this later that it is against policy to delate others message they send to him. User talk:MacGyverMagic gaved him a warning. Dispite that he continue to blank his talk page, [2]. A temporary or perament ban on user Theatheane for violation against the rules would be legitimate. I propose at least 24 hours. Let it be known that he was banned for 3RR rule before, [3]. --Albanau 13:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

• There is a clear violation of the 3RR by user:Theathenae at Arvanitic language, for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. He doesn't appear to have broken the 3RR at Arvanites as he hasn't reverted to any one version or phrase more than 3 times that I can see, but this wasn't easy to judge. user:Albanau has however broken the 3RR at Arvanites (diffs on his talk page), for which I have blocked him for 24 hours. Thryduulf 14:04, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

165.247.208.72

Three revert rule violation on Massacre at Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 165.247.208.72 (talk · contribs):

Although not the same IP address as 209.86.1.9, both coming from the same proxy server according to ARIN

Too many reverts to count, in excess of one dozen, [4]

Reported by: TDC 17:42, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:67.134.82.77

Three revert rule violation on Rick Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by User:67.134.82.77. --ZappaZ 00:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Keep in mind, you too have have violated the 3RR. As far as blocking, the 3RR policy states, In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, administrators should treat all sides equally. You all seem to be having an edit war, and may want to try the dispute resolution process.

• • Previous version reverted to: 14:12, 22 July 2005
  • 1st revert: 14:51, 22 July 2005
  • 2nd revert: 18:24, 22 July 2005
  • 3rd revert: 19:13, 22 July 2005
  • 4th revert: 19:26, 22 July 2005

He doesn't seem to have reverted since being warned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Pastorrussell

Three revert rule violation on Charles Taze Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pastorrussell (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:06, 22 July 2005
• 1st revert: 17:39, 22 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 22 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:10, 22 July 2005
• 4th revert: 20:47, 22 July 2005
• 5th revert: 20:51, 22 July 2005
• 6th revert: 21:04, 22 July 2005
• 7th revert: 21:37, 22 July 2005

Reported by: Carnildo 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pastorrussell is claiming that one version of the intro is the "consensus version", and keeps reverting to it. The other five editors prefer a different version. --Carnildo 04:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 05:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Copperchair

Three revert rule violation on Darth Vader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Copperchair (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8] (disguised as "minor edit")

Reported by: — Phil Welch 07:00, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi Phil, the diffs don't seem to show evidence of three or more reverts to a previous version. I've leave a note on his page about reverting anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:23, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Three are marked as "revert" in the edit summary while the fourth is marked as "correcting thumbnail" (but in effect reverts content previously reverted if you see the other diffs). The policy states "do not revert any single page more than three times in any 24 hour period", and that is what Copperchair did. — Phil Welch 00:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

He'd have to be warned first before being blocked anyway, Phil, so I've done that. If he does it again, he's likely to be blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:05, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:212.88.98.187

Three revert rule violation on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 212.88.98.187 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [9]
• 2nd revert: [10]
• 3rd revert: [11]
• 4th revert: [12]
• 5th revert: [13]

Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 12:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Keeps on inserting the words "The act is mainly islamic" into the Terrorism article.
  • Warned. El_C 12:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Using new IP now, and is continuing to do it with his new IP of (User:212.88.98.165). --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• I can no longer revert him without violating the 3rr rule, so can someone please take a look. Thanks. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• I've locked to page against his version but I don't want to do that for long.Geni 16:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

added to my watchlist for what that's worth. Septentrionalis

• Come on, surely this counts as vandalism? He did it ten times without trying to justify himself. – Smyth\^talk 10:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

Three revert rule violation on List of companies in the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Huaiwei (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:22, July 23, 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:15, July 23, 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:02, July 24, 2005
• 4th revert: 07:35, July 24, 2005

Reported by: — Instantnood 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:Huaiwei has been insisting in his POV and changed the article accordingly, despite the disagreements have not been settled at the talk page. She/he reverted rolling back to what the list was like and was intended for before the dispute took place while discussion is in process, and she/he also reverted the application of the {{twoversions}} tag. — Instantnood 08:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
• This is a ridiculous nomination. Those four edits reverts instantnood cited were punctured by small edits he made, so I dont think it constitutes a continous case of reverts by both parties. Secondly, while this revert war was sparked when he attempted to add a contentious line [14], he subsequently tried to do a roll back to a "prior to the dispute"...which was way before the offending edit...and a version he prefers. That version, however, is erroneous, as it was the state of the article before it was subsequently renamed. I therefore found it neccesary to bring it back to the state which was accepted by User:Dbinder and me, but not by him.--Huaiwei 08:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The notice I added is not contentious. Similar notices exist on other articles and lists on mainland China-related topics. This list should not be an exception. The discussion was not sparked off but that edit, but rather, was a continuation of previous discussions. The title of the list was changed, but the change itself has never been justified. It should not be taken as an opportunity to push a point of view to change the limits of the content of the list, claiming to be editing according to the new title. Further, the edits to the list I made were not small edits, and Huaiwei did make 4 reverts within a 24-hour period. — Instantnood 09:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • It is certainly contentious, and you know that full well. You added the notice out of spite and to express unhappiness that the page title was changed, so you are using that as an excuse and a cover up for your disruptive behavior. If the page title refers to the PRC, then the page should address it. The notice is only needed if this is contrary to that. Since the various editors has hence tweaked the page to better reflect its title, I do not see why this should be reverted? As a matter of fact, you are the one "limiting" the scope of the article to only refer to Mainland China, and not others. As for small edits, mind telling us what this edit [15] is for? My four reverts you refer all involve a revert of a different version, which I was forced to make because you kept trying to use the 3RR rule to manipulate the situation.--Huaiwei 10:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Your accusations are speculative. You know very well what are the similar notices I mentioned, and what articles have such notices. I was not the one to limit the scope. Please be reminded what the list was created for. — Instantnood 10:50, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
        • And ditto to your accusations against me. You know full well about the content disputes with regards to the usage of the words Mainland China, and you have had 2 arbcoms (or was it 3?) against you related to your persistent attempts in pushing your POV, of which the issues over Mainland China was one of them. I dont think you are adding them merely to follow some kind of "template" in other pages, because the entire usage of it was under dispute. By calling a PRC article a Mainland Chinese one, you are indeed limiting its scope...there is no way around that. And I dont quite understand what you mean by "Please be reminded what the list was created for."? So what was it for besides what it is for now?--Huaiwei 11:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
          • I am not pushing my POV in editing this list. Rather, I was reverting to what the list was intended for before the disputes took place, which may or may not be representing my point of view (as a matter of fact I do the same for other articles, no matter it's related to the mainland China debate or not). I do not limit its scope, but rolling back to what it was like before the dispute. The notice I added is similar to other articles.
            The ArbCom cases are irrelevant here. The first one was not opened against anybody. It was a case that a few parties were involved. The second case was a continuation of the first. It was reopened because the first case was closed without following the standard procedures, and therefore has to be reopened due to technical reasons.
            The issue here on this noticeboard remains, that is, Huaiwei made four reverts within a 24-hour period. — Instantnood 11:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't the place for such a debate; please aim for a more constructive one. 12 hrs so as to hasten meaningful dialogue on the talk page. El_C 12:07, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for bringing it to end El C. Huaiwei brought up something which were not entirely true [16], and I was made to respond and to clarify. — Instantnood 12:16, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:69.110.184.197

Three revert rule violation on Noahide Laws (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.110.184.197 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21] By User:81.129.79.2 probaly a sockpuppet.
• 6th revert: [22]

Reported by: Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Inserts POV paragraph.

• Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 11:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:HOTR

Three revert rule violation on Monarchy in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HOTR (talk · contribs):

• Revert 1: 18:08, 23 July 2005
• Revert 2: 18:09, 24 July 2005
• Revert 3: 18:54, 24 July 2005
• Revert 4: 19:16, 24 July 2005
• Revert 5: 19:25, 24 July 2005

I'll also note that I may be in violation of 3RR as well.

Reported by: --gbambino 23:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Gbambino seems to have falsified the times above as they do not actually correspond to the edit history. Several of the "reversions" he notes above are not reversions but consecutive edits (unless it is gbambino's contention that I reverted myself.) If there is a penalty for making a false report, it should be applied to Gbambino. Homey 00:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A look at the heading at the top of the right-hand column in each 'history' will reveal that the times are accurate. As for the distinction between a simple edit and a revert, the evidence speaks for itself. --gbambino 00:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

A look at the article's edit history will show that the times above do not correspond. As for the distinction between an edit and a revert, "revert 1" shows that I was the editor of both "before" and "after" versions hence it is not a reversion. Homey 00:42, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, while the times above are wrong and gbambino's first "revert" is not one a look at the actual history shows that I have reverted 4X in 24 hours. My apologies. I will revert to gbambino's last edit . Homey 00:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:-Ril- (yet again)

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Bible verses (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Bible verses|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs):

• Revert 1: [23]
• Revert 2: [24]
• Revert 3: [25]
• Revert 4: [26]

Reported by: --SimonP 01:16, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Simon P has done the same. AND has removed votes and comments. AND has adjusted what it was that people had already voted for. I was merely reverting these highly inappropriate changes. ~~~~ 01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• But Simon P has self-corrected his 3RR violation. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, and I apologize for going over the limit. - SimonP 02:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Heraclius

Three revert rule violation on Slave trade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Heraclius (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 02:38, 19 July 2005
• 1st revert: 01:05, 25 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:07, 25 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 01:09, 25 July 2005
• 4th revert: 01:12, 25 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Last revert was a complex revert; each revert has removed sentences stating "In the Muslim-controlled Middle East, Africa and South Asia slavery and slave trade continued to flourish." and "Slavery has never been legal in Israel", along with the world "Islamic" from various section titles. Was requested to revert [27], but refuses, claiming he was using some complicated tactic to get around the 3RR.[28] Was last blocked for 3RR on July 19. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Correct, that passage is deleted in all instances. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 01:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Bee Hive

Three revert rule violation on National Endowment for Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bee Hive (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:00, July 23, 2005
• 1st revert: 14:10, July 24, 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:51, July 24, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:40, July 24, 2005
• 4th revert: 21:46, July 24, 2005

Reported by: TJive 02:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

If you look through "Bee Hive"'s contribution page you will notice that the entirety of his content consists of a package of reversions and deletions of material which I have contributed. This goes back to yesterday, before which he had done nothing. Now if you go to the contribution page of Ruy Lopez you can see the same general sets of reverts for the 22nd and before. So essentially it is simply that mass reverts are being used to attempt to confound any contributions I make by one user. However, he has clearly crossed another line here and knows better. --TJive 02:17, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked permanently as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:TruthComission

Three revert rule violation on Filipino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TruthComission (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:32, 23 July 2005
• 1st revert: 00:01, 24 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 04:10, 24 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:56, 24 July 2005
• 4th revert: 20:10, 24 July 2005
• 5th revert: 20:37, 24 July 2005
• 6th revert: 22:00, 24 July 2005

Reported by: --Chris 04:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Was originally an anonymous user who would keep on reverting then made an account calling him/herself the "Truth Comission [sic]." He continues to revert to a version that is inaccurate about actual Filipino ethnicity. The source he uses to back up his argument is from 1916. I have given him more recent sources, but he keeps pressing on. Any action would be appreciated. Thank you. --Chris 04:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• blocked for 24 hours.Geni 10:33, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Zen-master

Three revert rule violation on AIDS conspiracy theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zen-master (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:45, 19 May 2005
• 1st revert: 06:29, 25 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:58, 25 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:11, 25 July 2005
• 4th revert: 18:54, 25 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User tried to get the article title changed months ago, but was unable to, so inserted a "Title disputed" template in mid-May. Has insisted on having the template at the top of the page, and has reverted a number of different editors who have removed it, e.g. [29] [30] [31] [32]. In order to game the 3RR this time, inserted a handmade template at the top of the page on the 3rd revert - when this was re-written to reflect reality, reverted to his version, then on the fifth revert inserted a slightly different "Title disputed" template. Was warned about these attempts to game the rule, but continued to do so anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

• • Furthermore, I have blocked jayjg for violation of the 3RR. See User_talk:Jayjg#3RR_violation Cburnett 01:15, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked Jay. I looked at other edits when I was checking Zen-master's block. What you're calling a fourth revert was not a revert to a previous version of the page, or anything like it. Jay wanted there to be no tag on the article. In tagging it and linking to the discussion (which is what Zen-master wanted), yet making it clear there had been a consensus, it seems to me that Jay came up with a compromise text.

I'm copying below what you wrote on Jay's talk page so others can check the diffs if they want do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:25, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked you for 3RR violation on AIDS conspiracy theories.

• [33]: deleted tag
• [34]: deteled tag via rollback
• [35]: deleted tag
• [36]: modifed tag such that zen-master reverted it [37] citing it as inaccurate; this is effectively reverting by changing the content/meaning such that the opposing revert war party felt compelled to revert and is in line with the spirit of the 3RR.

Cburnett 01:13, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

---

Perhaps, SlimVirgin, you forget the purpose of the 3RR?

...the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars...

Jayjg's fourth edit did not (clearly) have the intention of quelling the edit war. His "compromise" was no compromise at all: it merely stated his side of the edit war. Cburnett 01:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, how can Jayjg be excluded from the 3RR for stating his side of the edit war when each edit by zen-master has been precisely the same? Zen-master says there's a dispute; jayjg says there isn't. I find your immediate unblocking of jayjg, without discussion, highly disturbing. Especially when you consider what's written above:

Administrators will look over and discuss whether a user has truly violated the three revert rule, and take appropriate blocking action if necessary.

I have left zen-master blocked and I expect you to leave jayjg blocked until discussion has taken place. Cburnett 02:03, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've already been unblocked, and commented on your talk: page; I'll reproduce it here:

Hi Cburnett. Regarding your note on my page, no-one is "compelled to revert", and there is no such policy as "being in line with the spirit of the 3RR". Moreover, I was dead set against there being any notice at the top of the page; however, when Zen Master insisted on there being a notice, I felt a reasonable compromise was to leave a notice indicating that there was a conflict, but at least an accurate one indicating the true state of affairs. I appreciate that you were only attempting to enforce policy, but it's best to enforce pre-existing policies rather than creating new ones on the fly, and especially (as happened in this case) when the facts are prone to misinterpretation. Still, no hard feelings, keep up the good work.

As I pointed out, my position is there should be no notice at the top; a compromise is a notice indicating there is a conflict, but an accurate one. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if one could block based on the "spirit of edit wars", then one could block a person who does even one revert in a day, if it represented a revert in a longstanding edit war. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, Zen-master violated 3RR, but Jayjg did not, so there's no reason the latter should stay blocked. Jayjg's fourth edit was an attempt to reach a compromise. He added the tag that Zen-master wanted (which Jayjg didn't want). He included a link to the poll on conspiracy theory, which Zen-master also wanted (and Jayjg didn't want). Jayjg modified the tag Zen-master wanted by making it clear that a consensus on the term conspiracy theory had been reached, which is accurate. It's not a revert to any previous version of the page, in whole or in part, in letter or in spirit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Accurate is a POV thing and zen-master clearly disagrees. I can't believe both of you fail to grasp this, not only conceptually, but direct evidence from zen-master reverting it. Cburnett 02:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master's reversions of attempted compromises is his own issue, not mine, and I can't believe you fail to grasp the fact that when you start making up "spirit of the policy" rules based on dubious interpretations of evidence, you open up the rule for blocks on just about any grounds. The 3RR is fairly narrow and mechanistic precisely to avoid this sort of admin abuse. And I must say, getting involved in this dispute on your own, by blocking me and restoring Zen-master's version, is actually a far clearer violation of policy than your allegations that I violated the "spirit" of 3RR. I'm still trying to maintain the view that you made the block in good faith, but it's getting increasingly difficult. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, the 3RR rule is clear. It doesn't matter whether Jay's edit was accurate or not (that's just an added bonus). We're not allowed to revert to a previous version of the page more than three times in 24 hours, in whole or in part. The quality of the edit is irrelevant, except where it's vandalism.

You've now unblocked Zen-master, who clearly violated 3RR in this case, and who has a history of 3RR violations and of aggressive reverting, particularly over this conspiracy-theory issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how jayjg (and slim) can logically claim that jay's edit was a "compromise" nor how it is even an accurate description. There may be some confusion over whether a majority vote equals consensus, over 10 users voted on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory that "conspiracy theory" titled articles are a problem, this is more than enough to signify the basis of an {NPOV} dispute. And cburnett noted, as I have, on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories or to me on irc that he read the talk page and coulnd't find an alleged consensus for the removal of the disputed header. zen master T 02:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You put the notice on the page 2 1/2 months ago, attempted to get the name changed, and could get no consensus for that. The vote was 32 to 12 in favour of keeping "conspiracy theory". You've since held the page hostage with an ugly notice on the top, despite having it removed by half a dozen editors. Notices aren't forever, and the consensus was to keep the name. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum where individual editors can permantely disfigure articles because they don't like the name and can't accept consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute headers are not removed when there is simply a majority (or else they would always be removed), they are removed when there are no arguably legitimate neutrality disputes in existence. Did you catch my response to willmcw's similar holding the page "hostage" point on the talk page? That is precisely why i created the nice looking "Notice: there is a neutrality dispute involving this article's title" header, to avoid charges of "ugly" header, it looks exactly the same as a disambig notice. When you say "consensus" I think you mean "majority"? zen master T 02:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute headers aren't forever, POV summaries masquerating as disambig notices are ugly. You've repeated your claim that headers are only removed when there is no "legitimate dispute", but this is clearly completely bogus, as everyone thinks their dispute is legitimate, yet individuals cannot hold pages hostage. As for consensus, yes, on Wikipedia consensus is measured by a significant majority, which this has. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The lack of discussion by the "pro" side is not evidence there is no dispute. How is headers are only removed when there is no legitimate neutrality dispute "completely bogus"? It is a de facto wikipedia policy that the {NPOV} header is only removed when there is unanimous consensus to do so, why shouldn't that extend to other dispute headers/notices? The removal of disputed headers from articles is certainly not measured by a majority on wikipedia. zen master T 03:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have explained myself for blocking you, Jayjg, and restoring the tag. Perhaps instead of wasting time arguing over the merits of blocking, the dispute of the dispute be discussed instead? You haven't even bothered to respond to my comments on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories despite clearly knowing that I have, at one point, restored his tag. You'll excuse the mirroring here: but I find your edits increasingly difficult to hold in good faith when you care more about addressing blockages instead of the dispute that led to them... Cburnett 02:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Cburnett, this is the page for discussing the block, and that's what I am doing here. I was more than happy to chalk it up to error, but you have continued to both defend the block, and take other actions which are quite disturbing, given your part in this affair. Now you appear to be trying to deflect examination of all these issues. I'll certainly discuss the tag on the appropriate page (i.e. AIDS conspiracy theories), but that's not what this page is about. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You must have missed me saying "You haven't even bothered to respond to my comments on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories..." since you think I'm calling for a discussion on the dispute on this page when I'm clearly pointing for discussion on that talk page. Cburnett 02:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't had time to respond there yet; rest assured, I will in good time. And I see you're now trying to quell discussion on this page. Moreover, I note you yourself have now reverted the article page twice, and then put a modified comment at the top of the page. Should I now block you for, based on, as you put it, the "spirit" and "purpose" of the 3RR: ...the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars..., since, as you've said above, your edits did not (clearly) have the intention of quelling the edit war, and your "compromise" was no compromise at all, but merely stated your side of the edit war? In my opinion at this point your actions have gone way beyond any charitable interpretation. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe if you could count. If you include mimicking your action, which so far 2-1 isn't a revert, then I'm still at 3 reverts. Cburnett 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

By that method of counting Zen-master did 5 reverts; in any event, you're edit warring, and that's what the policy is supposed to prevent. The exact number of reverts, or that they be actual reverts, obviously doesn't matter to you; it's all about the "spirit". Will you be blocking yourself now, to show consistency with your principles? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, so it can count toward zen-master and I, but not you. Stop having your cake and eating it too. It's interesting that Calton reverted an article that he's never edited and has explicitly stated that he never intends on discussing. Cburnett 03:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's generally considered that if one must resort to lying to support a position, as you have just done, that position is not worth defending. I never explicitly stated that [I] never intend on discussing. I looked at it, considered the issue settled and the version reverted to as a fair summary, and left it at that. I inserted myself because, as a general rule, I don't like bullies, which is what you're being. --Calton | Talk 04:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's your counting method, not mine Cburnett; see how silly it turns out to be? As for Calton, I can't really speak for him, but perhaps he thinks your edits are so close to vandalism that there's no need for conversation - that's usually why people revert without comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Even my counting doesn't put me at 4+ reverts, just you and zen-master....yet you're not banned. Again, you fail to understand what I've actually said. Cburnett 03:57, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your counting method isn't based on actual reverts, but about enforcing the "spirit" of the rule, which is to stop edit warring, not to count exact numbers of reverts. And of course I understand it; more importantly, I understand both the inherent flaws in your unique intepretation of the 3RR, and your inconsistency in applying that interpretation to yourself. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Side point: I have unblock zen-master so that he may comment on this page about his side. He has personally promised me to do no editing other than to respond to this dispute. Cburnett 02:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Not quite what I'd call a side point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Another action that violates more than the "spirit" of 3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocking zen-master keeps him from participating in the discussion about his blockage since it is not being held on his talk page. If blocked users could respond where the request was made, here, then I wholly wouldn't have unblocked him. His promise to me continues the penalty for violating the 3RR so the punishment hasn't been stayed, only removing the censoring of defending himself where the discussion is taking place. By all means, if he edits an article for not honoring his promise to me...then block him. I'm willing to assume good faith so that he may discuss being blocked. (or this entire conversation can be moved to his talk page, where discussion will remain, and then blocked again less the time since he was blocked) Cburnett 02:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You're out of line here, Cburnett.

• You got involved in a violation report I was dealing with without discussing it with me, though if you'd checked, you'd have seen I was online.
• You blocked an editor (and fellow admin) for a 3RR violation which the diffs show clearly he did not make.
• Though you blocked the reporting editor for a non-existent violation, you then unblocked the other editor, who has a history of violations, blocks, and aggressive revert-warring, even though the diffs show a violation.
• You've chastised the reporting editor for wasting time bothering with the violation report, even though it was a legitimate report.
• You've now involved yourself in the content dispute by reverting back to your preferred version.

Could it get any worse? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Here we go, this is starting to get personal and no discussion is taking place on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Sad. Very sad.

In regards to slimvirgin's points:

• Only because he can't be heard. Users have been granted posting rights to there talk pages to address being blocked. He did and nothing happened. He sent 4 emails to admins trying to get discussion: including one to you SlimVirgin. Nothing happened. Clearly you, the one dealing with it wasn't paying attention to your email nor his talk page.
• Blocking involves admin discretion and I exercised it on jayjg. "discretion", by definition, does not guarantee everyone will agree.
• I explained this: I am assuming good faith on zen-master's part and, so far, he has upheld his promise of not editing articles.
• I "chastised" (to use your word) not because he made the report, but he failed to address my points at Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories despite having viewed the page; seeing I put the tag back; and either not bothering to look at the talk page or not caring to answer me.
• I have only done one revert to an anonymous user taking pot shots at me (which is all I intend on doing) and have called for Calton to join the discussion on the talk page after he reverted my compromise notice (which by your's and jayjg's isn't anything resembling a revert).

I think it could get a lot worse. Not even you are willing to address my points on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. It appears no one is interested in solving the problem BUT me. Cburnett 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

You appear to be the problem at this point. We're discussing that. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it could; Cburnett is also insisting that I not comment on the block on this page, but rather deal solely with the content issue on the other page, while simultaneously insisting that he needed to unblock Zen-master so Zen-master alone could comment on this page. The favoritism shown here is astounding. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I want you to comment on Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories but you won't despite being requested several times. I never said you shouldn't comment here, just that it's sad you care more about this than the actual dispute.

I also said that if you care to move it to zen's talk page so the block can be reinstated (nevermind he's kept his promise of not editing articles) then do it. But you clearly don't want to do that either...just complain about favortism. If you and zen's position were swapped, I'd do the same thing. I'm not playing favorites. Cburnett 03:07, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I comment on Talk: pages on my own schedule, not on yours. This issue is immediate, and involves apparent abuse of admin powers on your part; it's far more important than the other dispute, which has lasted 2 1/2 months now, and is merely about a dispute header. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My abuse, eh? Interesting. Cburnett 03:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And quite obvious, at this point. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Another point for your information, Cburnett: you wrote above that Zen-master needed to have access to this page to discuss his block. But blocks are normally discussed with the blocking admin by e-mail. Zen-master e-mailed me saying the fourth revert wasn't a revert. I responded that if he would explain to me why not, I would take a fresh look at it, but he didn't reply. He could also have asked me to discuss it with him on his talk page, but he didn't.

If Zen-master breaks his promise to you, and makes any edits to pages other than this one or his talk page during the blocking period, I will reinstate it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:10, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, by what method did you respond to my email? I have not yetreceived anything and your post on my talk page said you'd get back to me quickly... zen master T 03:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just re-sent it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Zen has told me that he never received a reply. You didn't reply on his talk page (despite outright claiming in this discussion that you've been online). So this is obviously not a normal case since there's a major breakdown in communication and how things are "normally" done.

Re: re-blocking. I've stated it myself that I'd block him, so by all means block him if I don't get to it first. I have zero problems with this. Cburnett 03:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

There has been no breakdown of communication on my part. I blocked him and invited him to e-mail me. He did. I replied. He didn't. You then blocked Jay and unblocked zen-master without discussing any of it in advance with me.

I have resent my e-mail to zen-master. Perhaps if he responds to it, we can make some progress. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

And still, no discussion at Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. I'm starting to doubt if any of you actually cares to address the dispute because all evidence points that you care more about who gets blocked instead of adressing the root reason of why they were blocked: AIDS conspiracy theories. Cburnett 03:16, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Your apparent abuse of admin powers is far more pressing than a 2 1/2 month old dispute about a page header. Your consistent attempts to distract by projecting bad-faith onto others for not dealing with the less important issue are noted, and rejected for the transparent ploys that they are. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, SlimVirgin, you need to reread WP:3RR#I've been blocked under 3RR! What do I do? since users can email (contact) other admins. When zen-master received no reply he saught me out on IRC so, in essence, it's your own fault for not getting back to him (either email or his talk page) that I'm involved. Cburnett 03:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's SV's fault for allegedly not responding to someone SV blocked for reverting a page 4 times (or 5, according to your "spirit of the law" rules), but not your fault for blocking someone who did not violate 3RR at all, and then unblocking the other editor, and edit warring on his behalf. Astounding. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL!! In addition to all of the above, the whole thing is now my fault?

I'm available by e-mail. Other editors have no trouble getting through to me. If zen-master received no reply, I wonder why he didn't email me again to check I'd received it? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:28, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, you might reread what I said and realize I didn't blame "the whole thing" on you, only that I'm involved. Please read what I write, not put words in my mouth. Cburnett 03:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed is that I've never seen zen-master get involved in an issue that hasn't resulted in claim and counter-claim flying hysterically back and forth. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:53, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nice job attacking my character slim, it takes two to edit war, and it takes a gang of highly organized POV pushers to deny the mention of a legitimate neutrality dispute. At this point I will point out the conflict of interest slim has on the "conspiracy theory" issue as she was the person that authored the "pro" argument over on Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory. zen master T 04:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And that has what to do with me not blaming the "whole thing" on you? Cburnett 03:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hold it! All of you, take a fifteen minute wikibreak.

Particularly the admins among you—all of you know better than to make personal attacks, engage in block wars, assume bad faith, violate the three-revert rule, and in general engage in poor behaviour all around.

Zen-master was obviously reverting. The net result of each cited edit was to add a neutrality warning regarding the title. Regardless of the slightly different phrasing each time, his intent was clear. Even if we were to be picky about the letter of the 3RR, I would still count it as disruption—gaming the system isn't to be rewarded.

Jayjg was also reverting. Cleverly restating the template to nullify its meaning is obviously an intended revert. As an admin, he should know not to try to bend the rules that way. The ugly tone he's taking with Cburnett isn't helping; in fact it's probably inflamed things much more than necessary.

Cburnett, next time try to directly contact SlimVirgin yourself. You know that Zen-master had been participating in an edit war (you may not know he's also before the ArbCom), and it would have been courteous to drop SV a note before undoing the block.

SlimVirgin, it probably would have made sense to try to contact Cburnett before undoing Jayjg's block (my apologies if you did do so). Jayjg was engaged in naughty behaviour and shouldn't have been edit warring.

Okay, that's my Monday morning armchair quarterbacking. Flame away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it the issue before the arbcom is the race and intelligence dispute? zen master T 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, my initial tone with Cburnett was quite friendly: ending my comments with "no hard feelings, keep up the good work"[38] and "I appreciate you're trying to do your best. Cheers."[39] It was only after Cburnett unblocked Zen-master, started edit-warring on his behalf, and insisting that I shouldn't comment here but that only Zen-master should, that things got less friendly; nevertheless exposing admin abuse is not "taking an ugly tone". In addition, if I'd brought Zen-master to WP:AN/3RR for his first four edits, nobody would have blocked him for "disrupting" or "gaming the spirit of the rule". That includes you, and Cburnett. I know this, because I've brought far more obvious cases of 3RR reversions here and been ignored, because the reverts weren't exact enough reverts; here's an example from less than a week ago:[40]. I know how 3RR is interpreted here, and it's a far cry from what you suggest. There was no 3RR violation on my part, no matter how you slice it; not as the policy is currently written and interpreted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How can I possibly have been "gaming the spirit" of the 3RR rule if I had no plans to revert the article tonight if you and others hadn't started removing dispute headers? It takes at least two (including groups of people) to edit war, and the impetus in this case was the illegitimate removal of neutrality dispute headers. zen master T 05:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Are you really serious? "I had no plans to revert, except that people disagreed with my version of the page". Sheesh. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow, jayjg, the half-truthes and specious arguments are rampant in your reply.

• Being friendly is more than tacking on friendly-looking words
• I didn't edit on anyone's behalf
• I never said that you shouldn't comment here
• In my discretion, you both violated the 3RR: I've stated this before any of the bickering here even started
• You say nobody would have blocked zen-master....yet he was blocked by slimvirgin

Cburnett 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Friendly is friendly, you edit-warred for Zen-master's POV, you kept insisting that the fact that I was commenting here was a sign of something nefarious on my part, and I said Zen-master would never have been blocked after his first four edits. And he wasn't. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It may or may not be legitiamte but since it is not covered under Wikipedia:Vandalism it is not a legit exception to the 3RR. Using different dissputed tags is a fairly standard way of gameing the 3RR however it can also be a legit attempt to compramise (eg "ok I conside that there are not factual errors in the article but I still don't think it is NPOV"). In the case of zen master I feel that TitleDisputed and NPOV-title are close enogh to warrent a block. Jayjg has 3 reverts followed by a clasic edit waring technique (in a more typical POV disspute it involves creating an ultra POV version of the page that your oponent is pretty much forced to revert then you simply produce your closer to NPOV version 3 times). I think that counts as gameing the rule. As to the currently ongoing disspute can people please learn to comment stuff out?Geni 14:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "comment stuff out"? Which stuff and where? Cburnett 14:39, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

the stuff about there being a consensus (something which appears to be questionable but no matter). Our readers don't need to know this as such it should be commented out. If you look at Bahá'u'lláh#Photograph and try and edit it you will find an example of commented out text.Geni 15:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a new question, it's wikipedia policy that dispute headers are added to articles if there is an in good faith neutrality dispute. Does this policy supersede "revert" considerations? Has there been any evidence presented by the pro remove dispute header folks that there is not a good faith neutrality dispute in this case (rhetoric doesn't count)? It should also be noted that the {TitleDisputed} template was in the article for 2 months with numerous users agreeing there is a neutrality dispute:

• May 31: Dante Alighieri re-added {TitleDisputed} [41]
• June 1: ugen64 re-added {TitleDisputed} [42]
• July 11 Revolucion renamed the title to Alternative origin theories [43]

Willmcw and Jayjg briefly argued that dispute headers are ugly and shouldn't be left in an article indefinitely (apparently they give no consideration for the possibility that the neutrality dispute continues) so I switched to simple text similiar to a disambig notice that describes the exact nature of the dispute, it can even be reworded to something like "Notice: a minority of editors allege the phrase 'conspiracy theory' biases the presentation of this subject, see the talk page for details". What do people think? zen master T 15:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

that policy does not superceed the 3 revert rule.Geni 15:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it at the same level as 3RR policy wise? If it's ok to add dispute headers when there is an in good faith neutrality dispute then someone removing them immediately after their being added or re-added would itself constitute a policy violation, correct? zen master T 16:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Insisting on "NPOV title" headers on a page for months, when you have lost (by a large margin) a vote one whether or not the title is NPOV, is not "good faith". Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

By what policy are neutrality dispute headers added and removed from articles? If there is no clear policy for their removal then all we have to work from is the clear policy for their addition. There are three editors listed right above that agree with my complaint, and many more on the talk page historically. The Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory policy proposal was only to remove "conspiracy theory" titles (which received greater than 25% support, so there was no consensus either way by some metrics). But more importantly no where in the Wikipedia:Conspiracy theory counter proposal was it noted that was an opposite policy proposal for "conspiracy theory" to be considered perfect in every title situation going forward. A negative vote against one policy proposal does not automatically create an opposite policy, especially when not explicitly noted. After the vote we simply returned to the status quo before the policy was proposed, i.e. neutrality considerations are still used to determine titles and content on a case by case basis. Going forward, perhaps we should jointly write up a new policy proposal (and request voting) on whether or not "majority" equals "consensus" when it comes to neutrality disputes? And separately exactly what concerns do you see with merely signifying, using NPOV language, the existence of a minority view as far as presenting a controversial issue goes? For example the following simple text at the top: "Notice: a minority of editors allege the phrase 'conspiracy theory" biases the presentation of this subject, see the talk page for details"? zen master T 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles should not be self-referential, and in particular should not list up front the views of a minority group of editors at a particular point in time, referencing an ever-changing Talk: page. That is completely non-encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:50, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Your statement seems to contradict the use of {NPOV} and other dispute headers generally, wikipedia is a freely accessible community encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia. In your view what is the point of {NPOV} and other headers? it seems to me they were designed to signify the minority disputes some aspect of an article, do you agree? Currently {NPOV} headers point to an ever changing talk page everywhere they are used so I don't understand your point there, the key metric in my mind is the in good faith status of the dispute. If the point with the generic headers is to signify some sort of dispute then why not instead mention, using NPOV language, the specific details of the dispute rather than use an "ugly" header as you've noted previously? zen master T 18:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Dispute headers are intended to be temporary, not permanent article features. You are proposing a permanent header to the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

But by what policy are dispute headers removed even assuming there is a time based limitation? There is in fact no exact policy or process on removal, but there is a clear policy that headers are added if there is an in good faith dispute by the minority, and there is clearly one in this case. That is the core point of having {NPOV} headers -- you do realize they are rarely ever removed (without controversy) from an article if the article remains largely the same or continues to present the issue the same way over the course of two months or however long? Time doesn't magically make in good faith allegations of neutrality violations go away, you have to actually prove the header was added or even re-added in bad faith, that is the current policy. I am not proposing a permanent header be added, I am proposing a specific minority allegation header be added to note the exact details of the dispute to encourage discussion on the talk page to reach true 100% consensus. Do I interpret correctly you are not interested in going ahead with a community proposal to officially determine whether majority equals consensus in header dispute cases despite the numerous times you've errantly claimed such a policy already exists? FYI: the majority also doesn't get to decide time based limitations on in good faith header dispute cases either. Length of time of header placement is irrelevant if an in good faith dispute still exists. zen master T 19:55, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If participants have finished dealing with the past (supposed) 3RR violations then further discussion of the "disputed title" should probably be moved to the article's talk page. -Willmcw 19:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:67.182.157.6

Three revert rule violation on True (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 18:57, July 15, 2005
• 1st revert: 03:32, July 26, 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:36, July 26, 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:56, July 26, 2005
• 4th revert: 04:53, July 26, 2005

Reported by: Banno, 20:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)]

Comments:

• Note that this user was reported previously for a similar offence onRevision as of 21:34, July 16, 2005 by Ancheta Wis with no apparent result.Banno 09:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• 67.182.157.6 is also the subject of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#July 23, and an RfCWikipedia:Requests for comment#MiscellaneousBanno 09:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:24.224.207.234

Three revert rule violation on 7 July 2005 London bombings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.224.207.234 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [44]
• 2nd revert: 03:34, July 26, 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:44, July 26, 2005
• 4th revert: 03:53, July 26, 2005
• 5th revert: 03:59, July 26, 2005
• 6th revert: 04:13, July 26, 2005
• 7th revert: 04:19, July 26, 2005
• 8th revert: 04:40, July 26, 2005

Reported by: Calton | Talk 04:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User keeps reinserting POV, conspiracy-theory-style language casting doubt on official reports and POV assertions of authority on "globalist" website.
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Rhobite 04:56, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Criztu

Three revert rule violation on Hungarian Soviet Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Criztu (talk · contribs):

• Edit creating version reverted to: 12:39, 24 July 2005
• 1st revert: 16:40, 25 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:29, 25 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:32, 26 July 2005
• 4th revert: 10:47, 26 July 2005

Reported by: KissL 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Would prefer having the status quo restored and the user warned to having the user blocked. KissL 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I warned the user but someone else will have to provide any reverts.Geni 14:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not satisfied with the text of the warning, as it says "you are just about ok" while the above links show evidence of 4 reverts within a roughly 18-hour period. This, together with leaving his version of the article alone, does make it hard for me not to do a fourth revert myself. I also doubt that it achieves the goal of enforcing the 3RR next time. :(( KissL 14:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• There are diffences between each "revision" some of them are of about equal in size to the text being "reverted". The user does not have any past history that I know of gameing the rule. There is simply no way I can block him under the rule. As such I have no choice other than to admit that yes his just about within the rule this time around. What has happened greatly assists in inforceing the rule in future since it remove the "user wasn't warned" defence. Furthermore if the user continuse to act in there current way it will show that they are gameing the rule. If however they do not then I fail to see an issue. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If you want somone to decide what to do about the current version I would suggest contacting User:Mihnea Tudoreanu, User:Gubbubu and/or User:Max rspct all of whom have edited the article in the past and therfore probably have some knowage of the suject area.Geni 15:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• As stated together with the initial report, I did not and do not want the user blocked (this is because I am assuming good faith). However, according to Wikipedia:Revert, "A revert is a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." This somewhat ambiguous definition is further clarified by the fact that "reverting to an earlier version" is referred to as "a kind of revert" only. So the user, by reverting four times within 18 hours to "The Hungarian offensive in Transylvania was repulsed by the Romanian army" in place of the previous "At the same time, the Romanians attacked from the South-East", did clearly violate the rule, and the warning should therefore have read something like "You have violated the rule, this time you are only warned, but next time you may get blocked" instead of "you are just about ok". (Mihnea Tudoreanu has, however, restored the correct version in the meantime, making all this a lot less important.) KissL 11:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

the problem with the aproach you are takeing is that it pretty much modifies the 3RR to "do not edit and contiversal article more than 3 times in a 24 hour peroid" (don't belive me look at the early history of this page). If Criztu had a history of gameing the rule I would probably have viewed the above as a blockable offence. However they do not. I can't tell someone that they have broken the rules when I don't think think they have.Geni 11:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:67.168.12.151

Three revert rule violation on Democratic Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.168.12.151 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:58, 26 July 2005
• 1st revert: 16:33, 26 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 16:35, 26 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:41, 26 July 2005
• 4th revert: 16:44, 26 July 2005
• 5th revert: 16:47, 26 July 2005
• 6th revert: 16:50, 26 July 2005
• 7th revert: 17:11, 26 July 2005

Reported by: Christopher Parham (talk) 22:02, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Comments:

• User describes reversions as "rv vandalism", but this is not the case.

• There are at least 4 direct reverts there and user appears to have been warned.User has been blocked for 24 hours.22:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:152.163.101.5

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 152.163.101.5 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:11, 27 July 2005
• 1st revert: 17:20, 27 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:24, 27 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:26, 27 July 2005
• 4th revert: 17:28, 27 July 2005
• 5th revert: 17:32, 27 July 2005

Reported by: JamesMLane 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: While I was preparing this, Rhobite blocked the user, so this notice is just in case anyone questions Rhobite's action. JamesMLane 17:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:OmegaWikipedia

Three revert rule violation on Crazy in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). OmegaWikipedia (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:09, 26 July 2005
• 1st revert: 01:32, 27 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:32, 27 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:54, 27 July 2005
• 4th revert: 21:24, 27 July 2005
• 5th revert: 22:32, 27 July 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I have also reverted more than three times in twenty-four hours, because I am (as discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and various Talk pages) reverting what counts simply as vandalism. This is just one sample of a great number of insistent reverts by OmegaWikipedia, involving my corrections of Wikilinks, bringing articles into MoS style (removing excess capitals from headers, etc.), and so on. He has also insisted on reverting a page move by cutting and pasting (despite my warnings and explanations), and has made a number of other related reverts of page moves involving the naming conventions (see, for example, List of number-one hits (United States) and Single certification). He has no interest in the MoS, and treats the pop-music articles as a fan-section of Wikipedia, to be treated differently from other articles, under the control of a number of fan-editors, including himself.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:172

Three revert rule violation on Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]

Reported by: Ultramarine 01:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The first edit has nothing to with the other three. If he takes out a sentence from the beginning in the same fashion as the other again he would be violating policy, in my opinion. --TJive 01:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Also, you didn't cite a "previous version"; in other words, what he is reverting to. --TJive 01:23, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd almost say that 172 was reverting vandalism. That addition was childish. Mackensen (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

These are 4 true reverts and therefore, I have blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 01:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not vandalism, but I fail to see this as a 3RR violation. --TJive 01:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well, these are the four reverts listed above:

• 20:47 27 Jul 2005 [49] reverted to [50]
• 00:08 28 Jul 2005 [51] reverted to [52]
• 00:16 28 Jul 2005 [53] reverted to [54]
• 00:30 28 Jul 2005 [55] reverted to [56]

These links actually show the version that was reverted to. The text that 172 reverted wasn't that great, but it also wasn't simple vandalism. Carbonite | Talk 01:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The third edit listed is 172 "reverting" himself...I don't even see any text difference in the diff...this looks like a bad block. Check the third edit[57]. Ruy Lopez 02:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually that's just because he linked to the wrong "diff" page. It should be this. --TJive 02:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The links originally posted by Ultramarine (and appended with times by me) show the version that was reverted to. This is different from the diffs that are usually posted on this page, which show the previous version (the one that was reverted). 172's third revert was to a previous version by himself. [58]. Carbonite | Talk 03:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We're supposed to supply diffs showing four reverts, and also a link to the version reverted i.e. five links in all. All we have above are four links, and they're not diffs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:03, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Right, that's what I was saying. --TJive 03:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the original diffs are somewhat confusing, although they do serve the purpose of showing the version that was reverted to. In this case, there is no one version that was reverted to each time. However, the 3RR is based on reverts per article, not per topic within the article. The included diffs clearly show that 172 made 4 reverts within four hours, which seems like a clear case for a block to me. Carbonite | Talk 03:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've checked the history, and I don't see a violation here. There are edits at 20:47 and 21:31 on July 27, then 00:08, 00:16, and 00:30 on July 28. But they're concerned with separate sections. There's some repetition but not much, and I don't see what the previous version is that has been reverted to. Carbonite, in case I'm missing something here, could you show us the four diffs (not the links above, but the actual diffs) and the link to the previous version, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

But they have to be reverts, so each one must be a revert to a previous version, and there have to be four of those. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I just added standard diffs to the ones that show the version that was reverted to. [59] Also note that the 3RR is per article, not per section. Carbonite | Talk 03:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Carbonite. I know it's a pain to have to search for those things. Regarding the fourth edit/revert, 172 deleted a sentence, which so far as I can see had just been added (I could be wrong about that). By definition, a deletion will almost always be a revert to a previous version (a version that didn't have the additional sentence).

Apart from that, my worry is that, if this is a violation, it's very borderline, with different sections being edited, and the fourth revert perhaps only an edit. Is it borderline enough that you'd reconsider? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:42, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

If you (or any other admin) want to unblock, and believe this isn't a true 3RR violation, I won't be offended at all. I'm only defending my block. I always do research before blocking and I get somewhat defensive when someone makes the accusation of bad block. In addition, 172's rather confrontational e-mails to me have not helped his case one bit. I'm not going to unblock, but I also won't re-block. I'm done with this for now. Carbonite | Talk 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Carb, that's generous of you. I don't want to unblock without your cooperation, though, because I can see why you blocked, even though I wouldn't have done it myself. I wonder if we could find another admin who could weigh in with a view. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but....this isn't a spurious case; the page should be watched (though not protected) because it's already been through several wars. This isn't really a violation, however. --TJive 03:58, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

TJIve, it's the fourth edit/revert that's the issue, because it was the deletion of a sentence, which I would call an edit, even though it reverted to a previous version (but all deletions do, except in rare circumstances). Do you happen to know whether this sentence had been deleted before? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

There's an ambiguity here that I have not seen firmly resolved in any 3RR case that I have witnessed. The policy page doesn't seem to help. It seems to me the intent, and usual practice, of 3RR violation enforcement centers around the fact of a particular text being reverted in four edits, hence there being a "previous version reverted to". However, in this case 172 is deleting two separate instances; one deals with agriculture and famine, and the other three deal with the characterization of general repression and deaths under Stalin. If I was looking at this myself, I would say that the first edit has nothing to do with the other three and that there is a separate revert war going on within those for which another revert in the same time period would warrant a block on 172. Otherwise editing multiple instances of ostensibly bad contributions at all is being said to constitute reverts to already uncertain, indefinite material. And as of now there is not even a previous version referenced that justifies calling all of those reverts--as for what that is I do not know; the edits there are so labyrinthine as to defy brief resolution of the question. --TJive 04:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

We're running out of page. :-) I agree. I don't block when the reverting is to different versions, because I think it becomes hard to tell reverting from editing, but the 3RR page does allow those blocks, so Carbonite has not acted inapproriately. My argument is that, if it's labyrinthine for us to work it out, it might also have confused the editor who's blocked and we should assume good faith. On the other hand, the opposite argument is that even one revert is bad, and the 3RR rule doesn't mean we're entitled to three reverts, so as soon as we have to start counting our reverts, it means the spirt of the rule is broken. There are good points on both sides here, I'd say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:04, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Having reviewed the diffs I'd have to agree with what's been said above. If we can't tell (or agree) whether or not the 3RR has been violated then 172 probably couldn't either, and it seems to me that a block ought to be reserved for obvious and egregious edit-warring. Besides, it doesn't help the article to block on a technicality. Unblocked per above. Mackensen (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad this is over, but I feel it's necessary to explain my reasoning a bit more. The fact is that the 3RR was violated, both in letter and in spirit. The 3RR states Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours.. This is pretty simple and clear to me. It doesn't say "don't revert the same text" or "don't revert the same section". In this case, there were four true reverts (not complex or partials). It can be argued that this was "borderline" violation in the same way that travelling a few miles over the speed limit might be a borderline infraction. However, there were a few factors that led me to block (and not to unblock):

• 172 has a history of violating the 3RR [60]. This wasn't a case of a newbie not being aware of the rule.

• The reverts occurred in less than a four hour period. I'm reluctant to block if the reverts are spread over 20 hours or so, but three of these were within 22 minutes of each other.

• There were additional reverts mere minutes outside of the 24 hour period, at 00:16, 27 July 2005[61] 00:09, 27 July 2005 [62], and 23:36, 26 July 2005 [63]. This shows a pattern of reverts and possible gaming of the system.

• 172's emails to me were confrontational ("What is your problem with me?"), rude ("Then block Agiantman and Ultramarine, or be a hypocrite") and somewhat threatening ("Otherwise, I will inform other administrators of your hypocritical application of policy.") At no point did 172 give any assurance that he would cease reverting the Stalin article if I unblocked him. Given that he had reverted the article 6 or 7 times in the previous 25 hour period, such assurances would have been very helpful.

If we're going to have rules, they need to be enforced. I have no problem with Mackensen's unblocking and have no ill will toward 172. I believe I was justified in my block and I wanted to make my reasoning as transparent as possible. Carbonite | Talk 12:06, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the record, and it does seem to me that 172 and Agiantman were doing pretty much the same thing. (I will be filing a formal statement in this page as well.) 172 was in fact blocked for 8 hours, and has not yet begun to edit again, which suggests that he may not know. Does the guideline of evenhandedness apply here? Septentrionalis 19:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The way Carbonite is going about applying his 'if we are going to have rules, they need to be enforced' attitude is harmful to the project. The job of administrators is to protect serious editors who from disruptive editors. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a community where 'equal justice before the law' applies to both legitimate editors and illegitimate editors. Administrators have the discretion to-- and should be expected to--apply 'the rules' unevenly in the interests of the encyclopedia.

We need administrators who can see the big picture, being able to differentiate who is here working in good faith to help Wikipedia's development, and who is here on a soapbox. We need administrators who see themselves as encyclopedists, not lawyers or police officers.

Perhaps I was borderline on the 3RR according to Carbonite's interpretation of the rule; perhaps I should have been more careful. But if the administrators were serving their intended function all along, they would have blocked Agiantman (talk · contribs) for disruption (see my comments below) long before I was even in the position of having to revert his inappropriate edits, and long before we were on verge of being stuck here debating which one of my edits constituted a revert according to which legal interpretation of a particular statement. 172 | Talk 21:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Philwelch

Three revert rule violation on Darth Vader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Philwelch (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 08:52, 27 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:43, 27 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:18, 27 July 2005
• 4th revert: 02:23, 28 July 2005
• 5th revert: 02:40, 28 July 2005
• 6th revert: 02:43, 28 July 2005

Reported by: Copperchair 02:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments He uses this artile as if it were his. He doesn't let other people add stuff if he does not agree with them, rarely adding an explanation. Copperchair 02:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I often use talk pages for explanation and discussion of edits, it is you who refuses to do so. In addition, you should have provided links to the diffs so that we could have some sort of idea what you were talking about. I do not believe that those are all reversions, although I have no way of easily telling. For that matter, neither does any admin. — Phil Welch 02:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I managed to find the diffs. For the record they are provided below:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]
5. [68]
6. [69]

For the record, #1 is a reversion. #2 and #3 are reversions of simple vandalism, which is not covered under the policy,. #4 is not a reversion: a reversion goes back to a previous version of the article by definition. #4 does not match that definition, because I allowed another intervening edit within the same time period to stand unaltered. The same is true of #5. As for #6, that's a self-reversion, which is also excepted from the policy.

I have attempted to rationally discuss all these content disputes with Copperchair before, but he refuses, often deleting comments from his talk page without responding to them. — Phil Welch 03:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. I have always responded before deleting comments from my talk page. Also, I have provided proofs to back my arguments, while you have just given opinions. Check out Talk:Darth_Vader#Copperchair... and give PROOFS, not opinios.Copperchair 01:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Since you can't give more than an opinion, and are too proud to accept that you are mistaken, I request for an third-party to decide on this matter. I will hear notifications on my talk page. Copperchair 01:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Copperchair

Three revert rule violation on Darth Vader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Copperchair (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [70]
• 2nd revert: [71]
• 3rd revert: [72] (also characterizing my good-faith edit as "vandalism")
• 4th revert: [73]

Also see above his allegations against me and my previous report of his violations. — Phil Welch 03:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In reponse to this report and the report on User:Philwelch I have protected the page from editing. Please work out your dispute on the talk page or seek some sort of mediation through RfC.--nixie 03:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Plautus satire

3RR violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Plautus satire reported by User:Snowspinner

• 1st revert [74]
• 2nd revert [75]
• 3rd revert [76]
• 4th revert [77]
• 5th revert [78]

Comment: Particularly galling is that Plautus is trying to blank an old RfC of his, insisting that there is no dispute. Which, presently, there isn't, but that's beside the point - we don't delete old RfCs. Snowspinner 05:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Has apparently been blocked by FCYTravis. Snowspinner 05:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked on report from Snowspinner. FCYTravis 05:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Agiantman

Three revert rule violation on Joseph Stalin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Agiantman (talk · contribs):

made four exact reverts in about five hours

• 1st revert: 20:11, 27 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:32, 27 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:20, 28 July 2005
• 4th revert: 01:16, 28 July 2005

Reported by: Septentrionalis 20:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Three other exact reverts, the day before: 21:17, 26 July 2005 /23:34, 26 July 2005/00:05 27 July 2005
• As with #User:172, above, these are not all to the same text.
  • The earliest five were part of two editors attempting to maintain an NPOV tag, against a consensus of several other editors.
  • the latest two were reverts to Agiantman's previous edits, to preserve Agiantman's text for the intro. In one case, there were small intervening edits lost. This was again apparently against consensus; Golbez's edit summary in undoing Agiantman's text was: oh god how did i end up agreeing with 172. See page history.
• I think Agiantman and 172 equally at fault, on opposite sides. [This refers to the actual reverts; not to the wider dispute, which should be settled elsewhere. 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)] What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Septentrionalis 20:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I am not equally at fault, and it is an insult to me put me on the same level with this editor. Agiantman insults fellow editors who modify his changes and drags fellow editors into one circular argument after another on talk pages. When he fails to weigh his arguments and counterarguments on talk pages with evidence from sources, he simply chooses to ignore the substance of the discussion and respond with ad hominems. When disruptive editors refuse to engage in reasonable discussion on talk, the only way left to deal with them is to revert.

The following is just a sample of what Mikka, other editors, and I have had to put up with on the Stalin talk page:

• Your response represents a bizarre revisionist view of history, reminiscent of Hitler apologists who deny the holocaust occurred. You refer to "the only genocide Stalin committed." The "only genocide?" As if committing genocide once was no big deal. And somehow party genocide or class genocide is a less serious form of genocide. How sick. And as for the number of Stalin's genocides, you forget the Great Terror of 1937 where he systematically exterminated his political enemies. And people here don't think it should appear prominently in the introduction. Bizarro. --Agiantman 12:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• If you don't understand my objections by this stage, I strongly encourage you to ask a friend or a parent to help explain them to you. --Agiantman 00:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• So you want a political Pro-Stalin(read:POV) definition of genocide that doesn't apply to Stalin's genocide? No wonder you didn't want the neutral Merriam-Webster definition! LOL! mikka, you are clearly too much of a Stalin fan to be editing this article.--Agiantman 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Is it a personal attack to refer to someone as a "Stalin fan?" LOL! (Plus, Mikka has since admitted that he has a Stalin tattoo on his posterior).--Agiantman 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC) [needless to say, a distortion of Mikka's comments]
• Your fellow traveler, mikka, deleted those references within 5 minutes [4]. Hopefully this is not part of your criteria to become "one of Wikipedia's most respected editors." --Agiantman 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• It is mikka's point of view that using the terms mass murderer and/or genocide "is not an information about facts, but an emotional evaluation of these facts expressed in terms of loaded words." That is nonsense and I strongly disagree. [needless to say, another distortion of Mikka's position]
• I have to laugh at 172's offer to write a neutral article. As anyone who reads the discussion history here can see, he is the ringleader in the effort to maintain a revisionist Stalin article and bully anyone who introduces mainstream material. Tauger et al are a tiny minority of Stalin revisionists and negationists but strangely they are the only sources ever mentioned by 172.
• mikka says that "Pope is the greatest killer of all times and epochs, since catholics, whom he leads, killed most of Europe." Is this the reason that I should trust him on maintaining a neutral POV here? Maybe its the reason 172 refers to mikka "as one of Wikipedia's most respected editors." If this is not testament of the bizarre viewpoint of the POV bullies on this page, I don't know what is.--Agiantman 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC) [needless to say again, yet another distortion of Mikka's comments]
• What a distortion! mikka attacks my religion with an outrageous offensive remark, and I am to blame? If any one is cruising for a Wikipedia block, it's you and mikka. (You have officially been warned.) I am unsure of what substantive points you think need to be addressed. You appear hellbent against placing responsibility on Stalin for the murder of millions of innocent people, especially in the introductory paragraph, even when it is linked to source material. Your latest reason is because authors disagree on how many millions were killed by Stalin. Am I correct? That's the substantive point I would like addressed. Waiting . . . --Agiantman 00:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC) [Mikka wasn't attacking any religion.]

I directed him to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and Wikipedia:Civility multiple times, but the longer and longer administrators failed to enforce these polices, the ruder and more belligerent, after finding out that, despite policy, anyone can set up a soapbox here and disrupt our activities here to prove a point.

He should be blocked for the disruption and personal attacks before the reverts. 172 | Talk 20:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've just read the first revert, and it's not a diff. We need four diffs showing four reverts, and a link to the previous version, as it says below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:35, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the history and nothing is jumping out as being a 3RR violation. He twice reverted to the NPOV tag, once at 20:11 and again at 20:32 on July 27, and there was a previous version of that at 20:00 but I can't see him doing it another twice. There are other reverts, but unconnected. The personal attacks cited aren't bad enough to block for. We're not allowed to block for personal attacks per se. We can block for disruption, but the attacks have to be continuous for it to amount to disruption (or particularly offensive) and usually blocks for this will only apply to editors who have made few, or no, useful edits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to sit this one out, but it does look like a 3RR violation to me. I know admins are used to seeing the diffs presented in a different manner, but these do seem to clearly show 4 reverts. I've never seen it stated that a violation must consist of four reverts all to one older version. I don't really agree with that interpretation since it leaves far too much room for abuse. Anyway, I'm not in the mood for another debate, but there's enough evidence here in my opinion. Carbonite | Talk 00:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Could someone at least warn him to pay attention to civility policies? Having administrators is useless if in practice Wikipedia content is determined by deference to the editor who can spew the worst ad hominems, not reasonable compromise based on the sources and evidence. 172 | Talk 00:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've put a note on his talk page. It might be best to protect Stalin if the reverting continues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Holy cow! I had no idea that I was the topic of discussion on an Administrators' noticeboard! I wish someone had given me a heads up so that I could have defended myself. (BTW, thank you to those who did defend me.) I have only been a Wikipedia editor for a few weeks and I stumbled onto the Stalin article only 2 days ago. One only has to read the full discussion on Talk:Joseph_Stalin to see what I have gone through (please don't limit yourself to the sliced and diced version that 172 supplied above). It appears that some here have a problem with my attempts to maintain an NPOV tag. It doesn't seem like it should be a revert violation to simply maintain an NPOV tag on a clearly disputed article, but I will certainly heed your warning. P.S. In reading the earlier section here, I was surprised to learn that 172 has a long history of violating the rules [79]. That should say something about his credibility. --Agiantman 01:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There was no dispute before you came in and started talking about "genocide," after which I and several other editors explained to you why the term was not applicable. The "NPOV dispute" is generally limited to you and Ultramarine, the latter of whom seems to make a habit of dumping human rights issues into communist-related articles without paying attention to article structure or flow. The reason the NPOV dispute tag kept being removed is because the primary person disputing the text (you) was incorrect and didn't help your point on talk. It'd have been different if you'd contested the version with fact-based arguments rather than accusing me and other editors of fronting for Stalin.

There actually was an intro "dispute" between me and 172 on the intro a couple weeks ago and I was hoping to work it all out eventually on the talk page, NPOV tag not required. J. Parker Stone 03:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Amin123 / User:154.20.105.198

Three revert rule violation on Christianity and world religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amin123 (talk · contribs) / 154.20.105.198 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:18, 21 July 2005
• 1st revert: 05:38, 29 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:46, 29 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 06:14, 29 July 2005
• 4th revert: 06:42, 29 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Amin123, who also edits as 154.20.105.198, has, for three months now, been continually asserting that Zoroastrianism is the origin of the theology of Christianity, and has spent his entire time on Wikipedia trying to edit that belief into articles. In this article he keeps inserting a section which theoretically supports that thesis (while actually being about Zoroastrianism's alleged influence on Judaism), while simultaneously deleting a cited sentence which argues against a relationship between Christianity and Mithraism. The diffs aren't 100% identical because he edits the information in/out by hand each time, so the spacing is a bit off, and he messed up the footnotes a few times. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

tricky. Yes there are three revets there and they are all to previous versions so it is a breach but the actions look like those of someone who hasn't really go the hang of edit waring. But the user was warned so on balance a block. 12 hours.Geni 20:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:MANOS

Three revert rule violation on Ancient_Macedonian_language by MANOS:

• Previous version reverted to: 21:21, June 29th, 2005
• 1st revert: 19:47, June 29, 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:12, June 29, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:19, June 29, 2005
• 4th revert: 21:16, June 29, 2005

Reported by: Chronographos 19:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• That looks like one edit and 3 reverts. Also, please use proper diffs showing the version being reverted to. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:41, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

First-timer, sorry. So, the "offending" party's edits should be on the left-hand side of the diff page that generates the link? Chronographos 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• When you do a diff, you need to show what is being reverted to, not just that something is being changed. So, for example, your first diff should be 18:12, 29 July 2005. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So, the diff links should show that the alleged reverter's edits are identical four times in a row? Chronographos 19:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Or close to identical, or add/remove the same piece of text, or revert to different previous versions of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:05, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, got it, thanks! Chronographos 20:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Trying once more, hope to get it right this time:

• Previous version reverted to: 21:21, June 29th, 2005
• 1st revert: 19:47, June 29, 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:12, June 29, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:19, June 29, 2005
• 4th revert: 21:16, June 29, 2005

Comments: I wouldn't bother again, but he had the chutzpah to report me as ... a vandal 6 times for trying to protect an article largely written by Dab! Chronographos 20:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I report u once. I just modified the reason. Also if u think u are right, why don't u try to prove it in the Ancient Macedonian language talk page? I wonder why? :-P
MANOS 17:47, 29 July 2005

User:68.45.172.185

Three revert rule violation on Rubeus Hagrid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.45.172.185 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:17, 29 July 2005
• 1st revert: 18:09, 29 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:37, 29 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:25, 29 July 2005
• 4th revert: 19:51, 29 July 2005

Reported by: Deathphoenix 20:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• User keeps adding unverified information, insisting that Hagrid belongs to House Gryffindor. The sources this user cites do not explicitly state that. --Deathphoenix 20:09, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 12 hours. Seems young. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User:165.247.219.203

Three revert rule violation on Vietnam Veterans Against the War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 165.247.219.203 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:33, July 2, 2005
• 1st revert: 21:33, July 29, 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:06, July 29, 2005
• 3rd revert: 12:32, July 29, 2005
• 4th revert: 8:00, July 29, 2005

Reported by: TDC 03:55, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Range block would be appropriate as user is on proxy server.

Comments:

• User is reverting simple vandalism. 165.247.219.203 06:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• User is involved in ongoing edit war, and is not reverting "simple vandalism". User also reverted an article 15 times in one day on the 21st of July. TDC 13:37, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

User:Codex Sinaiticus

Three revert rule violation on Shoshenq I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Codex Sinaiticus (talk · contribs):

• Previous version of terminology reverted to: 13:20 10 May 2005
• 1st revert: 23:21 29 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:39 30 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:02 30 July 2005
• 4th revert: 11:15 30 July 2005

Reported by: ;~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 11:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• How is the fourth edit a revert? El_C 18:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:213.198.84.193, User:213.198.84.198, User:84.188.240.172

Three revert rule violation on Nicolaus Copernicus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Please take also a look on Lukas Podolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Miroslav Klose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Podolsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st [80]
• 2nd [81]
• 3rd [82]
• 4th [83]
• 5th [84]
• 6th [85]

Reported by: --Witkacy 14:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Actually, it goes further than that:
  • 7th [86] as User:84.188.231.188
  • 8th [87] as User:84.188.231.188
  • 9th [88] as User:213.198.84.193
  • 10th [89] as User:213.198.84.193
  • 11th [90] as User:84.188.196.23

That's five more reverts in the next 24h period. Obviously the user is changing his IP in order to evade the 3RR. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Tznkai

Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Tznkai (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [91]
• 2nd revert: [92]
• 3rd revert: [93]
• 4th revert: [94]

[95] Mass reversion with inclusion of this passage.

Reported by: Tznkai 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a self reporting. I believe that the WP:3RR needs to be taken seriously and I apologize for breaching it.--Tznkai 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• Considering this is self-reporting, if you self-revert yourself now, I'll be happy to just go with a warning. El_C 17:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Before I do so I feel compelled to be honest. As soon as the 24 hour mark passes, I will be doing that exact same reversion. If you feel that is counter productive I'll let it stand and take my lumps here.--Tznkai 17:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I appreciate that, but my decision stands. Once the 24 hour period expires, it will be within your right to reinsert that version. But I am hoping that by forgoing a block, you will be able (and encouraged) to engage in consensus-building with other editors on this issue, and enter into dialogue toward compromises with the respective disputants. Goodluck. El_C 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • But you mightn't need to do the same reversion. Doesn't the 3RR page say that if something really needs to be reverted, someone else will probably do it? . . . Ann Heneghan 17:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I admit to near fanatical protectionism over that article. I think the choice is either to do an act of Civil disobedience/vigilantism or to trust in the self healing nature of Wikipedia. I will choose the latter--Tznkai 17:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Corrected - [96]--Tznkai 17:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Two edit conflicts (pushed myself up the line). Ann Heneghan makes a good point, which ties into my response above. El_C 17:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
            • An admin recently gave excellent advice on the talk page of an article I'm interested in - if you feel you're getting too protective of a particular article, go off and edit a few different ones. That's what brought me to the page where I first came across Tznkai last night. (And apologies if I'm clogging up this notice board with comments that don't really belong here!) Ann Heneghan 18:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
              • You're absolutely excused, Ann, so long as the admin in question was yours truly! El_C 18:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Zeno of Elea

Three revert rule violation on Template:Islam (edit | [[Talk:Template:Islam|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:44, 26 July 2005
• 1st revert: 14:35, 30 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:38, 30 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:44, 30 July 2005
• 4th revert: 14:45, 30 July 2005

Reported by: Heraclius 22:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Zeno has added the crescent symbol back to the template 4 times and keeps claiming "consensus" despite the objection of several users.

Heraclius never warned the user about the 3rr rule, and fact is that he has never violated this specific policy before. -- Karl Meier 22:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments on his talkpage show that he is in fact aware of the 3RR. [97] I thought about that, but decided that this wasn't really a revert.Heraclius 22:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno is a reasonably new user and he might, as indicated on the talkpage, have misunderstood the sometimes quite complicated rules regarding these issues. If an admin find that he has indeed violated Wikipedias rules regarding 3rr, my personal opinion is that a warning should be enough for now. -- Karl Meier 22:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Zeno's a new user? According to the edit counter he has over a thousand edits.Heraclius 22:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

His first edit was made on June 16 2005, not more than a month and a half ago. -- Karl Meier 23:01, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't feel that I reverted four times, as the fourth change was substantially different from the first third and was aimed at achieving a compromise. Heraclius has not given good reason for why he has spent several days deleting the cresent moon symbol and Jihad link from the Islam template. In my fourth edit I tried to compromise by leaving out the Jihad link and keeping the cresent symbol. I note that instead of discussing the subject rationally, Heraclius is only engaging in reverting and making a lot of noise about a supposed 3RR violation. Personally, I think this should either be dismissed or taken to RFC/RFA. --Zeno of Elea 22:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • First of all, template and content disputes aren't taken to RFA. Second of all, I have made no less than 4 comments on the talkpage of the template describing why the crescent shouldn't be included, so your accusation of "not discussing the subject" is false. The crescent hasn't been there for the majority of the existence of this template and you are the one who has engaged in "reverting and making a lot of noise".Heraclius 22:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • A look at the template talk page will reveal that you have abandoned discussing the issue of the cresent symbol, despite ongoing discussion, and have stated in places that you are indifferent to whether or not the symbol is included. --Zeno of Elea 23:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
      • The reason I abandoned discussing the issue with you is because we would have continued to repeat the same arguments over and over. I did us both a favor so we wouldn't waste any more time.Heraclius 23:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
        • As I see it, the only reasonable conclusion you abandoned discussions because you had no rational argument. You are clearly not interested in discussion, compromise, or good faith debate. This is why I think this should be taken to RFC or RFA. --Zeno of Elea 23:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Zeno, you seem to have misunderstood the WP:3RR policy, the fourth change had the crescent. Two choices: I can block you for 24 hours, or we can go with a warning provided you won't insert crescent moon anywhere, and do not edit the template specifically, for 24 hours. El_C 23:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • That's fair enough. It doesn't solve the cresent moon dispute, but I suppose that's not the purpose of this page. --Zeno of Elea 23:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Nope, it isn't, and at any rate I doubt it can be solved immediately, but it does provide you with the ability and maneuverability to bring it up with other editors (esp. hitherto uninvolved ones) and try to build consensus for or work toward a compromise to this dispute. Goodluck. El_C 23:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Halibutt

Three revert rule violation on Anti-tank rifle wz.35 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:23 UTC, 30 July 2005
• 1st revert: 21:52 UTC, 30 July 2005]
• 2nd revert: 22:22 UTC, 30 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:40 UTC, 31 July 2005
• 4th revert: 14:42 UTC, 31 July 2005

Reported by: Gene Nygaard 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This was done after Halibutt falsely accused me of violating 3RR many times, so he/she should be well aware of rule. Gene Nygaard 15:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it appears you are removing a {{disptuted}} tag. I am not sure if this would not fall under vandalism. As Halibutt notes, Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute states don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to properly verify it. Also, judging from timezones, Halibutt has reverted twice a day. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:07, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I will recuse myself from this. I can see both sides of the argument. I have tried to come up with a compromise which I hope both parties will be satisfied with until the naming dispute is over. May I note, however, that Gene Nygaard has broken the spirit of the 3RR but not missed out on the letter by 8 minutes. violet/riga (t) 16:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
    • It has nothing to do with time zones. Halibutt has reverted four times in 16 hours and 50 minutes, which is less than 24 hours. That's the way the rule is written; it has nothing whatsoever to do with any one person's calendar day. It is explicity expressed in terms of a span of 24 hours for exactly that reason, to avoid questions of what a "day" means. Gene Nygaard 16:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
• Indeed, the whole fuzz was about a disputed tag, which was constantly being removed by Gene against the WP:AD rules. Interestingly enough, Gene didn't have time to provide sources on the respective talk page or even take part in the dispute, but at the same time he had a time to list me here or remove the tag over and over again... Anyway, if the community decides that WP:3RR is more important than WP:AD, then please punish me. However, I don't believe I violated the 3RR here. Oh, and last but not least, as Gene says, this all happened after I falsely accused Gene of breaking the 3RR, but also after I apologised for that. Halibutt 16:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
• Over this 24h period Halibutt repeatedly attempted to persuade Gene Nygaard to dispute instead of revert: [98], [99], [100], all in vain. Here is the sole response he got: [101]. Judge yourself. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• There never was any dispute about any fact stated in the articla; it was entirely appropriate to remove that tag.
• Don't lie about me not responding, Lysy. During that 24 hour period, and before then, I discussed various points many times on the talk page.

• Here are the my comments subsequent to that "previous version reverted to" time above:

[102], [103], [104]], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112]

• I provided more evidence to back up my points than Halibutt ever did. He/she still has yet to produce that "birth certificate", for example. Gene Nygaard 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Now that's a POV if I ever saw one. Hopefully violetriga new tag will stop this revert war. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:24.147.97.230

Three revert rule violation on Talk: Ted Kennedy (edit | [[Talk:Talk: Ted Kennedy|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.147.97.230 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [113]
• 2nd revert: [114]
• 3rd revert: [115]
• 4th revert: [116]

Reported by: Robert McClenon 18:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This anonymous user persists in inserting an "interesting comment" in the middle of a tally of votes, where it is not relevant. Robert McClenon 18:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

User:MANOS

Three revert rule violation on Macedon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). MANOS (talk · contribs) spare me the diffs please, a glance at the history should be enough, his four reverts are directly consecutive. dab (ᛏ) 19:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC) Comments:

MANOS seems to be a new user. I have issued him a warning. Dab, I suggest warning him next time on his user page.

Here are the diffs.

1. [117]
2. [118]
3. [119]
4. [120]

--Tznkai 19:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

um, have you seen the amount of patience people have wasted on him already? Thanks for the diffs; there is only so much time I want to invest here. also, he was warned before, see his entry above and User_talk:Sango123. dab (ᛏ) 19:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting an idea[121]. Was going under WP:AGF and giving him slack assuming (s)he was about 12. If this keeps up, he can expect an RFC--Tznkai 20:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead of warning me, why don't u give me the evidence u have and get over with it?
MANOS

User:209.86.4.248

Three revert rule violation on Vietnam Veterans Against the War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 209.86.4.248 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 12:33, July 2, 2005
• 1st revert: 16:15, July 30, 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:09, July 30, 2005
• 3rd revert: 12:25, July 31, 2005
• 4th revert: 14:05, July 31, 2005

Reported by: TDC 20:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I might also add that this is this users 3rd violation in a week without any measures taken against them.

The IP appears to come from EarthLink and it's a huge range 209.86.0.0 - 209.86.255.255 and 165.247.0.0 - 165.247.255.255. I could blcok it but I wuold risk affecting a lot of inocent users. I've reverte4d and protected the page for now.Geni 08:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. TDC 02:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vampire and Vampire fiction

I'm involved, and haven't seen any actual violations, but these two articles are seeing a lot of reversion and need an eye kept on them. In particular, one large section keeps moving back and forth between the articles. Pakaran 20:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

DreamGuy n moved the secion without discussioon r consensus, so a bunch of us keep putting it back, but he stubbornlly does it again. Gabrielsimon 20:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

There was extensive discussion on the talk page, but unfortunately the person who created the section said straight out he was going to undo any edit I made (including removal of images violating copyright) and did not try to justify his actions. Gabrielsimon jumped in as an editor well known for trying to undo pretty much all of my edits. The other person involved was banned as a sockpuppet of an editor who has been previous banned something like four times for sockpuppetry and edit warring and looks like he's back with yet another alias, currently being investigated on the Admin noticeboard already blocked. DreamGuy 21:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

check the edit history, there was no discussion. Gabrielsimon 21:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I've protected both pages. As the revert war was about the same section, I protected the latest version of Vampire fiction, which contains that section, and protected an earlier version of Vampire, which doesn't contain it. Let me know when you've agreed to have it in or out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so... everyone who was reverting it back when I edited it is blocked now. With two of them (or rather one person with two accounts) the block period is a full year. If we have to wait for them to agree on what to do, this could be a while... And the guy blocked for 24 hours is still in denial that he did a 3RR despite the evidence, so I doubt he'll agree with me on anything when he does get back. DreamGuy 07:34, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, was this an Enviroknot thing? So you'd like me to unlock both, is that right? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and yes, if you would. DreamGuy 07:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl

Three revert rule violation on President of Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jtdirl (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 11:52, 29 July 2005
• 1st revert: 13:38, 31 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 10:09, 1 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:31, 1 August 2005
• 4th revert: 10:41, 1 August 2005

Reported by: Pete 00:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The paragraph is one in a list of discretionary powers. It only needs a few lines to describe the power and how it operates. Having two translations of the same Irish wording is superfluous in this context, though it may be appropriate in a discussion of the Irish constitution itself. This user has been warned by the ArbComm not to blindly revert valid edits. He has ignored discussion on these points, instead making abusive comments. Pete 00:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• This looks more like a case of Skyring removing something which Jtdirl has made a reasonable argument to suggest that it belongs in the article. The talk page suggests that there has been discussion. Fight it out on the talk page rather than in the article.--nixie 00:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, nixie! That's the point I've been making. My reasonable argument is that we don't need two translations of the same text in a summary of presidential powers. None of the other powers has two translations. Pete 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please be more careful and try to seek outside opinion upon reaching that (arbitrary) fourth revert threshold, Jtdirl. Twenty four hours. El_C 06:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The first revert was against an IP that later revealed itself to be Skyring. Its pretty common for editors to revert text deletions without edit summaries from IPs, thats why I didn't block.--nixie 06:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
    • an IP that later revealed itself to be Skyring. You obviously haven't checked, nixie. Feel free to ask someone with sockpuppet-checking powers, because I'm definitely not guilty. Pete 06:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Whether the ip that introduced the edit was or was not Skyring, as per the 3RR violation of the addition, is impertinent. El_C 06:50, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Of course it's not. Reversion of vandalism isn't covered by the 3RR (and the deletion of text by an anonymous IP with no explanation other than "English" certainly seems to be vandalism to me), and so the first reversion is immune to the 3RR. The fact that Skyring later tried to explain away the vandalism (which from his past behaviour would seem most likely to be either yet another attempt to rewrite Jtdirl's contributions out of sheer spite, with no knowledge of the subject area whatsoever, or simply disagreeing with Jtdirl for the sake of it, depending on whether the IP was him or not) does not stop the first edit being vandalism. Unblocked. Proteus (Talk) 08:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm not an expert on the subject matter. It did not strike me as vandalism, however. El_C 08:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Nor I. Just how can any reasonable person consider this sequence of edits vandalism?
              1. [122] jtdirl adds an English translation of the Irish version of the constitution to the existing one, correctly pointing out that the Irish text over-rides the English one. However this sentence is now rather clumsy and contains two conflicting English translations of the Irish text.
              2. [123] An anon essentially reverts to the previous wording, but uses jtdirl's version of the translated text.
            • I think any reasonable person would see this as an improvement and a clarification. The text as it now stands is needlessly prolix. The point jtdirl is trying to make is not in contention, but inappropriate for this particular article, where the reserve powers of the Irish President are listed and concisely described. Pete 08:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
              • The discussion of whether it amounted to vandalism is taking place on ANI. El_C 10:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Jdtirl wrote a response on this page at 03.21 [124], and Laurascudder removed it at 03.26 [125], presumably by accident. Ann Heneghan 10:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, presumably. Most of everything gets deleted on the 3RR notice board; it has limited functionality. El_C 10:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

Three revert rule violation on Otherkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:39, July 31, 2005
• 1st revert: 17:58, July 31, 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:48, July 31, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:13, July 31, 2005
• 4th revert: 19:30, July 31, 2005
• 4 1/2 revert: 19:31, July 31, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 01:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

thoise were attempts to repair the article which bad fath edits by DreamGuy were being made to, hes anb editor who doesnt listen to anyone and is overly opinionated, and likes to try to do petty things like eporting peple fasely, (like this) when he doesnt get his way. Gabrielsimon 02:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Note that last revert was split into two separate changes to add up to the same change as in earlier reverts, not quite a 5th revert, so I labeled it 4 1/2. Please be aware that Gabrielsimon is a frequent abuser of the 3RR and has had it explained to him several times, especially that simply labeling something "vandalism" when it is a POV dispute does not justify violating the 3RR. As far as I know, he has been blocked at least 8 times in the last four months for violating 3RR and had a couple of close calls on top of that. It is also significant that as part of a RfC concerning his edit warring and other conflicts, he agreed to follow a 1RR (see: [126]). Violating the 3RR under these circumstances is quite substantial. DreamGuy 01:59, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Also note that Gabriel deleted this report from the page... another editor restored it but removed some other comments in the process. Not sure if those removed comments were intentional or not. DreamGuy 05:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

All I did was use rollback to revert Gabriel's deletion, so that wouldn't have (shouldn't have) deleted anything else at the same time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:10, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

So far, he's done it twice more. Gabriel, if you see this, stop now; you're only making things worse for yourself. Nickptar 05:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Gabriel, please try to slow down; try to seek outside opinion as soon as reverting back and fourth kicks into swing. Twenty four hours. El_C 06:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:63.20.67.92 / User:63.20.26.126 / User: 63.20.84.10

Three revert rule violation on Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 63.20.67.92 (talk · contribs), 63.20.26.126 (talk · contribs), and 63.20.84.10 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:47, 30 July 2005
• 1st revert: 16:16, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.67.92
• 2nd revert: 17:42, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.67.92
• 3rd revert: 18:39, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.26.126
• 4th revert: 20:17, 31 July 2005 as User: 63.20.84.10

Reported by: Laura Scudder | Talk 03:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:80.4.224.6

Three revert rule violation on Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.4.224.6 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:07, August 1, 2005
• 1st revert: 09:09, 09:09, August 1, 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:10, August 1, 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:10, August 1, 2005
• 4th revert: 09:07, 09:13, August 1, 2005

Plus a further 11 reverts over the next 12 minutes.

Reported by: Banno 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for vandalism. El_C 08:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Nufy8

Three revert rule violation on Truth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nufy8 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: , 09:08, August 1, 2005
• 1st revert: 09:12, August 1, 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:16, August 1, 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:17, August 1, 2005
• 4th revert: 09:18, August 1, 2005

Plus a further 6 reverts over the next 12 minutes.

Reported by: Banno 08:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• I issued a warning on his/her talk page. El_C 08:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I retract that. Nufy8 should be commended for reverting vandalism. The Anonymous account has been blocked for vandalism. El_C 08:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:67.167.152.196

Three revert rule violation on Soda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.167.152.196 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [127]
• 1st revert: [128]
• 2nd revert: [129]
• 3rd revert: [130]
• 4th revert: [131]

Reported by: Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

very clear user blocked for 24 hours.Geni 13:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Incidents

Harry Potter and the Enormous Headache

These two three revisions of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (the edits by 65.6.66.74 (talk · contribs)) contain the book in its entirety. Given that they were both immediately reverted and there is thus on GFDL issue, and that the copyright owner is extremely litigious and well-funded, could someone delete the article and restore only the other revisions? —Cryptic (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Better to ask a dev to remove those two versions. Snowspinner 05:05, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Then could I bother someone who's IRC-enabled (I'm not) to try and get ahold of one? —Cryptic (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Snowspinner, a regular admin can only make those edits invisible, to actually clear them totally from the history you'll need a developer.--nixie 05:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Can't we simply delete the article and undelete all revisions but these three? I thought the ability to selectively undelete only some revisions exists for exactly these kinds of situations. Of course, admins would still be able to read the deleted revisions, but that shouldn't be a real problem. --cesarb 16:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No. When you undelete you undelete everything. We need a developer. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tim has killed them. That said, you can now undelete specific revisions. But on a 3000+ edit article, undeleting all but two is basically pure hell. Snowspinner 04:40, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful! If these -dare I say vandals?- continue to do this (as MTG shows below), we'll need more developer assistance as time goes on. I need some painkillers. --Deathphoenix 16:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

And the headache continued throbbing, for in this revision doth the copyvio remain! Only chapter 1 by the looks of things, but it needs deleting too. Garrett^Talk 05:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Pugnavi & socks

Pugnavi (talk · contribs), Pugnare (talk · contribs), Pugnavi2 (talk · contribs), Hendiadioin (talk · contribs), and Hendiadis (talk · contribs) were blocked indefinately today for making threats against the site (specifically, threatening to upload a virus into the database) and for being sockpuppets of one another. Kelly Martin blocked the first two, and I blocked the last three. All acknowledged being the blocked user. I bring the issue up here for two reasons: 1) Just in case the sock problem continues, and 2) is this a case where the "danger" provision of the blocking policy applies? Since it was my first block, I just want to make sure I don't miss any steps, particularly with regard to #2. -- Essjay · [ [User_talk:Essjay| Talk]] 16:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dont worry. This comes under "when the blocking policy doesn't cover the situation use common sense" which isn't actually in the blocking policy so I'm bootstrapping it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It might have been better to look at what the user was actually saying, it didn't look much like a threat to me. Seems like you're only telling part of the truth. I also don't think blocking just because a user is a sock is right. How will the blocked user negotiate then? Looks like Essjay is abusing his new powers! JM*Bell° 11:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean, the unthreatening bit where Pugnavi (with the second of his three edits) says

"Think about it. You'll be hearing from me in the future, so I guess you better not ignore this, or I'll upload a virus into one of the media files."

Or perhaps his first edit, which explicitly identifies itself as a threat?

"This is a threat. If you do not change and spread this word, I will personally make sure a virus is uploaded into one of the media files so that whoever opens it will get infected. Mark my words."

Why would we want to "negotiate" with a threatening sockpuppet? Essjay gets two thumbs up for blocking a user who was clearly asking for it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that User:Pugnavi was vandalizing many articles before he was blocked which that in itself is enough of a reason to block him and his sockpuppets. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 08:50, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

User:84.9.223.35

Is not me, and forged my signature (completely, including link) against a vote at VFD - [132] ~~~~ 22:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've issued a warning on the user talk page. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:32, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Tanner2

All articles + one Image:...pdf?? created are nonsense. Please delete and notify. -Feydey 23:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please report vandalism on WP:VIP. Please nominate nonsense articles either on WP:CSD or WP:VFD as appropriate. And if you think a user is behaving inapproprately, it's only fair to discuss the matter with them on their talk page. A brief check of this user's contributions suggests he's not an out and out (tubgirl etc.) vandal. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:47, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the pdf, but the articles look as if they may well be good faith. I suggest you go the vfd route. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Was it really a pdf (I thought you couldn't upload them) or just a page called image:somethingorother.pdf ? (When I looked at it all I saw was an extant, but imageless, page)-- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:31, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

You doubt me ? ;-) Yep it certainly was a pdf. I opened it and took a look. (of course I did, I wouldn't delete something without checking what it was :-P ) It was a pdf version of the "newspaper". Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

PDFs [at least, on Wikicities] provide a plain-text link to the file in the place where the inline image would be, so surely you would have seen one for this. Unless that link is browser-end and it tries to insert the PDF inline... anyway, just a thought in passing. :) Garrett^Talk 00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason he couldn't see it, was because I deleted it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah... *and all was well in the world again* :) Garrett^Talk 05:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Simple English persistent vandal (Roberto)

There is a persistent vandal "Roberto" vandalizing the front page of Simple English by modifying the Template:Wikitopics used on the main page. Images of masturbation on the main page is not a good thing. Has been a user on Simple for less than 24 hours. At least three of us have used up our 3 reverts just in the last hour or two. User:Netoholic and/or User:Angela are asleep (has to happen sometime). :( We need the guy (?) blocked now. Shenme 05:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

A "white hat" (User:Brion VIBBER) showed up and deleted the 60+ new junk articles, cleaned up the others, and blocked Roberto the monotonously masterbaiting. Thank you greatly! Shenme 06:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew

Votes being deleted, and other abuse of process, by User:Mikefar, a probable sockpuppet. ~~~~ 06:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• The following comments copied from Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion

This VfD is now something of a mess; in addition, -Ril- (talk · contribs) has taken charge of it, and is treating it as his personal fiefdom, deciding which comments stay and which go, deleting criticism of his actions (on the basis that they're from sock-puppets — allegations which are mostly not only unproved but unlikely). Experience tells me that my intervention would only add fuel to the fire; could someone else try to clear up the mess and rstore order? the wholething seems to be a skirmish in what's become a prolonged campaign between -Ril- and a group of other editors (some of whom, but not all, probably are sock-puppets). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone is removing others' comments then that's simple vandalism. Whether he thinks they're sock puppets or not is irrelevant. Block him. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

He seems to moving comments that he disagrees with to Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew, rather than actually deleting them, - SimonP 21:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that excuses him. Finding a result from a contentious VfD is the job of an admin, not of a user with a Bombus ruderatus in his super-caputular protection. -Ril- should leave the votes alone. smoddy 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Any chance of someone intervening? As I said, -Ril-'s response to me is knee-jerk hostility, so I'd have no good effect. (I'm morally certain that he's Lir (talk · contribs), though an IP address check was apparently negative.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've said on the VfD, Ril is in need of a sound spanking. I don't care who says what, no matter how much Ril might think his actions are supported by WP policy, they simply are NOT. He is acting apparently according to what he perceives as "boldness" (I said long ago this was going to cause trouble), when in fact his boldness is CLEARLY within the realm of "vandalism". What's positively repulsive is that the admins who normally patrol this sort of subject have stood silently by, permitting Ril to attempt to beat all opposition into submission. It's positively appalling. While there are certainly valid allegations of sockpuppetry, Ril's actions are in CLEAR violation of several CORE WP policies, including WP:AGF, WP:BITE, WP:Civility and WP:NPA. It's insane that he hasn't yet been permbanned, to say nothing of 24h blocked. Tomer ^TALK 09:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Have the votes been moved back or are they still on the talk page? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 10:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching this, and I haven't seen any votes being moved. The moves I've seen were of multi-page essays. --Carnildo 18:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not moved any votes whatsoever, and I strongly resent this continued vendetta against me by Mel Etitis throught my duration at Wikipedia, because he/she considers me to be someone called Lir, despite the evidence to the contrary. I view the accusation as a personal attack, and would like it withdrawn. ~~~~ 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Further, the only things I have moved are (a) restoring brief comments where they were originally, including evidence of certain voters being sockpuppets, which were removed by the said sockpuppets (b) an instruction not to delete the article whatever the vote outcome, because this instruction violated VFD policy, and required an injunction from the arbitration committee to stand, which simply did not exist (c) a vast "rebuttal" section, which policy does not include for, and which was far too extensive to be considered merely a comment. I moved this to talk, and placed a note to this effect in the VFD. ~~~~ 12:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please, please, please will someone close off this VfD - I have some interest in the issues, but the debate has got well out of hand (and IMO neither side is innocent). There is no longer any chance of a sensible discussion - and all but the warriors have left the room. Continuing this will only lead to more grief. --Doc (?) 01:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Albrecht Prinz von Croy

...was deleted from the German Wikipedia, and protected because some anon repeatedly recreated it. It is now on VFD here, and the article, its talk page and the VFD page are under fire by User:83.109.164.130, User:83.109.188.122, User:83.109.130.238 and User:83.109.156.169 - arguably the same person on four different IPs. It may be worthwhile to keep an eye on this. Radiant_>|< 12:25, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Now that's an interesting one though I suspect I know the answer to my next question... User:83.109.188.122 has pasted the text of the German article (in German) to the talk page of this article. Can we delete it automatically as previously vfd'd material, or does that not apply as it was a different wiki project? -- Francs2000 | Talk 18:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted as useless junk. This is the EN-wiki, not the german wiki, so pasting text in a foreign language, particularly previously VfD'd information, should be treated as vandalism. -- Essjay · Talk 18:27, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

NB: I've deleted the relevant talk page (the only edit was the vandalism) and warned the user not to post it again. I found the edit summary about revoking sysop powers rather amusing. -- Essjay · Talk 18:32, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Persistent linkspammer

I was holding off on reporting this one, but now it seems this anon just doesn't get it. The edits started July 19 from 81.182.153.218 (talk · contribs) on pages such as Hungary, Medical tourism and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Trains/Where to start. Each of the anon's edits were to add a link to a geocities page that isn't anything but a collection of further links and some ads. Yesterday, the anon was back as 81.182.153.8 (talk · contribs) with the same activity. All of the linkspam was promptly reverted by a number of other editors (including myself), and the user was warned on both IP talk pages. Today, he's back as 81.183.164.101 (talk · contribs) adding the same links to the same places and getting the same reverts. slambo 12:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen this linkspammer return today, so he may have gotten the point. Thanks to those who helped out. slambo 19:19, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Nest of trolls at 24.24.218.220

This is one guy's cable (cpe-24-24-218-220.socal.res.rr.com). Names used were ThePope, TeamKiller, CaptainNiggo, CaptainStinko, CaptainFecehead, Fisting, Fisting2 and the IP itself. The mission was to troll. I've blocked the IP for a month (feel free to renew it in a month) and the names indefinitely - David Gerard 18:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Username & Anonymous0513

I'm concerned about Wikipedia Username (talk · contribs) and Anonymous0513 (talk · contribs). Both accounts appeared this morning, and both have worked exculsively creating album articles. Wikipedia Username voted oppose in the RfA of the user who welcomed him by copy/pasting the comments of the user above him. (Albiet, I noticed this because I nominated the user; checking the contributions to determine how long Wikipedia Username had been around was what set off my wikisenses). This edit suggests the two have a history (but how, if they both showed up early this morning?) and this edit is even stranger. (I warned Wikipedia Username for copyvio on Buck Dharma (which I've since deleted as a copyvio) but I think that is unrelated to the existing situation.) My concern is that the two may be sockpuppets of some previous user; does anyone else think that something's rotten in the state of Denmark? -- Essjay · Talk 20:33, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of activities my feelings are that user:Wikipedia Username is an inapropriate username on the grounds of being confusing. Thryduulf 21:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, not a good user name. Heck, I was asked to change mine from User:AdmN, because someone thought it looked like an abbreviation of "administrator". Just point him in the direction of Wikipedia:Username. func(talk) 22:16, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of bad names, no one has blocked NigletJones (talk · contribs) (reincarnation?). You may want to see this. --Dmcdevit·t 22:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be user:Marijuanaisbad. Who we were being trolled over - David Gerard 09:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Marijuanaisbad was a sockpuppet of "Zod"; I'm of the opinion that these two are the same disruptive user, particularly since the only two users he's interacted with are Redwolf24 & I, and we were the two main users being trolled by Marijuanaisbad and "Zod." I'd like others to look it over first, but I think a sockpuppet block is in order (particularly considering this edit). -- Essjay · Talk 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dudtz trolling

User:Dudtz has been going to various UK-related pages and posting fairly wild generalisations on their talk pages. At first I thought they were just ignorant of the facts and were finding out in their own way; now the same user has posted the same over-generalised ignorant-of-the-facts argument to Talk:United Kingdom/Country, Kingdom or State as they had done to Talk:United Kingdom and Talk:Scotland: on both pages their rather judgmental stance had been challenged by other users. I think he's just trolling for the sake of it and it would be handy if other admins could keep an eye out because I don't know how much longer I'm going to be online tonight. -- Francs2000 | Talk 22:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd call it not so much trolling but more a severe case of WP:POINT. --UPDATE: I've given him a friendly little reminder about WP:POINT, hopefully that's all that's needed, but please do keep us up to date if he continues along this path. Garrett^Talk 12:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Bang_Bang - latest Bank of Wikipedia sock

I've rolled back already and plan to delete and block with extreme prejudice... unless someone else would like the honour. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Done. I deleted history for some "bank" pages since the latest sock was linking into their history. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you something. Can you delete this entry without affecting the rest history of the talk page of User:Hall_Monitor? If you cannot, then Hall Monitor's account is still safe. Even if your revert our message, this cannot harm our bank. We still know and Hall Monitor also knows, what his current deposit is. So, can you delete or hide some entries of history, while keeping the rest entries readable? Bank Bang 21:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I can but I'm not going to. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid you have to. Otherwise how can you stop us? Bank Gong 08:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

See also User:Bang Bank. FreplySpang (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

(whom I just blocked) FreplySpang (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you guys ever worry that these blocks just egg people on and push them further and further from any hope of being agreeable? I mean, come on, this started out as a harmless little game/rewards system, and now we've got this mess on our hands. Had we left it alone, one of two things would have happened: the game would've continued, causing no harm, or the banker would've gotten bored and dropped it. Everyking 03:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In general I don't believe that "don't feed the trolls" works. In this case in particular, I think that the perpetrator has every intention of running his banking game for a period of years. Had it been shut down after drawing greater participation, there would have been people upset. And I think that its shutdown would have been inevitable, because similar stuff has been shut down before. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What similar stuff has been shut down before? We asked you three questions and you avoided to answer to us or give us a reasonable explanation of your unfair behavior... Why you are afraid of us so much? Bank Gong 08:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. Thryduulf 09:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Want to place a bet as to whether he comes back with another name? Everyking 11:43, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No, but I'd be happy to place bets as to whether he gives up after a couple more weeks of this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 11:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

He'll be back. This is user:Iasson - orginator of the Faethon and list of ancient Greeks sockpuppets - who is banned for a year by the arbcom [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Iasson]. I'd personally prefer to slap an IP ban on him, but I beleive he edist from a dynamic range owned by the one of the largest ISPs in Greece. Thryduulf 12:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you! Instead of answering to our questions and explain to us and to our clients why you keep chasing us, you are lying and claiming that we are a banned user (either Iasson or Whily on Wheels or Faethon or whatever). Why are you doing this? Answer to our three questions please. Why any other wikipedia bank is tolerated here, and our nomic bank isnt?

• The latest one is Gong_Bank already hitting user talk pages. ∞Who?¿? 19:48, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Gong Bank has been blocked. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Master Thief Garrett

I'd appreciate more eyes on the the deletion log of this new and very inexperienced admin. In the few hours in which he has had sysop powers, he has made quite a number of very questionable speedies. See User talk:Master Thief Garrett. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony is absolutely right. The thing with the expansion of WP:CSD is that even though the rules have been relaxed regarding deletion, we still have to follow them. I have gone through the Thief's deletions and undeleted several questionable items, and note that the more egregious deletions have already been undone by others. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Considering that I've only been an admin a bit longer than MTG, and I did quite a few speedies yesterday, I'd like to make a self-request for review of my deletions. -- Essjay · Talk 18:47, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm off out soon, but I took a quick look at noticed that you'd deleted Nasalis muscle, a perfectly good encyclopedia article needing a bit of cleanup. I've restored and cleaned it up as a demonstration of the standard of work I would expect an administrator to produce. I'd suggest that if you don't understand an article it doesn't mean that you have to delete it. Usually a minute or two on Google will bring enlightenment. Also remember to look at "What links here". I hope you agree that as administrators we should be trying to make articles better whenever that is reasonably possible. Deleting good material is never a sensible option. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article nasalis muscle (and a number of other contributions from Andy85719 (talk · contribs)) are direct copy-pastes from the online version of Gray's Anatomy. Although it's the 1918 edition and copyright has lapsed, I've strongly encouraged Andy to cite his sources to avoid charges of plagiarism. (Note that I'm definitely not saying that MTGEssjay should have speedied the article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC) Amended 20:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism isn't the correct word to use here. We are not--or should not--be here to produce anything creative, but to state facts, so the word would be inappropriate. Referencing Gray would certainly be de rigueur here, because Gray is an authority and your average Wikipedian is not (and even when he is he must still cite an external authority). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:04, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Er, plagiarism is precisely the correct word to use here. It's a direct, unaltered, unexpanded copy of someone else's words pasted in without attribution. I am not saying it's a copyright violation, but it is definitely plagiarism if its source is left uncited. I am glad you've added a cite to nasalis muscle, Tony; have you had a chance to get the other articles? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Also beware of deleting articles for unorthodox reasons such as "gamecruft". If an article relates to an aspect of a game that you think is too trivial for an article, you should consider merging content and, unless there is a good reason to delete, replace by a redirect. If for some reason you think the article should still be deleted (for instance for lack of a candidate article to which to merge the information) list it on VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to second Tony's points here. If you can't cite the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion that you're invoking, then it's probably not a candidate. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:30, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've never deleted anything as "gamecruft" for two reasons: 1) I hate the term "cruft," and 2) the only two times I've ever typed the word are in this sentence. If it appears in my delete log, then it is because it was part of the CSD tag on the article. I think I can speak for both MTG and myself to say this: Along with berating us [133] [134][135] for our mistakes, make sure to tell us when we do something good. We are people, afterall. The words of Larry Sanger ring in my ears... -- Essjay · Talk 19:50, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'd say that in general you're doing a good job. If you're not sure about an article tagged as a speedy, leave it for another admin or take it to VfD. Chin up, and wield your mop with pride. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

See also User talk:Redwolf24#thanks for supporting me. Redwolf24 22:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I want to support TenOfAllTrades' sentiment. Master Thief Garrett is certainly administrator material. I'm only concerned that, only three months an editor, he may be a little too green to exercise the good judgement we expect in all circumstances. He's doing a good job and I don't want to minimize that, though I hope he listens to advice. EssJay is also doing an excellent job.

On the question of gamecruft, the specific article I was referring to was Quantum Accelerator.

• "23:20, 21 July 2005 Essjay deleted "Quantum Accelerator" (content was: '{{db|gamecruft}}The Device used in Final Doom to close gateways from hell, the gatekkepr then tries to use them for some evil means that is not expla...')"

The article made perfect sense in itself, but had been marked as "gamecruft" (which is not a CSD) by Gazpacho. According to our agreed deletion policy, such articles should be cleaned up and merged, or VfD'd, not speedied. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:15, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello all! Time to face the firing squad I see! :)

First of all, I am very displeased with this incident notice. Why? If there is any sort of statement being made against someone, at least have the decency to inform them. I only found this out by happening to check for responses to some of the thanks messages I left. Not a good start I can tell you.

OK, I will admit it, YES, DUH, I -SCREWED- UP BIIIG TIIIME!!!!! There, that's what you wanted isn't it? OK? Done? Yes? If I'm making mistakes, tell me, I can take it, but you don't have to word it so... nastily as has been done on my talk page.

Everything I did I did in good faith. I deleted dozens of "ashiagniaw" and linkspam articles. I cleared out the speedy catogory backlog. I trawled through Special:Newpages looking for all manner of things to start Vfds on sometime this morning.

And what do I get in return? "Hey, great job, but, um, be careful with X, Y and Z next time"? Well, yes... and no.

Some of the warnings I've gotten have been very kind and forgiving, explaining precisely what was wrong and what was right and what to do in future... but some have been brief and barbed and evidently written after sucking multiple lemons. Yes you know who you are.

In closing, yes I overstepped myself and misunderstood the new criteria... but I expected better treatment from you-know-who. If I was weak and insecure I'd probably be quietly sobbing in the corner right now. Oh, yes, good job there.

--Just to clarify, no I'm not angry, no I'm not hurt, just... quite, quite disappointed. Garrett^Talk 01:08, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up some of the piles of crap people leave around the project. I have absolute confidence everything you did was done in a good faith understanding of the rules. Snowspinner 01:30, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Master Thief Garrett is being just a tiny bit naughty here. He asks people to inform him if there is a problem with his deletions, and yet anybody who goes to his talk page will see that this is just what has been done. I urge him not to disregard these well intended criticisms, and to learn from his early mistakes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I think as a rule if you have any doubt at all as to whether an article should be deleted, don't delete it. Nothing that comes even close to the borderline should be speedied. Take it to VfD or just ignore it. Everyking 03:51, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank Tony for salvaging the Butt hook article, it's a topic very close to my heart. And I don't care if it's encyclopedic or not! What on earth was User:Master Thief Garrett thinking when he deleted it?!?!?!?!? --Scratch 14:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Dates

Wiki software renders dates put within linking brackets according the user's set preferences. For example:

• [[14 December]] [[1999]] becomes 14 December 1999
• [[December 14]] [[1999]] becomes December 14 1999

The two should be rendered identically. Note that for the Americans, even the proper comma is introduced.

On the other hand, if an extraneous space is inserted into the dates, as User:Jtdirl has been doing with articles such as George VI of the United Kingdom, they force a literal rendering of the date:

• [[14 December ]] [[1999]] - 14 December 1999
• [[December 14 ]] [[1999]] - December 14 1999

User:Jtdirl has been doing this deliberately, using the first format, and is reverting any changes to put them in line with standard practice, even leaving an angry message with me calling such changes "vandalism". Other than forcing 'everyone to use a his personal date system, regardless of their personal preference settings, I don't see the point of this, nor do I see how the normal formats can be considered "vandalism" of any stripe. any opinions? --Calton | Talk 04:08, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It seems, at first glance, as though we may agree for the first time ever. Everyking 04:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the astonishing lack of civility in this WP:LAME-worthy little war. Particularly in his role as admin, Jtdirl should exercise more care in throwing around accusations of vandalism. I'm willing to assume good faith and believe that Jtdirl inadvertently introduced (and reintroduced) the spaces in the date links because he wasn't careful about which version of the article he reverted to. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland

This vote was closed, stating that the result was "keep the re-write" I dispute this, as does at least one other. By my own count -

Votes before pointing out/making the re-write

• Keep x 12
• Delete x 13
• Merge x 6

Votes after pointing out the re-write

• Delete x 13
• Keep x 4
• Merge x 2

Total votes

• Delete x 26
• Keep x 16
• Merge x 8

By no stretch of the imagination is 26:16 votes a majority for the 16 rather than the 26. It is my impression that the admin closing it was extremely partisan. I would like the VFD investigated for whether this was the correct result. ~~~~ 12:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

A merge vote counts as a keep, as it is a vote to preserve at least some of the content. Moreover if any of the content is merged the page must be kept for GFDL reasons. The deletion process is clear that a merge vote is a form of keep. Also VfD does not work by majority but rather by consensus, personally I doubt there is consensus to delete anything that gets 16 keep votes. - SimonP 17:06, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The only occasion Simon's statement isn't true would be one of the rare occasions when there are so many votes that the 16 are not significant (e.g. 50 delete 16 keep would most likely get deleted). Thryduulf 17:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

In which case :

Votes before pointing out/making the re-write

• Keep x 18
• Delete x 13

Votes after pointing out the re-write

• Delete x 13
• Keep x 6

Total votes

• Delete x 26
• Keep x 24

Before the rewrite there was no consensus (18:13 is 58% vs 42%). After the re-write was pointed out, the votes are vast majority to delete. The overall result is still delete, although overall, there is not enough margin for this to be considered consensus. But it is certainly not keep. ~~~~ 17:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• Unless people change their votes you can only count what they first said
• 13-6 is not consensus to delete.
• The page was deleted by User:ABCD. Guettarda 17:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• The page was then undeleted by myself, and the debate reclosed as no consensus – ABCD✉ 17:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Should the undeletion not have gone to VfU first, rather than simply being undeleted and winding up with a VfU-like discussion here? -Splash 18:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • NB. I only say this because of the controversial nature of how to interpret the votes and the fact that 13/19 is, if barely, the 2/3 consensus normally needed. Obviously, 26-24 is a no-consensus that should be immediately undeleted. -Splash 18:07, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Normally, it prob. would go to VfU, but, I feel that I should be able to undo a mistake I may have made in the process, which is what I did – ABCD✉ 18:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Oh yeah, sorry. Not paying proper attention. -Splash 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I am confused - 13/19? Where do those numbers come from - they don't resemble the numbers posted here already. Even so - 13-19 is 60-40, nowhere near consensus. Anyway, I thought consensus was >75%. Guettarda 18:13, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 13 out of 19 (=13+6 after rewrite). And no, VfD consensus is usually, but not always, 2/3 or more, as described loosely WP:DP. -Splash 18:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

• There is no consensus to delete the article. However, given the amount of 'delete' or 'merge' votes, it sounds like a good idea to do something with the article - copyediting, rewriting, merging and discussing on the talk page are all good possibilities. None of those requires any kind of vote, just be WP:BOLD.
• To answer Guettarda's question, VFD consensus is up to the discretion of the closing admin. It is generally agreed upon to lie between 67% and 75%, but can differ depending on vote comments, alleged sockpuppetry, changes to the article halfway past, etc. It's an art rather than a science. Radiant_>|< 23:12, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• • 13 out of 19 is 68% (which lies between 67% and 75%) ~~~~ 00:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but 26 out of 50 is not. You're jumping to the conclusion that the older votes must all be discounted, and that is a rather unlikely assumption. Radiant_>|< 07:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • As I said before - no consensus, not a consensus to keep. ~~~~ 17:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Either results in a keep. What are you arguing about? [[smoddy]] 17:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please, read the discussion at VfD page carefully. The article was created by an anon as extremely POV. Therefore all votes to merge meant to delete the article but not to abandon topics related to anti-Semitism in Poland. All the topics already exist in much expanded form in articles like History of the Jews in Poland and Anti-Semitism There are 28 votes to delete. 8 to merge, what in this case mean not to keep a separate article under this name, so should be treated as delete as well. 16 votes to keep. Over 69% of people didn’t want to keep the article. The article even now, after some cleaning is still very POV and offensive. It should be deleted. If you think there is anything in the article, what is lacking in the two others and should be merged, please, point it out, otherwise delete the article. --SylwiaS 18:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Good. Since the content seems to be a subset of Anti-Semitism, I'm trying to merge it there. Hopefully this will end the discussion as the spirit of the discussion was to merge anyway. Most of those who voted "delete" did so because they did not consider anything there being worth merging. I second that but here you go. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:27, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

When delete votes means to keep

Tabulation of vote results Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland by admins User:ABCD, User:Woohookitty have exposed the weakness of the VfD process. IMO, the process, designed to weed out garbage, has failed while dealing with a legitimate topic by leaving too much room for personal interpretations of the VfD rules, especially while counting the Merge votes. The intention of majority voters casting Merge vote was clearly defined as to incorporate the article’s material with the existing History of the Jews in Poland and Anti-Semitism thus deleting article in question. Yet, in the Orwellian (George Orwell) tradition, admins have tabulated their votes as Keep. Additionally, article’s subject has a significant presence in Anti-Semitism under Anti-Semitism#Anti-Semitism_in_Poland_until_Partitions (1,841 words as of 7/24/05) and Anti-Semitism#Poland (308 words as of 7/24/05) subsections as well as in History of the Jews in Poland. What is a purpose of creating a redundant, and in this case, POV’ed version of this content? User:Piotrus, in his vote, has proposed splitting the content of Anti-Semitism into Anti-Semitism+specific country articles. However, his proposal has not gained support neither from the voters nor editors of Anti-Semitism (see: Talk:Anti-Semitism).

Furthermore, 4 votes by Wikipedia:Sock puppet and users with a minimal contributions to the English wiki should have been nullified according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy and a precedence of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote (when votes from users with less than 20 contribution were invalidated).

Following my rationale, the results of the voting has been the following:

• Keep (14): 1. TheUnforgiven, 2. mysekurity, 3. Splash, 4. Harmil, 5. Xoloz, 6. Deror, 7. Grue, 8. Briangotts, 9. Kloniumus, 10. Falphin, 11. TheCoffee, 12. GabrielF, 13. wayland, 14. Goodoldpolonius2

• Delete (28): 1. Halibutt, 2. Balcer, 3. Space Cadet, 4. jamesgibbon, 5. Ttyre, 6. SylwiaS, 7. JamesBurns, 8. Thorsten1, 9. Radiant, 10. mikka, 11. Tomer, 12. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, 13. Akumiszcza, 14. Ttyre, 15. Irishpunktom, 16. Pibwl, 17. Forseti, 18. A.J., 19. Molobo, 20. Cautious, 21. Lysy, 22. Taw, 23. Tirid Tirid, 24. Schwartz und Weiss, 25. Rubezahl, 26. V1, 27. logologist, 28. rafikk

• Merge and redirect (7) (6 to merge with History of the Jews in Poland): 1. Pburka, 2. brenneman, 3. Avihu, 4. Chris 73, 5. Pavel Vozenilek, 6. Kpalion, 7. mikka

• Invalidated votes (4): 1. 208.54.14.65, 9 contributions including 3 for VfD, 2. Signature unprintable, no other contributions, 3. Gilgamesh he, low contributions, 4. Hbk3, sock puppet - no other contributions

Combining the Delete with Merge votes gives 35 vs. 14 to Keep a 72% vs. 28% majority - clear Consensus to delete.

For the future votes, I propose to include wiki’s VfD definition of a Merge vote and eligible voters rule to be included within the header of VfD voting pages. Otherwise, the process might create, like in this case, a number of disenfranchised voters questioning both the purpose and a large margin of voting interpretations by admins. --Ttyre 17:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Personally, I wouldn't have combined anything. A vote to delete is different than a vote to merge (which, as was pointed out, is more like a keep than a delete). In that case, you then have 28 to delete vs 14 to keep vs 8 to merge. No consensus. --Kbdank71 17:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Combining point has been made by User:Splash in the discussion above. Without Merge, Delete vs. Keep voting is 28 vs. 14 - a 2/3 majority to Delete. Do you think a re-vote with only Keep and Delete options or asking Merge voters to decide between these two options would be appropriate? --Ttyre 18:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Why must the merge votes either be combined or not count? Why can't there be three major points of view? Sometimes, there is no consensus. --Kbdank71 18:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• merge means keep. No discussion! See Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Voting shorthands : "Merge to Example" is a shorthand for "Keep and merge the content into Example, leaving a redirect afterwards". And merge and delete is considered Incompatible vote Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Incompatible votes. -- Cate 18:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing me to this Guide, yet this is not where the header on VfD pages links to (Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion). It would be fair for the future voters to be directed to Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#Voting shorthands instead and be educated about WP-speak; don't you think so? --Ttyre 01:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• IMO, VfD only has final say in the disposition of an article when the outcome is "delete". Consensus to delete requires just that (granted, the definition of consensus is pretty nebulous in practice), not just "more people wanted to delete than wanted any other option chosen". A consensus to delete is binding; the article is deleted and that's the end of it (barring the relatively rare VfU). Any other position is shorthand for "do not delete, and this is what I would like to see done with the material". Merges and redirects are actions that can be done and reverted by any editor; consensus for those actions can be established on VfD, but also on the Talk page, or anywhere else. If an admin closing a VfD interprets consensus to merge, as an admin s/he makes the call not to delete, and as an editor decides to merge it based on expressed consensus. I see here 28 "delete" and 21 "do something else"; looks like "no consensus to delete", and in fact no consensus to do anything else either. (I have no comment on the article itself.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It does appear the problem has been solved by a merger. I actually wanted to keep the rewritten version of the article, but definetly the older anon version was good only for delete, and good riddance to it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm currently wondering why the Keep votes by Ejdzej (talk · contribs), Molobo (talk · contribs), Tirid Tirid (talk · contribs), Schwartz und Weiss (talk · contribs), and (perhaps) rafikk (talk · contribs) weren't discounted if "low contribution" editors is a valid reason to discount a vote (whether because the user is from a different Wikipedia or because sockpuppetry is suspected). Personally, I find the unusually high volume of low-edit votes (and other sock-puppet indicators) on this VfD (and related VfD's) to be quite disturbing. P.S. 23 is a bit less than 28. HKT ^talk 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Total contributions of questioned Delete voters: Ejdzej 64, Molobo 125, Tirid Tirid 35, Schwartz und Weiss 31, Rafikk 71 - the vote is still 28 Delete. See Talk:Gdansk/Vote precedence for guidelines on nullified votes. --Ttyre 01:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Molobo's contribution history doesn't look like a sockpuppet (some of his earliest edits were on these VfDs, and that had originally aroused my suspicion); I hadn't looked at his contribs for a while. However, a careful look at the contribs of the others (except maybe Rafikk, as I stated) presents strong indications of sockpuppetry. (24/25 Keeps, then). HKT ^talk 02:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism (again)

Terrorism has been locked without an NPOV tag. An NPOV dispute exists for this article and should be noted on the locked page. The introductory language of the terrorism article is of historic generalization which would make it a secondary source if the assertions of the introduction were based on axioms or primary sources.
Even if secondary source creation were allowed in Wikipedia (which it is not), there is no evidence to support many of the opinions that are derived. --Zephram Stark 19:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

moved from WP:RFPP - I don't have time to look into this at all, and RFPP isn't the place for it anyway. Thryduulf 23:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:212.88.98.187. El_C 23:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Strange how this board repeatedly times out while other articles edit fine. El_C 23:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoofed names

How are we addressing spoofed names? I just ran across user:WilImcw, who has also cloned my talk and user pages. Do I file an RfC or is it obvious enough for a speedy deletion? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:42, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

This dude has impersonated several users, including Solipsist. I've blocked WilImcw and put speedy tags on his user and talk pages (which are just copies of yours, and so clearly vandalism). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:48, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Block the users indefinitely, then tag the user pages with {{impostor}}. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Thank you both for the info and the help. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:54, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Should we also protect the pages, so the blocked imposter doesn't remove the tag (per that nasty new bug that lets them edit their talk page?) -- Essjay · Talk 00:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

That's not a bug, it was a feature, apparently. But yes that could be a problem. Maybe just watch it and protect only if they try to change it, masquerading users probably abandon their identities once they are useless (i.e., blocked). Garrett^Talk 02:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's a "feature"; it's a "feature" that causes more trouble than it does good. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 03:58, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

This misfeature is being discussed at Wikipedia:New features. --cesarb 18:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

138.130.203.178

Besides his 3RR nomination, to which he has just added his 8th revert, this user has been vandalizing Jonathan Sarfati, and calling others additions vandalism. [136] He actually reverted all of my changes, even the ones that corrected the incorrect statement that the person was 23, NOT 21 when he got his paper published in Nature, and I provided a link to the source, which he also removed. H also reverted my fixing the POV statement of "secular science journal" to "peer-reviewed scientific journal", and reverted my correction to the incorrect statement that Sarfat "published a paper". Authors don't publish papers, they get them published in journals. So, 3+ blatant cases of vandalism, and to top it off, his edit summary claims my edits were vandalism. Something must be done about this user. -- BRIAN0918  23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest you don't get too uptight about it. If it's only this article that is affected, it can be protected to prevent an edit war. Deb 15:45, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User:GrandCru and socks

GrandCru (talk · contribs) recently made a series of controversial edits that were reverted. Today, two new accounts were created that jumped right into the conflicts that GrandCru was involved in: BobbybuiIder (talk · contribs) (impersonating User:Bobbybuilder) and WiIfried Derksen (talk · contribs) (impersonating User:Wilfried Derksen, a.k.a. User:Electionworld). The impostor accounts have since been blocked, but GrandCru, assuming he is indeed responsible, has not been held accountable. --MarkSweep 03:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

GrandCru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claimed that he is not the imposter, meanwhile he reverted all vandalised pages to WiIfried Derksen (talk · contribs) or BobbybuiIder (talk · contribs)'s versions. Furthermore, the writing style from the impostor accounts are the same as GrandCru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Please hold him accountable. Bobbybuilder 12:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

On the advice of Ilyanep, I blocked GrandCru as a sockpuppet. -- Essjay · Talk 20:34, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. (We won't be needing that stake, I think.) Related to this, what should be made of the following diff: [137]? It's the work of JiangsBellybuttonLint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the many accounts created recently for the sole purpose of harassing User:Jiang (see the history of his user page and his talk page). I'm starting to wonder if a single sockpuppet-master is behind these accounts. --MarkSweep 07:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw that last night, and I hit him with a permablock. -- Essjay · Talk 14:51, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ok. If you look at the history of Jiang's user page, you'll see that this is all part of a regular pattern, unfortunately. If they all originate from a single IP address, perhaps something could be done besides blocking individual accounts? --MarkSweep 18:34, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine, I don't give a frog's fat ass if you block people that deserve it. But I (the original GrandCru) didn't create the fake Bobby or Derksen accounts. I was innocent, and got blocked anyway. If you look at Bobbybuilder's history, you will see that his profanity and vandalisms were far greater than mine ever were. He was the truly abusive one, but you guys keep overlooking it. Why was he not blocked? Go ahead, look up all the IP addresses, you will see that prior to today I had nothing to do with any of the Jiang bullshit. But, you know what? Since you guys blocked me permanently and put to waste all my effort and contributions, I will spend the same amount of time vandalising Bobbybuilder. (And Jiang, only because Jiang's group of vandals are going to help me get Bobby). One of these days, the vandals will rise up against the communists. You can prohibit freedom of speech in mainland China, but not in the rest of the world. Wikipedia was created so that everyone can contribute, but as it turns out, the people that have power (admins, beaurocrats, etc.) will abuse it to support their own POVs, etc. Fuck you all, I'm going to the dark side of wiki! --GrandCruTwo 03:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Hum..."I wasn't a vandal before, but since I got blocked, instead of asking to be unblocked, I'll become a vandal." Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much. -- Essjay · Talk 23:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Methinks the lady is also blockéd frometh editing. -- Essjay · Talk 23:55, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Added a section on this vandal in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts, includes an ever growing list of sockpuppets. -Loren 05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The most recent one is Oy Maatsulu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has apparently not been blocked yet. --MarkSweep 18:02, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you better believe that I haven't been blocked yet. I will continue until the right people have been banned. As long as Bobbybuilder is in existance, I will continue.--BobbyButtSlime 01:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked. -- Essjay · Talk 01:57, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. Not Blocked. Heh heh...--The Assjay Strikes Back 02:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Another GrandCru sock: User:JennaHaze --Calton | Talk 05:51, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

• This issue is now listed on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts#User:GrandCru and sockpuppets. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

personal attacks at talk:Albanians

user:Albanau left a message on my talk page [138] about personal attacks against him at talk:Albanians, [139] by user:Chronographos, and asking me to block him for 24 hours.

After reading all the links, I decided not to block at this point but to give user:Chronagraphos a very stern warning on his talk page not to do it again or he will be blocked. I've encouraged user:Albanau to note here if there are any further problems as I'm not going to be online much longer this evening.

See user talk:Thryduulf, talk:Albanians [140], user talk:Chronographos and user talk:Albanau. Thryduulf 22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

user:Theathenae have also repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me and not just Chronographos, that what I told you on the talk page. But thank you very much for the help so far but I hope a administrator can leave a warning at Theatheane talk page as well. --Albanau 22:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Basically User:Albanau's contributions to wikipedia is nothing but trouble such as petty-vandalism, edit-wars and false complaints. Miskin 03:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to start a 'flame of words' with you so kindly remove your allegations from this topic, cause it is off topic. Albanau 03:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pointing out User:Albanau's support for armed Albanian extremist groups was relevant and essential to the discussion at Talk:Albanians, as his edits are motivated by a violent Albanian extremism, and it is within this context they must be seen for what they are.--Theathenae 06:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone, any administrator, please delate Theathenae personal attacks above and perament or temporary ban him. Many thanks in advance! Albanau 12:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Albanau, I have just reviewed the behaviour of Theathenae on talk:Albanians and I see absolutely nothing improper in the form of what he says. On the other hand, I did see instances of you employing words such as "pathetic" toward other users (and not discussing tragedy).

I find it legitimate of Theathenae to explain his view of the situation, and your request to have him banned for doing so wholly unappropriate. You might also be interested to know that your usage of capitals and urging tone in the summary are rather rude.

I would like to advise you to calm down and fill in a Request for Comments if you cannot ease your differences together. Rama 13:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Finally, an admin who reads what has happened. As anyone can see by looking at the relevant talk pages and article histories, Albanau has been systematically rude to anyone who disagrees with him, to the extent of calling a fellow Albanian of his "very unintelligent", just because they disagreed. Albanau has also violated the 3RR rule multiple times (he even did 4 reverts within 51 minutes), yet he has consistently taunted other editors to revert and break the 3RR. If they take the bait, he immediately reports them. He has been very cunning in that he first edits in his own POV, and then creates a revert war, according to plan. He has also repeatedly given provocative titles to his edit summaries, and when offered neutral phrasings, he ignores them. In an vain effort to compromise, I even proposed using his own words in the article. Guess what: he started wiggling out of his own words. I will appreciate your involvement in this, if you have the time and disposition. I also suspect sockpuppetry in the Talk:Albanians page, but for the time being I do not intend to request its investigation as it would inflame things further. Milles mercis. Chronographos 15:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. I merely let other editors know of User:Albanau's activities on the Swedish Wikipedia, in which he clearly promotes [141],[142] armed extremist groups in the Balkans, claiming that they are fighting for "human rights" and against "cultural oppression". These are his words, not mine. His blatant promotion of these groups was later removed by another editor as "redundant propaganda": [143],[144], while his dubious claim that there is a ""Çamëria Liberation Army" in Greece fighting for "human rights" was disputed,[145] and no reference to such a group exists on the English Wikipedia. Finally, seeing as he is complaining of personal attacks, a non-comprehensive list of User:Albanau's personal attacks against me and other editors on Talk:Albanians follows: [146] [147] [148], [149], [150], [151] [152]. Who's the one who should really be banned?--Theathenae 13:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Albanau has been causing nothing but trouble with his untenable edits and style. How people react to him is a matter of taste, but hardly unprovoked; last time I checked, personal attacks per se were not blockable, only if it is "disruptive", so the complaint is pointless here, it should go to rfc, and then to the arbcom, and I do not think Albanau is likely to find much favour with the arbcom, in the light of his own behaviour. dab (ᛏ) 19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been watching the edit patterns of both User:Albanau and User:Theathenae, and I must say that they are both atrocious Wikipedians who need to be disciplined. User:Chronographos has a fine edit history when it comes to his edits to actual articles, but he has unfortunately become well-known for his Ad hominem attacks on other Wikipedians(see Talk:Greek language where Chronographos launches a personal attack on User:Macrakis for no good reason), and one would hope that such behavior doesn't continue. Decius 19:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is amusing to see User:Decius pontificate on the behaviour of other editors, especially considering the dirty linen he has in his closet. Wikipedia policy specifically proscribes "racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor", but this didn't stop him from launching into a homophobic tirade on Talk:Ancient Macedonian language not so long ago: [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], and [159] (edit summary). I am confident that a review of my edit history would find nothing inappropriate in terms of content, even if I have defended some of my edits a bit too zealously on occasion and fallen foul of the 3RR - when I have felt an injustice being committed. For that you can blame my passionate Greek nature.--Theathenae 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose that, taken out of context, those edits would seem astounding to the average reader, and paint me out to be a cruel Marquis de Sade. However, one must read the history of that Talk Page and read Chronographos' comments which led up to it. The issue here is User:Albanau and User:Theathenae's edits. Decius 21:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

What the average reader would make of your remarks is irrelevant, as is the context in which they were made. Your persistent homophobic attacks were a flagrant violation of official Wikipedia policy, for which you need to be disciplined. As for my edits, I stand by them as stated above.--Theathenae 21:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to be disciplined for anything. Chronographos knew what he was getting into when he kept prodding at me. I stand by my edits also. They were made after I lost all patience with the said User, after I attempted numerous times to settle things peacefully. But that's in the past, and I don't have any quarrel with Chronographos now. Decius 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about your personal vendetta against User:Chronographos. This is about you breaking the rules, whatever the reason. And you must face the consequences.--Theathenae 22:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want to start talking about "rules", then I'll remind you of User:Chronographos' breaking of the rules in his numerous personal attacks on me, not to mention your personal attacks on other Users. Bring it on. Decius 22:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attacks" are open to interpretation - his remarks could just as easily be seen as witty albeit acerbic ripostes. Your homophobia, on the other hand, is below the belt.--Theathenae 22:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

No, there are attacks of his on record which are clearly personal attacks. Not to mention comments of yours, which I will bring up if I need to do, made on other pages. As for the "homophobia" charge, faggot can also mean, in American slang, "a man who has no balls". So I don't see any homophobia in those comments. Decius 22:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Is describing someone as a "deranged homosexual" in an edit summary[160] also free of homophobic sentiment? I think you've been comprehensively outed as a homophobe, so it's pointless trying to hide in your closet now. And please refrain from editing my comments.[161] Cheers.--Theathenae 22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't edit your comment. That was a Wiki glich. I did not make that edit, nor do I see why I would have. Decius 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

guys, if you start denouncing each other now over all the frolicking that went down on the XMK talkpage, I'll be very disappointed in both of you. dab (ᛏ) 22:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not my intention to disappoint you, dab, but I will not be slandered, threatened or intimidated by a supporter of armed extremists or a homophobe.--Theathenae 22:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

That's not homophobia, that was the impression that he gave me at the time: a deranged homosexual. I was not disparaging him for being a deranged homosexual, just giving a description. In those instances where I was using "faggot" and "fag", they were referring to the lack of balls that he was displaying (e.g., talking a lot of trash but not stating his name; whining like a bitch, etc.). Decius 22:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

If you had balls you would just admit your homophobia and face the music, or rather, take it like a man.--Theathenae 22:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I may have made personal attacks in response to his personal attacks, but they are not homophobic if you read them as I intended. Such a use of faggot is well-known and common usage. Decius 23:00, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what the nature of this dispute is and I really don't care, nor do I care who started it, nor do I care about this tortured reasoning about how these comments aren't really homophobic. If I see anyone using these sorts of homophobic insults again, they get blocked for a month. Play nice and find something else to call each other. Gamaliel 01:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Christ est les quotidiens

I seen this user page in RC being edited by an anon. The text is not bad, just in French translation. I noticed that only anon's edit the page, and there are no contribs. So I'm not sure what to think of the userpage, if anything? Seems like a religious billboard. Any thoughts? ∞Who?¿? 10:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid my French isn't very good but surely the username is a violation of policy? -- Francs2000 | Talk 14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It is probably a machine translation, or a very poor one in any case. "Christ est les quotidiens" means "Christ is the daily newspapers"; if you see what I mean by "poor translation". The rest of the text is made of incoherent rants and citations. Rama 14:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's anons editing the page, but just one anon, with so far two IPs in the same range (editing from Switzerland, it seems). OK, so, an anon with no contribs except to a userpage for an account—if there is an account by the name—which also has no contribs? I'm quite tempted to incur my first administrative action shitstorm by speedy deleting this page. "Nothing to do with creating an encyclopedia" isn't a speedy criterion, agreed, but isn't it kind of implied? Meanwhile, I've left a note at User talk:Christ est les quotidiens. Bishonen | talk 20:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

delete away :) this is just kooky graffiti. If somebody cries bloody murder over your deleting this nonsense, we can always undelete it. dab (ᛏ) 22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a user page at all. At best, it's an IP editor's misunderstanding of the term "user page." I think he or she has come to the conclusion that one's private sandbox page is created at "user:" plus the name of the page you want. Given what this page is, it will, upon publication, be immediately VfD'd. It's a collection of Bible prophecy coming true in the newspapers sort of thing, it seems to me. Properly, one would send it to VfD, but the problem there is that the current group of VfD voters seems congenitally incapable of reading a nomination. If you said, "This is not a user page," they'd vote "Keep! It's a user page! Leave it alone!" So, it's speedy delete as webhosting (Wikipedia is not a free web host) or nothing. Geogre 01:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a similar one RIDCSP (talk · contribs). Two edits by one IP, which created the page. ∞Who?¿? 06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Update on Christ is the daily newspapers: a third IP has edited the page, 80.218.237.225, which is in a different range but resolves to the same Swiss ISP. Nobody has commented on my talk page message. Step two today: an explicit statement on the "userpage" itself (I doubt that they know from talk pages, and I don't think they're ever logged in, to get a "you have new messages" message) that I'm planning to delete. Watch this space for step three, the actual abuse of admin powers, RSN. I'll take a look at User:RIDCSP, too. Bishonen | talk 14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, itchyfingers (=Geogre)! I was gonna abuse admin powers! :-( Bishonen | talk 11:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, well you could do RIDCSP, it looks more like it was meant to be an article, unless they have started contributing already. ∞Who?¿? 20:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it was meant to be an article, no doubt. I've cleaned up and NPOV'd the text and created the article, making the userpage a redirect. I feel virtuous. :-) Bishonen | talk 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good, hate to see good edits gone to waste. Now if I could find out the policy on userpages being completely in another language. ∞Who?¿? 10:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have a policy on that, and I'm not sure that we need one. I imagine that the same rules apply as for everyone else's user pages—editors have a pretty much free hand unless the material is highly offensive, patently disruptive, or otherwise damaging. We have quite a few editors for whom English is not their first language; I don't see the harm in a non-English user page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Me either really, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any policies on it. I wouldn't have asked, but I noticed anon's editing a userpage, and have no idea what it was only because it was in a type of cyrillic or script. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 08:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Irate personal attack parole

The AC has enacted the personal attack parole provision in Irate's case. As of 13:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC), if Irate makes any personal attack he may be blocked for up to a week. - David Gerard 13:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My personal suggestion (in no way enforceable) would be to start light and work upward as needed. This gives the offender a chance to learn what is considered a personal attack and what isn't - David Gerard 13:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

And of course what is a personal attack? I think that any admin carrying out such a block should discuss it here first and give us several hours to consider it before implementation, so that the decision isn't a matter of individual subjectivity. Everyking 05:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that you have not researched the subject of Irate in the smallest dot and so are talking out your hat - David Gerard 10:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

And furthermore, it is explicitly a matter of individual subjectivity, as the precise wording is: "wherein Irate will be temporarily banned for a short period of up to one week if he makes any edits that an administrator judges to be personal attacks." Gosh darn that judgement thing! That's what a "short-leash personal attack parole" means - David Gerard 10:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be up to a single admin. Such a block could be hotly controversial. So it should be discussed here first. If I went around acting according to my subjective judgment about these things, I'd be before the ArbCom in a week. But the hardliners are supposed to get a free pass to ban somebody based on their own judgment? No, that's senseless. We have this forum here for discussion about admin actions; let's use it. If the block can't get a consensus here, it shouldn't be done. Or do you disagree with that principle? Everyking 03:59, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if you don't agree it should be up to a single administrator. That is the judgment that was passed. If you feel a block is controversial, by all means bring it up here, but there is no need to discuss every block before implementation, in my opinion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Our opinions differ. In the case of differing opinions, it would seem, logically, that we go with discussion by default. Everyking 06:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm always in favor of discussion. But community consensus already seems pretty clear in favor of following Arbitration Committee decisions. And I don't think this is the proper forum to challenge the authority or rectitude of the Arbitration Committee (and I know we disagree on this as well). — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

When did I say anything about not following ArbCom decisions? I said we should discuss and agree that Irate has indeed made a personal attack before blocking. I didn't say he shouldn't be blocked for personal attacks. Everyking 06:15, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I just did some looking around and noticed something: Irate is already blocked! He was blocked by Snowspinner on July 25, the same day this was originally posted here. Yet Snowspinner has said nothing to justify his actions, much less engage in the reaching the kind of admin consensus I proposed above. Was he hoping to keep it a secret? I put heavy odds on Gerard also knowing about it and failing to mention it. Wikipedia is supposed to prioritize consensus, in case these two (the arb and his enforcer) haven't noticed. Everyking 04:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Yet Snowspinner has said nothing to justify his actions, much less engage in the reaching the kind of admin consensus I proposed above - actually, I think this comment on Irate's talk page sums up Snowspinner's reason for banning him quite nicely. In the future, you might want to do a modicum of research before engaging in casual slander. And I think you owe him an apology. →Raul654 05:12, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I meant here. The message on Irate's talk is how I found out about the block in the first place (how else would I?). And I think you owe the project a few dozen apologies, but that's beside the point. Everyking 06:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So you think the following is not a personal attack? Further more your should unblock me and resign your adminship, you are not fit to be incharge of anything --Kbdank71 15:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The way it is phrased certainly could make it a personal attack. Again, I don't believe Irate should get a pass on personal attacks. Everyking 18:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

So then I'm not understanding what your problem with this is. The Arbcom left it up to the admins, Snowspinner was following the Arbcom's decision. What is there to discuss? If you disagree with the Arbcom's decision, perhaps you should bring it up with them. --Kbdank71 18:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, Snowspinner isn't the only admin who thought Irate should be have been blocked. Have you researched the background on this user? He was banned for three months for personal attacks, and then when he came back it didn't take long for him to fall back into his old habits. So he was placed on personal attack parole. He made the choice to persist, so he was blocked. (Oh, and did I mention he's been banned from everywhere from IRC to the mailing lists to meta?). Posting a note here is, of course, an option worth bearing in mind for admins, but Irate's case is fairly straightforward. — Matt Crypto 18:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

By all means we can discuss it here, but I see no problems with him being blocked before it is mentioned here. violet/riga (t) 18:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue has been settled:

23:52, July 27, 2005, Jimbo Wales blocked Irate (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (Personal conversation in IRC in which he assures me that our rules are rubbish and that he intends to continue "following" them as he always has)

You don't get more blocked than that. -- Essjay · Talk 04:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've posted on his talk page asking him to discuss his block here. Everyking 06:46, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're the only person that disagrees with the block. As one of those that had problems with him (including via email) I wholeheartedly agree that he has not intention of becoming a good editor and his positive additions are few and far between. Starve the troll. violet/riga (t) 09:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Do I disagree with Snowspinner's block? Not necessarily, I just wanted him to present and discuss the issue here. I do, on the other hand, disagree with Jimbo's block, since it's outside the ArbCom decision. We will have grown up a bit when we start giving this kind of thing proper deliberation and exposure to community feeling before action is taken. Everyking 09:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This has had proper deliberation. The community sees irate as a PITA. That's why the AC put in the personal attack parole. Iate threatened to disrupt wikipedia. That's why jimbo blocked him. There is nothing for Jimbo to discuss here. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 09:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

couldn't somebody write an Everykingbot, posting things like "I do not necessarily disagree, but want to draw attention to some basic human rights here" on every topic on this board? It would save Everyking a lot of typing :p dab (ᛏ) 10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, if you had had any experience with Irate, you would know that he is a thoroughly disruptive, unpleasant user, who delights in causing other users headaches. Why should we all have to wait for the ArbComm to get through the lengthy process of banning him for a year? He's been banned once already, and that did no good. Jimbo has the ultimate sanction, and he used it well within his rights. He is perfectly entitled to do this, and he has my full support. [[smoddy]] 10:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Drink! --Carnildo 07:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo's mailing list post on the topic: [162]. — Matt Crypto 08:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Please everyone, cut out this mockery of Everyking. How can you expect him to behave civilly if you are adding these "drink" and "let's make an Everykingbot" comments? Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Because megabytes of reason, argument, analogies, peer pressure, commentaries, advice, RFCs, and TWO ArbCom sanctions haven't put the tiniest dent in his sense of entitlement or proclamations of persecution: it's as if George Bush suddenly became a Wikipedia editor. Since being nice or trying persuasion haven't worked, maybe a little shame and mockery could be the clue-by-four he desperately needs. --Calton | Talk 12:20, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, why exactly does Everyking, regardless of the subject of the discussion, always bring up Snowspinner? Radiant_>|< 17:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Just got the following email from Irate:

--- Irate <john@flypie.cix.co.uk> wrote:

> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:51:06 GMT
> To: Kbdank71
> Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
> From: Irate <john@flypie.cix.co.uk>
>
>
> Why are you vanalising the Merseyside Cats claim
> that vte went one way. You should revert them back
> and resign. You dishonest peice of shit.

I'm not going to worry about anything since he's permabanned. --Kbdank71 12:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm just curious to know: Is there any discussion of Jimbo's decisions? Isn't the policy that once Jimbo speaks, there is no appeal? Isn't the ArbCom subject to him? (I'm remembering something about reserving the right to dissolve the ArbCom if it doesn't work and to overrule them if he sees fit.) The discussion here seems to suggest that perhaps Jimbo is also subject to community consensus, and I'd just like to know: Is He or is He not the final word? -- Essjay · Talk 06:48, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

In theory, you can appeal to the Wikimedia foundation. However, I'd be very surprised if they overturned any decision by Jimbo. --Carnildo

Jimbo is the (not always so benevolent) dictator, so there's nothing we can do to override one of his decisions forcibly, although he certainly has a moral obligation to account for his decisions and act responsibly, and we have every right to question and discuss his decisions (and I know someone is reading this right now and thinking "We'll see about that..."). Everyking 07:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

That was what I thought; I was confused because the discussion seemed to suggest he might be subject to an overrule. The idea of the WikiGod having a moral obligation is an interesting thought, and I shall now go off to consider whether the pious is pious because it is loved by the Jimbo, or if it is loved by the Jimbo because it is pious. (As Plato begins to spin in his grave.) -- Essjay · Talk 07:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

At this point I would just like to point out that:

"In common terms, exploding Wales is what you get when you get Jimbo Wales really, really angry. Despite the evocative terminology, no known casualties or grievous bodily harm has been known to result from such an explosion." [163] --Dmcdevit·t 08:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zapatancas and User:SqueakBox

User:Zapatancas persists in using his user page as a platform to launch personal attacks against me.; I have received a lot of abuse from this user in the past, starting when he used SquealingPig (talk · contribs) to launch a vicious attack against me, SqueakBox 15:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am a user from Spain who has tried to do useful contributions in the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. SqueakBox has harassed me repeatedly. He insulted me explicitly in my user page as it is found here [164] (in any case, it is the version of my talk page of 17:16, 15 July 2005 by SqueakBox). He said "Fuck off Nazi scum".

I have described the harassment I suffer in the 14:59 26 July 2005 version of my user page, which has been vandalized by him [165]. He claims that I am abusing him and that a [user] page is not an excuse for a vicious and unjustified personal attack. The reason I included the description of his attacks on me in my user page is that he vandalized it when I have not created it, as can be checked in the history page, identifying me with a blocked vandal I have no relation to as I have said him once and again.

I have always tried to be polite with everybody. I simply believe that SqueakBox could have some mental problem because of how he behaves (for example, he once talked about supposed death threats from other users in his user page what I considered absurd after reading it). I have not tried to be hard on nobody and much less on a sick person (if that is the case), I have simply tried to express what I consider to be the source of the problem.

Thank you for your attention. Zapatancas 16:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

How exactly is This user seems to suffer from a mental disorder (I am talking totally seriously) not a vicious personal attack, the latest in a long, long line. Calling me a sick person is out of order, and I want Zapatancas to stop. Also SWquealingPig made his vicious attacks moments after Zapatancas and I had an edit war. His denial of being SquealingPig is not credible. RexJudica\ta has been permanently blocked for death threats by CesarB, SqueakBox 16:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am from Spain and my English is not perfect. I believe SqueakBox suffers a mental disorder because, among other reasons, he has included in his user page passages expressing he was receiving death threats from other users what I considered totally absurd. If I sounded rude in English I am sorry but I do not master the language and I have only tried to express my opinion honestly.

Effectively SqueakBox tried to start an edit war after destroying some articles I have contributed to without giving any logical reason. There was not edit war because I did not try to recover them after he destroyed them for a second time. Zapatancas 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox has just removed the following text from the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero some minutes after I introduced it:

Zapatero has been accused of telling the Spanish media in the aftermath of the attacks that suicidal bombers had been found among the victims (something discarded by all the specialists). When he was asked in December 2004 about the issue by the Parliamentary Investigative Committee created to find the truth about the attacks he declared that he did not "remember" what he had said. [166]

I have tried to describe an objective fact related to Zapatero's biography. I have included a source to an article in Spanish I spent some time to find for those who may not have previous information about the fact to help them contrast the information. However, my contribution has been removed providing no reason only because I added it.

The article has not been updated since SqueakBox accessed it for the first time some months ago and removed everything he pleased. He continues removing everything usually giving no reasons at all.

Is that the kind of behavior encouraged in the Wikipedia? Zapatancas 16:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think this user should not acuse me of having mental problems. He is viciously attackoing me. Why should I tolerate his abuse. I don't have amy illnesses. I just want Zapatancas to cease attacking me and gegt over the fact that I edited his work months ago. is he incapable of not attacking m,e. CesarB permanently blocked RexJudicata for death threats. So it is Zapatancas who trivialises other trolls and his own vicious attacks, SqueakBox 17:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

At 10.23am on May 5 Zapatancas reverts my edits here. At 10.47 SquealingPig appears, complaining about me on the Zapatero talk page here. I revert him at 10.50 here. He then gets in a rage and attacks me as SquealingPig many timesw in a below the belt fashion, starting here, SqueakBox 17:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

He then insults me saying A question, do you live in Honduras because your family could not stand you any longer? here. I reacted to this by telling him to fuck off you Nazi troll, mild in comparison. He is now using his personal page to accuse me of being mentally ill. I have not attacked other than this one time. I think I am being very patient and tolerant to a nasty interne t troll, SqueakBox 17:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I advise to search in Google for SqueakBox and vandalism (Click here for example). I got 678 results. SqueakBox is getting in continuous problems with everybody and he is always accusing others. I have taken a look at his "contributions" and it is clear he always provokes other users on purpose. He never tries to explain his deletions. And that is difficult to justify. He has a huge experience here and knows others can get angry if they are not told why their effort (usually evidently honest) are removed. He really looks for the excitement of arguing and humiliating other people. And, of course, a lot of times his page has been vandalized. Of course, that only adds to his fun as he used every attack to fuel his continuous harassment.

It is not true he has attacked me only once. He harasses me continuously. Today he vandalized my user page eliminating all the text in it, he has added a lot of obscene comments in my talk page, he has reverted my edit in the Zapatero's article as I have already reported, he has accused me of being unable to write a NPOV article (this can be found in the Talk page of Zapatero), he has said I hate Zapatero (what is completely absurd as I do not know him personally), he has used improper language in a comment addressed to me (he has used the word bulls**t), he has called me a troll and he has removed the headline User:SqueakBox I added to report his mistreatment. And that only for today. Zapatancas 18:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me but it was you who made those obscene commenbts, I was reminding you of what you are really like. Yes, you are not the only troll here. So whatr dioes that prove. That I don't like POV warriors,. and they get angry when I remove their POV. If you can't handle your work being mercilessly edited don't contribute. It was not fun for me when yopu attacked me and my dog as squealingPig. Maybe you were having fun, but I wasn't. I have not vandalised your user page, I have removed your deeply offensive personal attack against me. Wikipedia do not give you that page to launch persobnal attacks against users you don\'t like. You have used endless insults against me. just take responsibility for your actions and stop trolling. As I have elucidated above, you are SquealingPig, and you have deeply insulted me on many occassions, SqueakBox 18:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

RickK and vandalism brought up 954 pages, while with SlimVirgin it was 779. I am in good company. Zapatancas needs to differentiate between vandalisers and those who fight the vandalism of users like SquealingPig, who only got 5 google hits, substantially less than the number of vandalsims he did, SqueakBox 18:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/84.65.183.7

Re-emergence of formerly banned User:B1link82, calling people cocks and the like. Would someone please handle this. Thanks...  ALKIVAR™ 16:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

this page is f'd up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_and_the_Dragon

What 146.186.230.234 (talk · contribs) was trying to get across here was that the page had been vandalised on 22 July and no-one had noticed; the page continued to be vandalised up to today. I have reverted the multiple edits and will continue to watch the page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

User:LaLa

Has been creating articles with material clearly copied from outside websites. Insists the articles are not CopyVios, and is removing the copyvio notices. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Has mysteriously disappeared forever. Snowspinner 19:31, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

• From what I've seen, I'm more inclined to side with the user in question. This looks more like a case of a confused newbie than a delibrate vandal. The user in question has created a new account, and claims to have been harrassed by Fawcett5. I don't know whether or not that's actually the case, but the notes left on the above account's talkpage seem to bear that out. I think that if there is fault here, it isn't all just on one side of the incident. --Chanting Fox 03:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• An INFINITE block? Snowspinner, I'm no admin, but an infinite block for copyvios seems a bit harsh. Are you sure that was warranted? --Chanting Fox 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If an account appears to have been set up only for policy violations, indefinite blocks are entirely in order - David Gerard 18:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • But it did not appear that way. That's irrelevant. Everyking 18:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that I'm going with the blocked user on this one, despite the copyvios. The infinite block is a clear violation of blocking policy and if not bad-faith is almost certaintly far too severe a punishment. The user in question appears to have been here for less than a month, and is almost certainly NOT doing this to cause trouble for people. In fact, she seems more confused than disruptive to me. --Chanting Fox 03:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It is only by the grace of Phil that you have not been permabanned as well. Be thankful for that, and question no more. Everyking 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Ok... I'm stumped. Exactly what is that supposed to mean? --Chanting Fox 03:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a joke. He bans people for the equivalent of looking at him funny. Everyking 04:01, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Was that really necessary, Everyking? For what it's worth, I agree that the indefinite block is too heavy given the circumstances, but I'm sure that Snowspinner will review his decision based on Fawcett5's polite note on Snowspinner's talk page. File an RFC on Snowspinner if you want to, but keep your snide remarks to yourself. I might suggest that you examine Fawcett5's comments to Snowspinner as an example of how to phrase constructive criticism. You're an excellent editor and admin in virtually all other regards—why can't you maintain at least a veneer of civility (or just remain stolidly silent) here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Drink! Radiant_>|< 17:25, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

• I have unblocked User:LaLa, based on Fawcett5's remarks and my understanding of the blocking policy. However, I have left the autoblock in place, as a short-term block seems justified based on the disruptive behaviour. I've also notified Snowspinner of what I've done, so he can review the situation before the residual autoblock expires. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:DrZoidberg

Has been messing with the wikipedia:sandbox for a while now, but managed to find a way to break it completely... The devs in #wikimedia-tech don't seem interested, but it's quite worrying, at least to me :-) Dan100 (Talk) 20:29, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Left a warning on the user's talk page. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:37, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe they should institute a hard page size limit on wikipedia articles? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Didn't DrZoidberg move the sandbox a little while ago, leading to a big mess? Looking at his contributions, he seems to only edit the sandbox. Wait—he also had a self-nomination for adminship. Warn him, and if he mucks up the sandbox again block him for disruption. He's not contributing anything useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

He's experimenting, which is what the Sandbox is for. ‡ Jarlaxle 02:40, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Experimenting seems to be the only thing he does. --Deathphoenix 02:48, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

True, the sandbox is for experimentation. However, DrZoidberg (talk · contribs) hasn't contributed to any articles in his nine months on Wikipedia (See also Kate's count: [167]), and now he's broken the sandbox. He's soaking up bandwidth and server space, but has been tolerated because until recently he's not actually been acutely harmful. If he continues to not contribute and to do things that require cleanup, then he should be blocked. Wikipedia isn't his personal webspace or playground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be taking perverse pleasure in breaking the sandbox now:

• diff Edit summary: SANDBOX GO SQUISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• diff Edit summary: So two sandbox self-destructions walk into a bar...
• diff Edit summary: So two sandbox self-destructions walk into a bar...

Keep an eye on this one.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time to block him. He's already been warned about not doing stuff like this. --Deathphoenix 20:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that we have tolerated more than we should already and have left a message on his talk page asking him to cease his edits to the sandbox entirely. If he continues to pose problems, he should be blocked. Because he is not a contributor to the encyclopedia, I don't believe there is any reason why he can't be blocked. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I note that David Gerard has blocked Zoidberg indefinitely, a move I support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Nooo, sandboxian! :( El_C 19:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the devs explained what was happening - the software simply rejects the rendering of pages (or diffs) of a certain size to prevent the site bogging down; it's set up this way for ages. I guess the error message does say that if you think about it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 15:18, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well according to [168] Wikipedia uses the Difference Engine. No wonder it's so slow! the wub "?/!" 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

This user now seems that he may be geninuinely interested in contributing, see User talk:DrZoidberg, if anyone wishes to consider unblocking. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Agiantman

Agiantman (talk · contribs) -- engaging in personal attacks, disruption, and uncompromising POV warring on Talk:Joseph Stalin (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Joseph Stalin|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Among other many other unpleasantries directed toward Trey Stone and me, he made the attack on Mikkalai (one of Wikipedia's most respected editors), even after several warnings.

• Mikka, you are clearly too much of a Stalin fan to be editing this article.--Agiantman 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Since directing him to the relevant policy pages on civility and NPOV have not worked, an administrator is responsible for enforcing them through a temp block, or at least a warning. 172 | Talk 04:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I also want to add that the idea that Mikkalai is a Stalin fan is a joke. On the contrary, he has filled Wikipedia with documents, testimony and so forth that reflect poorly on Stalin, and the CPSU during the time Stalin was the general secretary of it. Mikkalai is not pro-Stalin, he is anti-Stalin. Unlike Agiantman however, he does not make personal attacks and he is not disruptive. While msot of his material is anti-Stalin, he makes sure all of it he puts in is referenced and factual, and in neutral language, letting facts speak for themselves. He is also willing to compromise. A look over Mikkalai's edit history over the past year will show most of what he has done is fill Wikipedia with evidence about Stalin's misdeeds. But at least he uses references, sources, facts and so forth. People like Agiantman just hysterically rant that a page which consensus was reached very carefully is POV. I myself think the page is too anti-Stalin, I don't agree with this in the opening: "collectivization triggered a bitter struggle of peasants against the authorities in many areas, which significantly contributed to famine and millions of peasant casualties, particularly in Ukraine." I know the consensus-building is a delicate balancing act, so I am waiting for everyone to work other issues out before I come in and point out my problems with this sentence. AGiantman walks in on day one and starts disrupting this article which it took a long time to reach consensus on, a consensus which is ongoing. He thinks he is more important than the dozen or so people trying to achieve consensus, he is even attacking his allies like Mikkalai, who is on the anti-Stalin side but is neutral, a consensus builder and does not do original research. Ruy Lopez 20:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Siegerz

Vandalism at Talk:Islam and Human rights in the United States: appears to be a sockpuppet of the user Yuber who is under a temporary ban by the Arbitration Committee. This user also appears to be the exact same user as User:63.70.62.84. Existentializer 16:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Lawsuit threat by User:YusufIslam at Talk:Pardism

Looks like a no legal threats violation:

This kind of insensitive bigotry would, at best, get you sued. Deleting such an article is a form of religious hatred and should not happen. I have a good mind to sue you for wanting to do such a thing. -- User:YusufIslam on Talk:Pardism

User has no contributions worth speaking of. May be the same as User:82.34.57.87 who created the article. That address has a smattering of abusive conduct to its name, e.g. [169] [170] --FOo 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The context suggests that the best solution to simply ignore this silly threat. mikka (t) 23:09, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Libellous Image Captions on User Page of User:Cognition

I've had a look at the user page of this individual. There are libellous statements on it about people like Donald Rumsfeld, Alan Greenspan and Queen Elizabeth II. They take the form of image captions. I have put a notice on the talk page of this individual telling them to remove the captions inside 24 hours otherwise I'll do it myself. Given this user's persistent 3RR violations, use of Wikipedia as a blog and now this libel I think quite a strong case can be made for a permanent ban. Please let me know if you agree. David Newton 22:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with him expressing his opinions about non-wikipedians on his user page. --Golbez 22:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've seen a lot of those same senitments in vandalism to those articles. Yeah, yeah, bla blah, "Schwarzenegger's a Nazi!" But wait a minute. Erm. Now, Peter Camejo, I mean Pete Camejo, a genocidal fascist? I mean Pete Camejo?! Dmcdevit·t 22:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Precisely. He aimed too high. The ridiculousness of these statements makes them decidedly non-libelous. --Golbez 22:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose. It just, er... Pete Camejo?! Dmcdevit·t 23:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

"A written or pictorial statement which unjustly seeks to damage someone's reputation." I don't think any of these people are having their reputations damaged by Cognition's comments. -Thatdog 22:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Though lacking in taste, such commentary with regard to highly public figures falls far short of libel. I believe that the captions say more about User:Cognition's discernment than they do about any of the figures pictured. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...please allow me to make a personal attack: Cognition's political likes and dislikes exactly match those of Lyndon LaRouche, ie: he is parroting the sentiments of the "LaRouche movement". Like all followers of a cult of personality, Cognition doesn't really have personal opinions...LaRouche has them for him. Func( t, c ) 23:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid phrases like "Hitler-like tyrant" may have wikipedia sued pants off. This is not a joke. Such comments about contemporaries must be removed immediately. mikka (t) 23:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

You can be afraid all you want, but I fail to see how that makes it true. --Golbez 23:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've always wondered why people think Wikipedia would be sued at all, and not the individual. I mean, it's not as if Wikipedia sanctions all the content it hosts, otherwise it would be sanctioning loads of vandalism at any one moment. Isn't the individual responsible for whatever they say and do (especially where it is their own user page involved)? Of course, IANAL, so that was probably some stupid/naive comment. Dmcdevit·t 23:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's because Wikipedia is the bigger target. Most likely, what will happen is that Wikipedia and the individual user will both be named as defendants, then after a lot of expensive legal wrangling to determine that Wikipedia does indeed fall under the "safe harbour" provisions of some law or other, Wikipedia will be dropped from the lawsuit. --Carnildo 00:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I think that it is a good thing that Cognition puts all of his chips on the table by making his opinion clear. It makes the nature of his edits easier to understand. As for Wikipedia getting sued because that page calls somebody a tyrant... you're joking right? --Bletch 23:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox for trolls. We're perfectly within our rights to insist that he refrain from such behavior. Gamaliel 00:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite me policy which states that personal opinions about non-wikipedians are not allowed to be stated on one's own user page? --Golbez 00:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

All Wikipedians should have the right to express their political and/or philosophical views on their user pages. Leave it alone. Everyking 00:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Also: is the objection to the user page as a whole or only the bits condemning people who are still alive? I mean, I think most people would agree that Caligula was a "mass-murderous imperial Roman lunatic". Everyking 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in the interest of accuracy, it's not just living people. Try Aristotle, Malthus, Locke, Galileo, Newton, Adam Smith, Kant, Hegel, Russel, and on and on. I think Caligula, Tiberius, Mussolini and the Nazis are the only ones anyone would ever consider agreeing. I mean, the Beatles are in there. Dmcdevit·t 00:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

A) All Wikipedians should not use their userpage to host philosophical manifestos having nothing to do with Wikipedia. B) I am considerably more offended by the comments about Kant and Aristotle than about the bit on Lieberman. C) I haven't looked lately, but if Cognition has managed to tone down his psychotic LaRouche advocacy, which is the real problem with him as a user, why not let the user page slide and call it "good enough for one day's work." Snowspinner 00:47, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

(I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as a legal opinion) It's also perhaps worth noting that the US and UK libel laws are significantly different. Wikipedia's servers are hosted in the US, so if there's any suing to be done I'd image it would have to be under US law. In the US, you can say pretty much anything you want about a public figure and, I gather, this is not the case in the UK. This difference might be behind some of the different views on this issue. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:50, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia can hope - and can even try to assure -- that it is sued where it is hosted, but there's no guarantee it won't be sued wherever it's distributed. Ask Vanity Fair, a U.S. magazine sued for libel -- successfully -- in Britain by a Polish director residing in France and unwilling to enter England for fear of extradition... Wikipedia has no need to host inflammatory speech which has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 04:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the offensive section, since Cognition hasn't edited in two weeks, and I suspect he's gone away. Snowspinner 04:26, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Even if Wikipedia was sued in Britan and the British courts awarded Jimbo's house to the plaintiff, they'd have to get a US court to enforce it, and that's quite unlikely. A British court decision has no force in the United States without a US court decision to enforce it. (Then again, I'm not a "real" lawyer.) -- Essjay · Talk 04:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I think just about every Wikipedian who has created a userpage with content that expresses their own views, if one finds them offensive, then don't visit the page. Unless they are making direct attacks against a user or specific racial comments, then there is no harm. There is no difference in these comments then that of the Opinion cartoons. As far as Vanity fair getting sued, they are a corporate magazine expressing its or the editors views, and not a personal userpage. Especially since a Polish director not a public figure sued them (yes I think some directors can be considered public figures, but not the majority of them). ∞Who?¿? 04:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed the original version (before deletion), quite creative if misguided. And public figures can't sue for almost anything (that's why the tabloids are still in business). --Noitall 04:36, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

"Public figures can't sue for almost anything": simply not true outside of the U.S. Liberace won his libel suit in Britain when a reviewer merely insinuated he might be gay. - Nunh-huh 04:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The suggestion that anyone could be sued over opinions expressed on a member's user page is preposterous. The practice of editing other members' user pages is nothing more than sophomoric vandalism, the more reprehensible when cloaked in the guise of administrative propriety.

Cognition ought to be commended for disclosing his POV with such candor. Would that others would be as forthcoming, particularly those surreptitious types who routinely abuse adminstrative authority by selective banning members, or protecting particular versions of articles, in the service of their POV allies. The manner in which some conduct POV warfare using administrative intrigues, shunning honest debate, is a form of corruption which has hurt Wikipedia. --HK 20:50, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Just a quick comment on libel issues. It would be libelous for me to say for instance "Hamster Sandwich is a donkey molesting drug dealer" whereas to say "I think Hamster Sandwich is a donkey molesting drug dealer" is legally acceptable. People are legally allowed to voice an opinion, but they have to make it perfectly clear that it is an opinion. The content in question is on a personal user page; this would tend to negate Wikipedias responsibility regarding the page. Also, I am certain that if Jimbo is half as smart as I think he must be, there is a disclaimer in here somewhere that defers legal responsibility away from Wikipedia and places the onus on the individual editor. We are here voluntarily, after all. The difference betwen a user page being libelous and citing a case vis a vis Liberace vs. The Evening Standard is that the author who wrote the Liberace article was paid for professional services rendered. The paper has paid fact checkers and frankly, they got screwed in that judgement against them in that case. That being said, I am not yet a lawyer, but I have played one on television. Now I have to go and find that damn donkey, he keeps hiding all my drugs. Hamster Sandwich 21:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

anonymous vandal attack

adsl-11-21-184.mia.bellsouth.net 65.11.21.184

A person using above IP has been vandalizing my articles amd making false and damaging comments. I cannot follow yoru process because thsi vandal is not registered so it is an anonymous person. Can you please help me by banning the person? He made terrible. false, damaging comments that are despicable and ruining me. It is a terrible experience to have someone do this with no way to reach them. Thank you,

Dixie Randock

• The poster of this complaint, still not content with other people editing her advertisements articles, has now resorted to legal threats. - Thatdog 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

(some of these remarks may be redundant, I had an edit conflict with Thatdog above.)

The anon user who left this notice (63.227.103.140 (talk · contribs), presumably Dixie Randock or someone related to her) has been removing apparently factual statements from the article about her. Apparently she has been accused (repeatedly) in the press of operating one or more diploma mills; she is continuing to remove references to this (external links to news articles, and a descriptive paragraph) from Dixie Randock. Normally this would be a matter for RfC, but she has also been leaving legal threats.

• Legal threat directed at User:65.11.21.184, on User talk:65.11.21.184; link to revision. In part, the message reads "We are tracing this vandal's IP...and we will take legal actions."
• Edit to Dixie Randock diff, edit summary: "I have turned this over to my attorney as defamation and harassment."

I shouldn't take any admin action here as I have become something of a party to the dispute (I VfD'd Dixie Randock a little while ago). Could someone have an outside look at the situation with this editor? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Rhobite has already blocked User:63.227.103.140 for making legal threats. She was close to her fourth revert anyway... - jredmond 19:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I did edit the article but I don't have a problem blocking her. She has made legal threats a couple times now, and removed negative content about herself from the article. Rhobite 19:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Plautus returns

'Just wanted to make sure everyone was aware that Plautus satire's one year ban has explired and he has returned. For those who don't know, he was banned by the arbcom last February for being the most disruptive user ever (and reset the ban last July by using a sockpuppet). →Raul654 04:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Holy crap, what a flood. Are we banning him again? -- Khaosworks 06:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

He's already been causing trouble, and he's already been hit with a 24 hour block for violating the 3rr on his old RFC. So now he's bellyaching on his talk page (remember, Tim recently tweaked it so you can edit your own talk page whiel blocked). →Raul654 06:13, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

To ban him again we'd need a new ArbCom decision. If it's expired that makes him the same as anybody else. Everyking 06:42, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Based on the near universal comment of "Can't we just ban him," and the fact that he's very obviously not reformed AT ALL, I'm thinking this is a good case for an addition to "banned by the Wikipedia community?" Any comments or objections? (Besides you, Everyking. We already know you object.) Snowspinner 17:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

If he goes back to doing the same things that got him blocked the last time, then it strikes me as reasonable for an admin to block him–for short periods, up to say 24 hours–for disruption. In the interest of keeping the peace here, I'd suggest placing a block request here and allowing a second admin to actually block (in the absence of clear vandalism or outright destruction). If he accumulates more than one or two such blocks, I imagine that it would be very easy to persuade the ArbCom to impose a temporary injunction against editing. In such a case, we might also be able to save a lot of time by direct appeal to Jimbo. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom is already looking into it. --cesarb 18:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Aren't people jumping the gun a little here? At the above link, it sites 3 alledged problems [171] [172] [173]. But when I look them up the first is on his own talk page, the second is not disruptive at all, and the third is a some what impolite but none the less reasonable disgreement with another editor on a talk page. Perhaps I'm a little sensative because of why own problems with adminstrator User:Gamaliel (see below), but these calls for another year of banning seem premature to me.--198.93.113.49 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Look at this. Is it time to protect his talk page, to workaround the annoying new misfeature? --cesarb 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

There are less than 500 active and semi-active admins on Wikipeida. That's a scant number for such a huge project, perhaps if admins didn't waste so much time worrying about petty criticism of them on users talk pages that really don't ammount to much then they'd have more time to do the really important things and thereby attract less criticism. Which is more imporatant? Making sure there are no petty criticisms of admins on talk pages or making this into a real respectable encyclopedia. I fear that stamping out all dissent will only lead to more disent or more bannings of editors who would make useful contributions instead of arguing with the admins if the admins whould just loosen up and not be so sensative.

I freely admit that I've lost my cool recently, and I don't blame anyone for that but myself, but now I still have an admin hounding me who even blocked my for 12 hours for violating a rule he made up, and I'm not getting any support from the other admins below. So perhaps my opinion of the adminstrators is unfairly tarnished right now, but admins need to keep in mind that while there are rules in place to help easily address problems with editors, it's very hard to do anything when an admin becomes abusive and that's going to frustrate a lot of people. Admins can take the hard line in those cases if they want, but I doubt any good will come from it. I certainly doubt it will make this into a respected encyclopedia.--198.93.113.49 19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but given that Plautus was blocked indefinitely [174] (and never unblocked), how is he still editing pages other than his talk page? Carbonite | Talk 16:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There were conflicting blocks, now expired. Now blocked permanently. [[smoddy]] 16:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I always thought that when a block was placed, it would replace any existing block. Am I just wrong now or have I always been wrong about this? Maybe this behavior changed with MediaWiki 1.5. If block is already in effect and I want to place a block of a different length, should I first unblock and then re-block? Carbonite | Talk 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I asked the devs recently and was told that "no one really understands the blocking code". I think that blocks act independently of each other. So if I block user X for 5 hours, and then 1 minute later another admin blocks him indefinitely, in 5 hours my block will expire, the software will unlock user X, which causes both blocks disappear from the block list. →Raul654 16:34, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

DING DING DING! What's that sound? It's the sound of Plautus doing what he does best, injecting his first conspiracy theory into wikipedia since his return. →Raul654 16:24, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Was any procedure followed on this most recent indefinite block or did someone just do it?--198.93.113.49 19:53, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

no procedure was followed and it would seem there is less than universal support for a permanent ban, even right here on this page there are several comments that a ban is premature to say the least...is snowspinner also raul654?

Hmm, completely spurious and ridiculous conspiracy theory. Could Plautus be hounding us again? I would like to note that I made the second infinite block, as a good-faith reversion to the most recently-instated one, which was cancelled for technical reasons. I believe there is a good case for "banned by the community" here. [[smoddy]] 23:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the block; I think we need procedure. Plautus' behavior since his return, and I'm not saying it wasn't abhorrent before, seems more along the lines of harmless rambling and mild mischief. Really I don't think an open and shut case can be made for "banned by the community". I would support having a community vote over it, though, with an agreed upon threshold in advance, followed by an ArbCom case if that fails. Does this sound reasonable? Everyking 01:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I support some kind of process - right now Plautus is being mildly disruptive, but not overly so (most of his edits seem to have been in the Talk areas). Granted, I can see where this will eventually be going given the obviousness of his behaviour patterns, but let's at least do by whatever book we do have. --khaosworks 02:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Surely you don't think that statements like "Fuck this monkey bullshit and fuck you, Fred!" (see edit summary here: [175] ) indicate that this user has had some miraculous transformation during his year-and-a-half ban. How does that old saying go... troll me once, shame on you--troll me twice, shame on me. There's a point at which we have to just say that enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Plautus satire — I agree that the gloating is probably unneccesary. Without knowledge of the case, the page in its present state still looks a bit malicious. A link to some relevant discussion instead of just the blocking policy would seem appropriate. 80.219.219.208 19:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Plautus satire (talk · contribs). He had been blocked indefinitely by Snowspinner, but the pending arbitration case would block him only for one year. He is unblocked to present a defense in his arbitration case and to demonstrate if he can that "continuation of disruptive behavior" is not true. Fred Bauder 19:23, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Lamb Chop

sock created solely to revert TJive's edits. i have my own suspicions, but i won't comment because i can't check IPs. a similar incident happened recently with Bee Hive. J. Parker Stone 05:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

It's User:Ruy Lopez. And "Bee Hive" was permanently banned by Jayjg after a 3RR, for being a sockpuppet created for policy violation. --TJive 05:52, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Please remember: User:Lamb Chop ≠ user:Lambchop

Thanks :) Lambchop 05:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

So, my arch-nemesis has returned..... Charlie Horse 12:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's see what we have here. I am accused of being a sock puppet by someone who the Arbitration Committee has banned from editing pages. Then TJive, the sock puppets of all sock puppets, accuses me of being a sock puppet. Please go to TJive's first edits and tell me whether or not he is a sock puppet. Lamb Chop

Lopez, you can't counter your bad behavior by pointing to the behavior of others. Trey Stone is facing sanctions; is that what you want? Very well.

BTW, as I explained weeks ago when you first tried that, I did work here anonymously before I joined, which is why I knew about simple things like what a "revert" is; pretty elementary in the first place. --TJive 06:06, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well Ruy you just kinda proved that you're a sock. How many times have you referenced that I've been temp-banned, been short-blocked in the past, OMG WHAT THIS IS NEWS [176] [177][178] J. Parker Stone 06:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Permanently blocked as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:I love PENIS lots lots lots

Innapropriate username? ∞Who?¿? 07:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, probably. Then again, the user appears to be making good contributions. Everyking 07:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea I seen that, was thinking it was a vandal, but all good edits so far. Granted someone will complain about the userpage eventually. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's invite the user to change names. Also the page needs to be blanked, or something needs to be changed about it. Everyking 07:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I would hate for them to get deleted or blocked over a silly name, probably did it for fun. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At this point I think I should point out what SqueakBox said in his welcome to this user: "Hello, I love PENIS lots lots lots, and welcome to Wikipedia." I wonder how I should interpret that... --Dmcdevit·t 20:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You should interpret it as me being a part of the welcoming committee. I do hundreds of these. Everyking had left a message saying maybe he should use a different name, so I left a message saying The best way to do this is to press the above move button and folow the instructions. Meanwhile and added the welcome as it was made clear here that his or her edits are fine, and therefore we want to encourage the user to be a regular contributor. It just seemed wrong to me not to welcome him or her, SqueakBox 21:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Try reading the sentence... Cheers, [[smoddy]] 21:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Erm. It was, you know... ha ha...? (Of course I appreciate welcomers, and even remember the excitement when I first saw that "new messages" alert) Dmcdevit·t 21:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That, of course was the wikipedia template interpreting the {{welcome}} template. I take no responsibility! SqueakBox 21:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Block him for user name and tell him to contact a bureaucrat to change contribs. We've had other offensive names with good contribs but we still have to block them. Redwolf24 22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just did the deed in line with our username blocking policy... Redwolf24 22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Sjakkalle, User:IZAK and the VFD debate on Religious persecution by Jews

I closed this VFD debate: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Religious persecution by Jews, as a "keep (no consensus)" since there was not a two thirds majority for deletion. I see that User:IZAK is most displeased with this. He has called my decision "dictatorial" and "ridiculous", and has proceeded to send this message to a number of other users. I refer to my talkpage for my explanation. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like "no consensus" was a proper call to me. Note that a kept article can still be moved to a different title or merged or what-have-you after the VfD, of course, if consensus arises to do so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking for the "proper channels" regarding the discussion that's broken out with IZAK two days now, and any assistance would be appreciated. Shem^(talk) 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with that no consensus. Redwolf24 22:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Gamaliel blocked me for 12 hours without cause

Please help me. I was blocked yesterday for this edit [179] by User:Gamaliel.

There is a long discussion of it here: User talk:198.93.113.49. I know it is long, but please read everything under 12 hour block. I think it will show that I am being delt with unfairly. Now Gamaliel has started list of greviances against me here User:Gamaliel/todo. I'm embarrassed to admit that some of these things are true. I have viloated the 3RR rule in the past and did handle the John Byrne edit war badly, but I am a good editor and no troll. I'm paticularly pround of the cleanup I did of Oak Island: [[180]], but most of what Gamaliel says about me on his page is just a personal attack. Please read my response: User:Gamaliel/todo.

Thank you, --198.93.113.49 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a very random and irrelevant place to leave a comment. I can see no plausible explanation other than it being an attack on Gamaliel, intended to be read by Gamaliel. The anon in question has a single edit and is unlikely to be back to see it himself. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I had no reason to think Gamaliel would read it and was surprised that he did read it. What exactly is the blockable offense here. Gamaliel has said many things far worse about me and yet my attempt to discuss the situation on Roy Lichtenstein with a user who had had similar problems with Gamaliel is considered an attack. Is it now Wiki policy that admins can block users for anything if they think is inapporiate even if it does not violate any policy? Please read the converstaion at 198.93.113.49. Gamaliel is all over the place on his reasons for blocking me. They're either old issues that have already been delt with, things which violate no policy, alledgedly trollish behavior that he himself engages in, or simply innacurate accusations against me. --198.93.113.49 17:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The talk pages of new users should not be forums to air unrelated grievances. They should be for greeting new users and informing them of Wikipedia policies and customs, not for drawing them into preexisiting conflicts. I feel very strongly about this matter, and in light of the anon's previous history, I feel my actions were warranted. My to do list was merely a personal record/memory refresher of my interatctions with other users (as well as a list of articles I wanted to get around to editing) not meant for public consumption or as a public attack, but I suppose everything on Wikipedia is for public consumption in the end. Initially I reverted his comments to my subpage and locked it, but I decided to let them remain for the time being. Gamaliel 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Now Gamaliel has deleted my last comment to Talk:Rob Liefeld, please help me resolve this. I do not know what to do?--198.93.113.49 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that 198.93.113.49 has been adding to the Talk:Rob Liefeld page for quite some time, leaving unconstructive comments while failing to actually add anything noteworthy to the discussion, or to the betterment of the article. Some genuine users are trying to reach a consensus as to the content of the (currently protected) article however are being constantly hampered by this, and other, anonymous IPs. It is unfortunate that we have now progressed to blocking these IPs if they do not desist from their behaviour. We are also automatically reverting any edits that do not have anything to do with the article in question. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a gunuine user and this is nothing more than a personal attack. Yes, I was involved in an edit war on Rob Liefeld and yes I lost my temper when a different standard was applied to other users than the one being applied to me. That has no baring on the issue here which is Gamaliel's blocking me 12 hours for a compleately unrelated comment on another page or the fact that he just today deleted a perfectly reason comment I made to the Rob Leifeld talk page which is still in the history for any one to see that it should not have been deleted.--198.93.113.49 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note, the edits in question were:

Francs2000, These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article. rob liefeld doesn't need to be metioned on this website. by 69.243.46.93 (talk · contribs)

wikipedia=censorship by 65.220.54.20 (talk · contribs)

Why was User:65.220.54.20 comment reverted. It was not a personal attack. And while it was negative toward wikipedia and extremely terse it was also relevent to what's been going on here. I agree the sentiment that a spirit of censorship infects Wikipedia, and while I would have expressed it a little different that 65.220.54.20 that hardly means his comment should be reverted. by 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs)

198, Your fighting a losing battle the admins at this site all have god complexs. by 65.220.54.20 (talk · contribs)

To be honest I stepped in as an independent admin following a request for help on this very page for assistance and I'm now spending far too much time being accused of every bias under the sun by anonymous IPs on a page about someone I couldn't care less about. Sort it out amongst yourselves, I'm not going to touch the page again. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it is obvious to everyone, but I want make it doubly clear that my comment which was deleted was

Why was User:65.220.54.20 comment reverted. It was not a personal attack. And while it was negative toward wikipedia and extremely terse it was also relevent to what's been going on here. I agree the sentiment that a spirit of censorship infects Wikipedia, and while I would have expressed it a little different that 65.220.54.20 that hardly means his comment should be reverted. by 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs)

I also want to reiterate that this is a side issue. My main objection was that I was blocked for 12 hours without cause.--198.93.113.49 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please help. Gamaliel continues to delete my comments at Talk:Rob Liefeld. Please go there an see for yourself that my comments are appropriate and should not be deleted. Here is the most recently deleted comment which was in response to Gamaliel ording me t stop commenting--198.93.113.49 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you get to determine when a discussion is over? I'm still concerned that there is too much deleting of comments going on here and while most of the comments deleted so far problably won't be missed I want to make sure this does not get out of hand so that this discussion of Liefeld can continue smoothely

Why does no one care about this abuse by Gamaliel?

Now he is threathening me on my talk page:

Get this straight: Wikipedia is not your personal message board. You are not entitled to post your complaints anywhere you want. The sole purpose for an article talk page is for productive discussion of the content of that article. It is not the place for comments like These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article and wikipedia=censorship from you or anyone else. Those useless comments do not add anything to the productive discussion of an encyclopedia article, nor does a long discussion of the worth of comments like those contribute anything of worth to the article. You have recieved clear, repeated warnings from both User:Francs2000 and myself about your behavior on that page. For the last and final time, keep your comments on the topic of the article and nothing else. I will not allow you to make Talk:Rob Liefeld your personal soapbox nor will I allow you to continue to waste my time and the time of the productive editors there actually trying to improve the article. If you actually wish to be a productive, contributing editor, I suggest you start acting like one. Your lack of positive contributions combined with your constant trolling over the last several weeks makes me think more and more that a permanent ban on this IP as a troll account is warranted. Gamaliel 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please somebody go to Talk:Rob Liefeld. You can clear see he is lying about what I am doing.--198.93.113.49 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The best way for you to demonstrate that Gamaliel is mistaken about you is for you to start making constructive comments on that talk page about how to imporove that article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I was blocked for 12 hours for no reason at all. I have no recourse what-so-ever and no one cares, and now I'm told that it's my responsibility to prove Gamaliel is wrong!? He's decided I'm troll, attacked me on his todo page, and used this is an excuse to block me when he feels like whether I've done anything or not, and I am burdened with showing that he's wrong about me!?!. I cannot win. This much is clear. Gamaleil has bocked me without cause, deleted my discussions on the Rob Liefeld talk page, and left vague threats on my talk page. And the only admins who care are the ones that think this is okay. All a person has to do is go see for themselves that I've done nothing wrong in this instance.--198.93.113.49 13:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the comments you guys are attributing to 198, belong to me please do not credit him with those remarks.

Ok, I went to Talk:Rob Liefeld. Let me ask you this, 198.93.113.49, did you, in fact, make ANY comments about Rob Liefeld, or how to improve the article? Or did you waste everyone's time by trying to defend a vandal? Because unless I missed it, none of your comments had anything to do with Liefeld. You complained because irrelevant comments were being removed? Why? --Kbdank71 15:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevet comment?! Three of my own comments were removed and they were completely relevent. Some of the comments made by others may ahve been questionable, but even then I think that when in doubt it's best to avoid deleting comments in a discussion. I think that this is a very valid point of discussion. I'm sorry that you and Gamaliel disagree, but we will just have to have a difference of opinion on that. However, just because you and Gamaliel don't find an issue worth discussing does not mean that those comments should be deleted. Gamaliel is at it again by the way. He's made it very clear on his talk page that he intends to revert edits to Joe Scarborough no matter how many people oppose his version and made a wildly unfounded accuasation about sock puppets (even though he's taken me to task for accusing some of being a sock puppet once) and when I tried to comment on the matter (I'm a part of the group who opposes his POV pushing on Scarboroug) he deleted my comment and left a nasty note on mt talk page.User talk:198.93.113.49--198.93.113.49 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Granted, I only went back one page in history, but this is what I saw: Vandalism. Vandalism removed. You complained because vandalism was removed. Repeat. Add in removal of your complaints, and that's it in a nutshell. So what's the problem there? BTW, you didn't answer my question: Did you make any comments about Rob Leifeld or his article? --Kbdank71 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User uploading suspect fair use images

Please see Flgook's upload log. Seems suspicious to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The tags smell bogus - the bunnies, Jeff Probst (I only looked at the first five or so) all look like they were taken off IMDB or professionally taken photos at public events and probably copyrighted. Even the GQ "cover" isn't a cover - the "Click here to subscribe" tag suggests that it's grabbed off the GQ website (and indeed it is.) I suggest going through them with a fine tooth comb. --khaosworks 08:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate content?

Yesterday, on RC patrol, I noticed Wikipedia Username (talk • contribs) creating User:Wikipedia Username/Letter, a letter to Hollywood stars about their failure to support the war in Iraq. I asked him to take it down, as I felt it was inappropriate content. To his credit, he did so, although he did label be a "fascist", and accuse me of double standards, since I have some slightly irrelevant stuff on my user page. I do, however, marvel at the comment, And anyway I wasn't "calling" you a fascist, you are a fascist, so I was merely stating fact. Now, having deleted the article, all should be fine and dandy, right? Wrong. He now creates User:Wikipedia Username/Facist Beating (sic) with exactly the same content. Firstly, is the content appropriate for Wikipedia? My reaction was no, although I concede that I may be wrong. Secondly, with the letter actually being written by Charlie Daniels, is the letter copyvio? This is the point when I don't really want to start acting unilaterally, so any advice would be appreciated! Cheers, [[smoddy]] 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since it's a copyvio, it should probably be listed as such.--nixie 10:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So it is a copyvio then? [[smoddy]] 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is, see http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html I also copyvio'd the page, just seen this after I did it. Gonna leave a note on the talk page for them. ∞Who?¿? 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Who. [[smoddy]] 10:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say for the first part of him writing a letter to stars, that's perfectly allowable, its his own user page and its his own subpage. Saying he's not allowed to is like saying that we can't write about how old we are, etc. at our page. However him calling you a fascist was totally out of line. Redwolf24 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I had that debate with him. He came up with the extraordinary statement And no ones going to ask you about stuff that is apart of your life, unless they're stupid because I don't care about your life, so no one else should either. From Wikipedia:User page, section "What should I avoid": Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia and Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material. I was asking whether the content fell into these categories. [[smoddy]] 22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Smoddy; stating your interests is relevant, because it helps other editors find you. For example, listing my Ph.D. on my page helps others realize that I am a good source of information with regard to theology. However, an open letter to Benedict XVI in my user space wouldn't be relevant to my work here. If WU wants to write an open letter, he should do it on his hard drive or on a free hosting site, like Yahoo!. If it's a copyvio, then that just makes it worse. The user should be warned to avoid personal attacks, and blocked for 24 hours for disruption if the letter-posting and/or attacks continue. -- Essjay · Talk 22:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Essjay. Some unrelated content, like the pictures people have on their user page are, IMO, fine. An open letter of complaint to the Wikipedia community is fine. Even Cognition's man-beasts, while distasteful, are useful in identifying him/her as a LaRouchie. But open letters to celebrities are not connected to Wikipedia. Of course, if it's a copyvio there's no excuse for it to be there at all. Guettarda 23:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Louis Epstein

Louis Epstein, who has never registered an account but contributes from the fixed IP address 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs), has been using the Lynx browser in Unicode-unsafe mode, damaging pages and sometimes destroying links. [181] [182] In one case, a wrecked interwiki link was subsequently removed. [183] I pointed this out to him at User talk:12.144.5.2#You_need_to_change_your_browser_settings. I am not totally certain as he has had a history of replacing dashes with hyphens, but his edits to Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith [184] [185] [186] strongly suggest that he has not acted on this. I am wondering whether the corruption counts as compromising integrity and seeming to ignore the problem is bad faith, which is the definition of vandalism in Wikipedia. This is a separate issue from his present round of revert warring. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

ProudWHITEIsraeli

• ProudWHITEIsraeli (talk · contribs)

If I came across this chap's edits in the normal course of events I might summarily block him for having an inappropriate username for Wikipedia, or at least have a word with him about engaging in political advocacy (his userpage). However he has made an apparently good faith VfD and this is being taken seriously, and I have taken part in the discussion, so I don't feel comfortable dealing with him as an administrator. But it does seem to me that he probably intends to use Wikipedia as part of some campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Er... good faith nomination? In the nomination, he directly accuses Mustafaa and others of being "racists" (I would block him for that personal attack). His userpage, which I wish you hadn't forced me to read, ew, verifies my worst fears about his motives. The irony is that he is most certainly the racist. Oh well, I guess we're not all Jews this week, maybe we'll be Muslims. --Dmcdevit·t 05:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I think Dmcdevit captured my feeling exactly. I don't know if you could call it a good faith VfD, but if nothing else, someone needs to remove the personal attacks on Mustaafa. I won't do anything, since I don't want to be accused of taking racism personally (again), and I have edited his VfD. But I advise any uninvolved admin to take a look at this. Guettarda 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  Perhaps what I saw was the edited version of the VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  (I'll warn you I just had a run-in with sockpuppets on VfD today, so I may be on high-alert.) But, any account that is created with a throwaway username, makes its first few edits to VfD a contoversial topic and make racist personal attacks, and then makes allusions to Wikipedia's past and familiarity with an established Wikipedian ("it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews") reeks of sockpuppetry. I don't know what conflicts Mustafaa's been in, but this is no newbie. --Dmcdevit·t 06:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely. This guy was obviously a sock puppet. I don't have a problem with socks per se, only abusive socks. The reason I listed this case here is that I'm involved in the VfD discussion so I don't feel that it would be appropriate to deal with this chap myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Plus, sorry to jump in, I think a username change could also be in order. That name will just call for possible accusations of racism against this user. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I would agree with this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was ProudBLACKIsraeli would it have accusations of racism? ‡ Jarlaxle 23:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question yesterday, then speculated that people's opinions would vary. Either would seem disruptive to me. Wyss 00:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• That question is a false dichotomy. ProudWHITEIsraeli is mostly only disruptive in the context of his racist user page, personal attacks and sockpuppetry, not the username. If the hypothetical ProudBLACKIsraeli acted the same, then the same would apply to him. And by the way, ProudWHITEIsraeli is also not accused of racism because of his name, but because of his own words (read the user page, he thiks all Blacks should go back to Africa!). I think either proudWHITEIsraeli (or BLACK) would be an acceptable name if it were in the context of a history of valuable contributions. --Dmcdevit·t 00:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the username itself, to me the all-caps white hints at disruption/confrontation, not editing. Wyss 02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand the argument wrt this guy, but was this appropriate? Has -Ril- been made an admin sometime that I was unaware of? Tomer ^TALK 02:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone should be aware that he is a special kind of sockpuppet, a strawman sockpuppet, and it's pretty clear who the puppetmaster is. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful. That still doesn't deal with my question about the appropriateness of what -Ril- did. Tomer ^TALK 05:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

There. I've undone -Ril- to make clearer my point that what he did was inappropriate. Will an ADMIN now please do the job? Thanks. Tomer ^TALK 05:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was already blocked when I made that edit. I was just removing the racism. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked his new account, User:TelAvivKid, indefinitely, as it's clear he's a disruptive sock puppet, and I believe he's banned user Alberuni. I've left a note on his talk page inviting him to discuss it with me by e-mail if he wants to continue editing. [187] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)