Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive14

It's a Wiki. Update the archive with THOTH's comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for not archive missing material. I sincerely did not notice it. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

FYI, anyone,

Yes, hence the size warning, page will load faster than the user can read it. Material seperation makes points of both parties difficult to follow. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:31, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Powertranz

• 1st revert: 04:08, 31 Mar 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:55, 31 Mar 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:35, 31 Mar 2005
• 4th revert: 22:00, 31 Mar 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has been edit-warring on this page for several days now, first as an anonymous editor, then as Powertranz. Has been reverted by a number of editors, and has engaged in personal attacks in edit summaries[26] and talk page comments.[27] Was clearly warned about the 3RR and likelihood of being blocked.[28]
  • I gave a more explicit warning to the user in case he/she failed to see the one in the edit summary. The user is fairly new so we should assume best intentions. BrokenSegue 23:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a bad assumption, since he's done it twice more after your "more explicit warning":

• 5th revert: 23:55, 31 Mar 2005
• 6th revert: 00:03, 1 Apr 2005

--Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I checked this user's edit history. He continues to violate the 3RR and is also injecting personal insults into his edit summaries. I think he needs a 24-hour cooling-off period. Firebug 02:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed and done BrokenSegue 02:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Identical edits continue from anon. Protected page until they give up and go away. Noel (talk) 13:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide

. Did I do the right thing here?

There is a slow-burning but longstanding content war on this article, characterized mainly by failure of the editors to engage in substantive discussion, and much insulting on either side. Today witnessing yet one more revert of some apparently good faith edits, I protected the changed version in the hope of nudging one of the less cooperative editors into discussing the article instead of just reverting stuff he doesn't like. He now claims that I have abused my admin privileges--a possibility that I accept may be true. I'd appreciate it if some other admins could take a look and see if they agree or disagree with what I did, and perform any further admin edits they believe are necessary. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that short term protection was warranted given the tension between User:Fadix and User:Coolcat. I think that the next step is for the editors of this article to list the points they believe are false or POV. The personal attacks and snide edit summaries should also cease. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you've done anything wrong. This dispute has been brewing for far too long. If you can solve it you earn a barnstar. I've tried to get them talking and failed. Mgm|^(talk) 12:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The edits were not good faith, and I shown you how CLEARLY they were not. You have decided to keep a version by a new alias just regitering to edit it in the way Coolcat wanted it, when the article that was already there was the result of days and days of neutralization and was in the process of further changes in that direction. Your attempt is a clear abuses of power. I suggested you to read the changes and you have even asked me where the mistakes are. The previous version was submitted for comments and peer review AND mediation, but you preffered locking it on a POV oriented version by taking a position for a new dubious alias that landed up in Wikipedia as sole purpouses to edit the article. Fadix 02:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Has Been Hacked

Wikinews has related news:

• Wikipedia victim of onslaught of April Fool's jokes

I just got done reverting some vandalism on the article Homosexuality. For a moment when I went to revert the page and click "edit this page" it said "vandalise this page". Where is that coming from? The "vandalise this page", it appear now to be gone; however, how could it happen? Apollomelos 02:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice today's date? (a sysop was having some fun with MediaWiki:Edit, that's all.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, that is right. Although that may be confusing to those of us where it is still March 31st or unaware of April's Fools Day. Good prank though. :)

Apollomelos 02:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's giving vandals free rein. Somebody changed the Main Page to say that Terri Schiavo died from autofellatio. How do we tell people not to vandalize the encyclopedia when everybody's doing it? RickK 06:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

So that's what it is, I thought that "vandalise this page" was really a hacking attempt. - Yamamoto Ichiro 02:48, 1 Apr 2005

I take that back. This is absurd and damaging now that more users are following example. Having foolish articles on the front page next to serious ones is idiocy. Apollomelos 05:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I liked the takeover by Britannica! --Carnildo 06:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Sneak vandalism everywhere, and it seems like every wikiuser feel they should have their own April Fools prank somewhere. I'm thinking maybe the best joke would be to let wikipedia not be editable today. Use the day to reindex tablebases or whatever it is that a day off can be used constructivly to. Wikipedia should be correct all the year. God knows how long all this misinformation will live on on forgotten pages and various cashes around the net. Shanes 06:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

just block every user involved under this dissrution clause (well it's tempting)Geni 06:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is much more serious (if this is the right word...) then a year ago - see

There's a difference between jokes and vandalism. Sneaky vandalism is an offense no matter what day it is and the Terri/autofellatio wasn't funny. We should make a clear distinction here. Mgm|^(talk) 12:50, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:G Rider (vandal)

Done. — Dan | Talk 02:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, User:GRuder. Please treat similarly. Radiant_* 11:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wierd gremlins

Look at the edit button here, --

Now here too --

April Fool's Day

All right, enough is enough. People are mking too many changes which are going to be difficult to correct once all the "fun and games" have ended. And there are lots of editors who are becoming confused and think we've been hacked. RickK 06:00, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Damn script kiddies! El_C 06:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misspelled! PWNED! PWNED! OMG! :P --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 06:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We *have* been hacked. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, seeing dozens and dozens of April 1st jokes mixed with the usual vandal garbage trickling through during first ten minutes in RC-patrol is not very funny. Even some regular users seem to think they are allowed to commit all kinds of tasteless vandalism today: [29] . jni 08:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately,

dab (ᛏ)

09:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because it's not illegal and it clearly had an educative function when divorced from whatever negative connotations our societies might assign to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

negative? porn making for a substantial part of internet traffic, its connotation is hardly negative. rather, it could only be encyclopedic if its positive fascination was reduced (e.g. by reducing image size!!). Note that I'm not singling out gay porn, I would be just as opposed to hetero porn, it just happens that people insist on uploading gay porn to WP, these days.

dab (ᛏ)

09:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the 'you have new messages' (redirecting to April Fools) note I get on all pages another developer who believes he is funny? Jordi·✆ 11:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive users

Users are removing my edits declaring them as POV. They either have a very twistied mind or I'd love to hear how the picture of the flag of Northern Cyprus is POV oriednted. They also have a tendency to confuse vandalism and POV. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:24, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You may find the flag of Northern Cyprus somewhat controversial because the country is only recognised by Turkey. This is undoubtedly a content dispute. Try to handle such disputes with sensitivity--just because someone disagrees with you, and declares your edits POV, doesn't mean he's being disruptive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Stereotek

User:Stereotek (contribs) is being disruptive. He continiously reverts my edits and declares them POV vandalism as visible in recent conrabutions. Please make him stop. I am sick of my work beeing constantly been reverted, they are welcome to improve, they are not welcome to annoy me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not being disruptive. You are. Latest example of you disruptive behavior is a few hours ago, when you moved a large part of the Abdullah Öcalan article into a template (!). Stereotek 10:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am improving quality, you are only reverting all my work, including spelling corrections are "POV vandalism" for you. (Coolcat 11:41, 1 Apr 2005)

This is addressed to all of you involved in this fuss. Please settle your differences on the talk pages. The only senses in which you are being disruptive are continuing to make personal attacks and spreading your arguments over other pages. Please stop both at once, all of you. If you have a bone to pick about another user's conduct, start a RfC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle

User:Davenbelle (contribs) is being disruptive. He continiously reverts my edits and declares them POV vandalism as visible in recent conrabutions. Please make him stop. I am sick of my work beeing constantly been reverted, they are welcome to improve, they are not welcome to annoy me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 09:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied to User:Coolcat on User talk:Davenbelle 05:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

• You guys are all being disruptive. There's no need to bother everyone by spreading your dispute across every page you can. There's a perfect dispute resolution procedure. Stick with mediation, RfC and RfA. Besides, no one will do anything without diffs to prove allegations. There's too much edits to wade through. Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. Both of you please resolve your personal disputes without trying to get others involved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am editing wikipedia, they are reverting anything and everything I place, they effectively removed me from wikipedia. I shall be gone for a while, hopefully when i return this issue will be properly adressed. I will not be intimidated, if wikipedia cannot protect its users I have no reason to waiste time. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 16:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dispute with Davenbelle seems to be resolved. I am sorry for bothering everyone. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat's new trick

Check-out Abdullah Öcalan — except that most of it's really at Template:Abdullah Öcalan/Abdullah Öcalan (and then there's the part that's at Template:Kurdistan Workers Party/External links) — Davenbelle 11:03, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

First of spell my nick correctly and do not refer to me anyway else than my nick, that is insultive. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isnt wikipedia templates for deletation. I incorporated the material in both articles. This wahy if the template is edited it affects both pages. Prevents inconcistencies. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your disruptive behavior is becoming painfull. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly unorthodox, and and not a use of templates that enjoys much consensus (although a similar occlusion technique, I believe, has been used for different purposes by Cool Hand Luke on an article about the Abu Ghraib abuses.) I'm not even clear why he is doing it this way. If you don't like it, just revert. No reason to come to this page with it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:52, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Some time ago, Coolcat attempted to redirect

Kurdistan Workers Party and this was soundly rejected. Consensus was to retain separate articles, as both are noteworthy in their own right and one is not the other. Your templates are nothing but a way to try to subvert this consensus. -- Curps

11:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By "your templates" I assume you're addressing Coolcat, not me. I agree that he seems to have no consensus for this edit. Ah, the costs of being bold. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Templates been discussed in the proper median, this is not that median. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 22:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nazi attacks on TBSDY

66.193.230.226

Take em down. El_C 11:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Anon is now blocked. Edits reverted. Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Crush by Elephant

Yay, we can finally crush articles with an elephant! Rje 16:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, we vaporize/stun articles, but we can crush miscreants. slambo 17:17, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Martin2000

• Martin2000 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0002 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0003 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0004 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0005 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0006 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0007 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0008 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0009 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0010 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0011 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0012 (talk · contributions)
• Nitram0013 (talk · contributions)

+ various open proxies.

Persistent chap. He seemed to be relatively well behaved until early March, since then he's been extremely disruptive, escalating his misbehavior. He's been edit warring over the placement of a photograph on

• 1 day for wildly excessive reverts
• 1 day for using open proxies to evade an earlier block
• 3 days for sock puppeting, 1 for each of three sock
• 1 day for egregious personal attacks
• 6 days total.

Each time he brings in another sock, the clock is reset and he gets another day added to the block period (I've decided to stop adding more when we get to 14days, and now we're at 13 days).

As before, socks (the pattern is Nitram00XX for some value from 02 upwards) are blocked indefinitely on sight.

I invited him to email me when I first blocked him. No response.

There's also a RFC.

In short, he seems to think of Wikipedia as a place like Usenet, and rules as unwanted encumbrances.

I suppose at some point arbcom will have to take a look at this mess. Meanwhile I'd appreciate some feedback from other admins. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I support your decision. It may be hard work to keep an eye on him, but using sockpuppets is making it clear he's editing in bad faith and he's had his chance to discuss. A good faith editor takes his block with honor and doesn't try to circumvent it. Mgm|^(talk) 19:56, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• He has said to bring it up on the admin board and get a consensus there. We're all agreed here, plus every admin who's participated on the page or commented on the RfC (at least seven so far) thinks Martin is out of line. Anybody want to break the news to him that we have the consensus he asked for? --Michael Snow 21:10, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The hysterical thing about all of this is the fact that he could easily drum up some support for his viewpoint by going through the proper procedures (listing on rfc, etc.). He's just annoying people now. Gamaliel 22:06, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Newbie mistakes are one thing, but there's no excuse once you've been told that your behavior is unacceptable. Sockpuppeting to get around blocks is not cool, and abusing other editors is worse. Isomorphic 22:38, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• he's up to twenty now.Geni 22:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• From what I've read today about this issue, it appears that every effort has been made to address the issue in a more reasonable manner with the user in question. I have not seen any substantial replies or attempts to work toward a resolution from the user, and I have no arguments with the proposed solutions. slambo 00:20, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

All of the pages he was edit warring on have been protected, so I've unblocked him for now. This will give him a chance to respond to the RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Madchester

Madchester (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:47, 2005 Mar 31 result
• 2nd revert: 01:03, 2005 Apr 1 result
• 3rd revert: 04:18, 2005 Apr 1 result
• 4th revert: 17:40, 2005 Apr 1 result

Reported by: Netoholic @ 17:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Comments:

• Madchester has reverted quite often lately, and multiple people. Seems to aggressively be taking too much ownership of the article. On this day, there have been four straight-up reverts (still checking for any subtle ones). -- Netoholic @ 17:56, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
  • He broke the rule by 7 minutes. Oh well blocked for 7 hoursGeni 18:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Fort Bleakeley vandal

An anon created a hoax article at Fort Bleakeley, which was listed on VfD. From that point on, the user, using a variety of anonymous IDs, repeatedly vandalized the article, talking about how smart they were, and how they've added more hoaxes to the encyclopedia which nobody is going to find. I blocked those IDs, and I have now received three proud, boastful postings on my Talk page: --RickK 20:08, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fort Bleakeley II

Hello Rick. Your ban didn't work. Why not try it again? Ban and ban and ban, I've still got tricks up my sleeve. See you around. --VANDAL!!! 10:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A Letter to the Wikipedians

To the Wikipedians, and especially Plek and RickK, who have been so kind and welcoming to me these past days, I have a message for you. Read and understand this whole letter from top to bottom, for it is essential in knowing what will happen:

KNOWETH AND UNDERSTANDETH YE THE FOLLOWING MEN BY THEIR PRESENTS:

I, Jake Bell, 17, resident of New York, U.S. of America, wish to thank ye for your generosity and hospitality that ye haveth extended the past few days to me:

I thank ye especially for removing the Fort Bleakeley and other articles, and for not removing the real articles - the red herrings I put out.

However, since ye did not heed mine advice, since ye did not treat me properly, and since I have run out of hoaxes (Plek found them ALL!!!), I shall unleash a plague of 7 hoaxes among ye this time next weeke.

Ye shall find these hoaxes and eliminate them, as ye are supposed to. However these hoaxes will be among true articles; Ye must not destroy the true articles. Discern well. There will be only seven (7) hoaxes.

These hoaxes shall be submitted by different aliases of mine. Ye know some of them already. Ye must be very discerning and pick out only those men who are identities of mine. Do not apprehend the innocent - they have nothing to do with this.

That be all. If ye haveth problems, ye may call your head to assist ye.

Be careful.

Most sincerely, Jake0618 11:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, this is going to be so much fun!

P.S. Spread the word.

I'm back

: Really, pal, I don't see the point in banning me. I'll keep coming back anyway. And stop calling me a vandal. I don't vandalize articles. --Jake105021 11:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Submitting hoax articles is also considered vandalism as it disrupts Wikipedia. Why not be productive and stop creating hoaxes? Mgm|^(talk) 21:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pelican shit is back too. Yea, though the wicked Pharisees do continually hide the pelican shit under the Holy Altar of the Delete, yet doth the Great Google see the same even there and shareth it with the unwashed multitudes! (Heavydooty 08:53, 2 Apr 2005)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Our ultimate goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge in a way that is factually accurate and espouses the neutral point of view. We'd very much like it if you joined us and helped the encyclopedia along in its goals.
Alternatively, if you prefer acting like a five-year old and have us waste time on undoing your defacement, time we could have been spending on improving the encyclopedia, that's fine as well. Don't expect any sort of satisfaction from anyone but yourself in your juvenile craving for attention, though, and don't expect us to indulge you. Unwashed we may be, but all of us can at least claim to have advanced humanity, in whatever a small and trivial way, by contributing to this project. I could hold a straw poll among our readers, but I doubt they'd say the same about you. JRM 11:53, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

what jerks... also the NY kid would do well brushing up his Early Modern English to sound less like an idiot.

(1)I am a member of advanced human society and (2)I am currently on leave from work. Put 2 and 2 (or rather 1 and 2) together and you get (3) a very bored member of advanced human society who has no means of expressing his frustration except by letting it out on the Wikipedians. My Old English may sound funny, but you cannot deny the extent of my knowledge and vocabulary. I know Latin, English, German, Italian, and Spanish. Greetings to all. Who knows? I might be a five-year old after all. Pretty childish, ain't it? I invite you to a discussion at my talk page at Vos conclavo. If you don't come, maybe I might change my mind about not unleashing my hoaxes on WP. Bye 84.154.115.79 13:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame. That is all. Inter\^Echo 13:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In light of the situation, I feel the need to repent for what I have done. I take back all the hoaxes and other sorts of vandalism that I have committed in the past four days. I am sincerely sorry for all this. To all who have been troubled by me, please forgive me. That is all I ask. 84.154.103.46 21:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Earl Andrew

• 1st revert: 21:52, 1 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:35, 1 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:33, 1 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 0:29, 1 Apr 2005

Reported by: User:Gmaxwell 22:09, 1 Apr 2005

Comments:

• Earl says "how dare you take off 2 hours of my wasted time!" I think that says it all. Consensus on talk page says some content he wrote is nonsense and it should be removed. He keeps readding it. I picked 4 edits at random, I could have picked about twice that number. When it started I tried pointing out on his talk page that your content will get edited, even removed, on wikipedia, but I only got vitriol in return. Pay attention to the date.Gmaxwell 22:08, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh please... the page is total nonsense. I should not be repremended for that. I have some lingering edits that need to be updated such as 2005 World Women's Curling Championship and what not. This is a blatant act of Wiki-bullying, and I do not like it. I *hope* that this is just a cruel April Fool's Joke. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Going by his user contibutions Earl_Andrew claims to have reverted at least 4 time blocked for 24 hoursGeni 22:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User:Earl_Andrew pulled his block himself after about five minutesGeni 09:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geni, this is getting beyond a joke. Blocking a user for reverting that article is like blocking a person for reverting the Sandbox. A bit of common sense in situations like this would go a long way, instead of your seeming hard-line self-appointed 3RR Warrior status. The only bad thing I can see that Earl Andrew did was to unblock himself prematurely. But had he come to me, or a majority of the other admins, I'm almost certain he would have been unblocked just as swiftly. - Mark 10:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No there is a specific excemption for the sandbox (and a few other articles under the maintenance clause). I can't find anything for april fools day jokes. This is not the first edit war on what many view as a non serious page and I doubt it will be the last. You accuse me of being hard line. Do you remeber whqat this rule was like in the early days? It almost reached the point of being "do not make more than 4 edits to a contiversal article in a 24 hour peroid". You think I'm pretty sure the block would have been puleed by other admins if they were asked (so far I have had only one case where I blocked an admin and they were not unblocked either by themselves or others). Are yoiu suggesting that the 3 revert rule should not apply to silly pages? If so could you provide a defintion of silly pages that will not result in people trying to game it (and obtain some kind of consesus for it)? I mean what if there was a 3RR violation on exploding whale? In the end I am trying to inforce policy. If you don't like it get it chagedGeni 11:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lets put some perspective on this. This article is a joke that has no bearing on the greater functioning of this encyclopedia. This is not

Terri Schiavo or even Exploding whale. As there are no facts in this article, 4 reverts can't really be that bad. Burgundavia

11:34, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Geni, I recognise that the

BJAODN

. Would a revert war about what to include warrant a block for 3RR violation?

Yes (although it migh be suggested that that could be clasified under mercy)Geni 13:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for remembering what the "early days" were like, yes I do remember what the rule was like (although the rule could hardly be considered to come from the early days of Wikipedia). Not only was it not a hard-and-fast rule ("In the case of edit wars on important pages, users are sometimes blocked"), but it was not specified whether the four reverts had to occur in a 24-hour period, or one UTC day. The situation was significantly different to now and does not bear comparison.

I was refuring to the situation shortly after admins were given the power to block for 3RR violationsGeni 13:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not proposing a change in the wording of the policy. I am merely advocating an exercise of discretion. You know, the thing which allowed you to block the user above for 7 hours for a 7 minute violation. You already use sysop discretion – it is not codified but it is implicit: "[A]fter your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." So not only do you have the discretion not to block, but if you do decide to block you can do so for a very short period of time as well. By using common sense in determining whether to block, situations like this can be avoided. Specifics about 'silly pages' do not need to be incorporated into the policy wording. - Mark 12:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try and keep the role of admin discression to a minium. Remember that one cuts both ways both ing reducing any penitaly and in people starting to talk about the spirit of the rule and blocking for things that are not 3 revert violations. This case involves a user who is aware of policy (well I assume all admins are) and who clearly violated the rule. That rules out the areas in which I normaly excersise discression. This does not say that other admins have to accept my descision. If you look at the standard note I leave on people's talk pages I remind people that they can appeal to other admins (an option I wish more would take).Geni 13:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality

• 1st revert: 00:14, 1 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:49, 1 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:02, 1 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 03:52, 1 Apr 2005
• 5th revert: 04:59, 1 Apr 2005

Reported by: 24.245.12.39 05:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Non-vandalism reverts: removed clarification of primary source and statement of significance of alleged claim based on article definition (
  Terri Schiavo#Schiavo's condition: "they are unresponsive to external stimuli, except, possibly, painful stimuli"). --24.245.12.39
  05:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Went on to block me for 24 hrs for my part in this (3RR violation) without warning (24.245.12.39). I have done my time. I would ask the same of him in accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "In the cases where multiple parties violate the rule, sysops should treat all sides equally." --24.245.12.39 05:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I note his further violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." --24.245.12.39 05:10, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I blocked him for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. SWAdair | Talk 11:00, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • SWAdair, where did you find 4 reverts by Neutrality in that history? Did you look at them? I find only one "simple" revert in that list of 5, which is number 3. While there is clearly a content dispute between 24.245.12.39 and Neutrality concerning this topic, and Neutrality doesn't show much regard for his/her edits when making his own, I don't see any way that edits 1,2,4,5 in the list above can be called "reverts". --BM 01:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nah, those are all reverts all right, but Neutrality has apologized privately and said he will not revert again, which is generally good enough for me to overturn a first offense, especially when the user is unaware that partial reverts count as reverts. Mind you, I think it's absolutely hilarious that he didn't know partial reverts count as reverts, but still. Snowspinner 03:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

• First offense? He didn't know? Are you kidding? -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
  • If there's a previous 3RR block for Neutrality that I should be aware of, please point me towards it. As for not knowing, I am generally willing to accept that people are not aware of the fact that partial reverts count as reverts. It's after they've been told that that I'm unwilling to unblock. Snowspinner 16:42, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Come on, Snow, I'm certainly not an advocate for Neutrality, and like many others I think he often plays a little loose with his admin powers, esepcially for someone who is an Arbitrator. But those edits aren't reverts. This "complex revert" thing is going way too far. The editing was hot and heavy on that article, and many people were rewriting, adding, removing, keeping some of the previous editors' material, discarding or rewriting other parts, in quick succession. That wasn't reverting in my book. That was editing. If you disagree, then please explain to me, in detail, how even one of those five edits, apart from number 3, was a revert by your lights. --BM 13:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All of them deleted the same sentence, regarding why the AHHH WAHHH utterance was evidence that she was not in a PVS. Snowspinner 16:42, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

A "revert" is where the article is returned, either directly or in effect, to a previous state, and that is not what was happening in any of these edits, except one. Except in one case these weren't reverts. Even if one repeatedly removes one particular sentence (which is not the only thing that was being in done in most of these edits), those are not reverts, as long as other parts of the article are changing (other than changes intended only as window-dressing to hide reverts). For example, in the sequnce:

1. add sentence X
2. remove sentence X (this is a revert)
3. add sentence X again (a revert, restores article to previous state)
4. add sentence Y
5. remove sentence X (not a revert, because of intervening Y, the state with Y alone has not existed in the history before)
6. Y (this is a revert, because it restores the article to a previous state).

These kind of sequences may be edit warring, depeding on the content, but they are not reverts. 3RR is a rule against reverts, and it should not be stretched to entrench particular sentences. If someone wants to accuse of Neutrality of edit-warring, he should take it to the ArbComm and Neutrality can recuse himself again (does he ever get to actually vote on any ArbComm cases?), but not all edit-warring is a violation of the 3RR and no amount of stretching of the "complex revert" concept can make it so. --BM 18:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert seems to disagree. Snowspinner

19:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Now why couldn't I find that earlier when I was looking for it? (And I'm sure I've read it before, too.) Thanks, and I take back what I said about the lack of definition. Alai 21:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm more concerned here about the apparent total confusion as to definition and policy, than the particular instance (on which I think we can assume Neutrality was acting in good faith, if not to say perhaps as bemused as I). Snowspinner seems to be flat-out asserting that "partial reverts" count as reverts for the 3RR, and BM seems equally certain they don't. The 3RR itself defines neither "complex" or "partial" reverts, so I'm none the wiser. Alai 18:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"partial" reverts are not allowed if they add up to the equiverlent of a revert."complex" reverts are not allowed when they are being used to game the systemGeni 19:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's generally referred to as a "partial revert" would seem to be covered by

Wikipedia:Revert#More general reverts. A "complex revert" seems to generally be used to the "how", rather than the "what" of a revert... Alai

21:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Revert is not an official policy. While it is in Category:Policies and guidelines, it has not been through any process to establish whether it commands consensus. I, for one, reject the notion that a "partial revert" is a revert for the purposes of the 3RR. The article itself has only about 5 editors in all, and there is no discussion whatsoever on the Talk page. So, Alai, you can go back to your original position that what counts as a revert is vague. --BM

01:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can reject what you like; revert is a clear explanation of the issue, as understood by the people who voted on the 3RR. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

it has not been through any process to establish whether it commands consensus: "[Wikipedia] is not a democracy" - Jimbo Wales. Noel (talk) 01:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality is one of the worst POV-pushing offenders on the Terri_Schiavo article, ruthlessly pushing the POV which he shares with TheCustomOfLife and several others. After TheCustomOfLife broke the 3RR rule with four full reverts in less than 12 hours, to push their shared POV, and was blocked for 12 hours (why only 12?), Neutrality immediately unblocked him. So Neutrality isn't always the person who does the reverts, sometimes he just protects those who do the reverts that he agrees with, so that they needn't worry about being blocked. Neutrality is abusing his Arbitrator position to protect his ally's ability to break the rules and ensure that the article is heavily POV biased. IMO, Neutrality has proven himself unworthy of being an Arbitrator. NCdave 21:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The 12 hours was becuase it had taken a day for the case to be addressedGeni 23:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Itai

• 1st revert: 11:28, 2005 Apr 1
• 2nd revert: 04:10, 2005 Apr 2
• 3rd revert: 10:33, 2005 Apr 2
• 4th revert: 10:52, 2005 Apr 2

Reported by: Netoholic @ 18:54, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Comments:

• Here we are again. This is the fourth 3RR violation I've reported about him regarding these templates. If anyone would like to co-sign an RFC, let me know... this is long overdue regarding Itai's behavior. His only activity on Wikipedia for the last couple months has been warring over these templates. -- Netoholic @ 18:54, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 19:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC

• 1st revert: 03:13, 2 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:53, 2 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:21, 2 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 22:10, 2 Apr 2005
• 5th revert: 23:45, 2 Apr 2005

Reported by:

Comments:

• It pains me to use this rule that I disagree with, but TDC is a problem user. He has been reverting against the rest of us on
  Chamaeleon
  01:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I've blocked TDC for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. One of his edit summaries leads me to believe this is probably not the end: "well, someone had best protect this page becasue it's time for an edit war". Carbonite | Talk 02:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before Vile Triga

Before Vile Triga turns up asking for a block. You'll not that it has deleted 3 VfD and the last one was a {{delete}}. The admin is dishonest and manipulative and also cannot count. --Jirate 12:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

It also appears that it has now reverted 4 times on it's user page. So according to the rules she should be blocked.--Jirate 12:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

hm, what? who is 'it'?

dab (ᛏ)

13:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

never mind, I checked your talkpage. you've chosen an appropriate username. what gall, you vamdalise somebody's userpage, and then come here calling 3RRvio? Maybe you need a short block for vandalism, then?

dab (ᛏ)

13:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't vandlise. I put in a {{VFD}} which was removed and then a {{delete}} that is not vandalism, and according to the rules of 3RR VileTriga should be blocked, end of story. It the kind of logic vile triga uses herself, excepting that in this case 4 reverts does break the rules, were as she just normally lies. I think you need to have you admin rights remmoved for that last comment. Oh but of course the clique will protect you, wont it.--Jirate 13:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Irate, stop vandalising and calm down. Others, see also

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Irate_vs_User:violetriga_et_al. — Matt Crypto

13:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to distort a username in this manner or to refer to another editor as "it". If you are unsure of an editor's gender, reword the sentence, use "he", or use "they". Please keep discussions civil. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Matt Crypto

This user has tekn to going around making personal attacks upon me, whilst removing things it claims are personal attacks on others. It then goes on to reinstate personal attacks upon me.--Jirate 13:56, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

LOL ;-) I challenge you to cite one personal attack that I've made against you. Again, Irate, I suggest you take a break from Wiki for an hour or so, and cool down. — Matt Crypto 13:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WHat you have written here is a personal attack. "Irate, stop vandalising and calm down." is a personal attack, "User:violetriga_et_al", is a personal attack. --Jirate 14:04, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

No, that was a request -- you'd listed someone's user page for deletion and called them "scum": that was a personal attack. There's a difference. — Matt Crypto 14:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More of your dishonesty or is it stupidity?--Jirate 14:10, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

What dishonesty? — Matt Crypto 14:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're called "statement of facts" where I come from. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your attacks on me a real, that you keep denying them is the dsihonesty.--Jirate 14:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Are you that badly in need of a dictionary, that you don't seem to understand the meanings of simple concepts such as "personal attack", "vandalism", "statement of facts", and "dishonesty"? And while you've got that dictionary open, look up "self-centred" and "solipicism" "solipsism". --Calton | Talk 14:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what a personal attack is. — Matt Crypto 14:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too both of you. I doubt you actually know the meaning of the words yourself, mearly the spelling, your just assume you on the side of right, because your you. I suggest you look up the words sophistry, disengenious and manipulative.--Jirate 14:24, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

mearly the spelling. Okay, that was funny. So in other words, Humpty Dumpty, you have no idea what those big words mean and how people use them. --Calton | Talk 14:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know perfetly well what they mean unlike you. --Jirate 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

quite funny, actually, since it's really solipsism, Calton :o)

Dbachmann

14:43, 3 Apr 2005

D'oh! --Calton | Talk 07:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence suggests that you don't use the phrase "personal attack" like anyone else does on Wikipedia. Seriously, though, if you're feeling very angry (or intoxicated) or whatever, just take a break for an hour or two. Otherwise you'll regret your actions later. — Matt Crypto 14:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And the 10+ users on your RfC? I suppose they were all VioletRiga's cronies, too, eh? (And why can't they be my cronies? I want cronies!) — Matt Crypto 14:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And as a percentage of users 10 is nothing, but the again why represent the facts with any itegrity, you haven't done it before.--Jirate 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

"Integrity": another word you can't spell or understand. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh? The fact that 10+ users responded critically, and none defended you, gives some evidence about the feelings of the community as a whole. You're out of line, and I strongly doubt that you'd find anyone here to support your behaviour. — Matt Crypto 14:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cronies? Are they anything like an entourage? I've always wanted one of those. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocking Jirate

Between his User Page vandalizations, fake VfDs, and for being a general PITA, an administrator should block this guy until he gets over his temper tantrum. Hell, it might improve his spelling. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block him Block him, no the bombadier.--Jirate 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

User:Violetriga

• 1st revert: 12:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 12:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 12:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 12:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reported by: Mark 15:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user reverted his or her own user page 4 times. I refuse to block him or her as a result of this, for 2 reasons: this was in the user's own user space, and the reversions were of VfDing of the user page, which can be construed as a personal attack, vandalism or disruption. I am listing it here on the demand for fairness by User:Irate who I blocked for 3RR on the VfD page for this user's user page. Upon being insulted by User:Irate in IRC, I felt I had become too involved in the situation to make an unbiased decision, and so I list this user here for the consideration of the other admins. - Mark 15:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• you mean Irate's User page was put on VfD? Why was that? I don't think anybody was ever blocked for reverting their own user page, and that's as it should be.
  dab (ᛏ)
  15:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I see, Irate was blocked for reverting the VfD page of vr's user page [30]. If Irate continues his behaviour (running amok all over Wikipedia), I think he should be warned and blocked as a vandal.
    dab (ᛏ)
    15:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I would certainly consider another user placing a VfD or speedy delete notice on my user page to be vandalism. Violetriga may revert such vandalism without violating the 3RR. I would also note that User:Irate is dangerously close to violating the 3RR on the page in question. Carbonite | Talk 15:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The 3RR explicitly does not apply to vandalism. I would think that spitefully adding a deletion notice to someone's legitimate user page (with the linked page reading "This user is a dishonest and manipulative peice of scum and should be purged from the system") is clearly vandalism. (Bias warning: I'm a disputant with User:Irate). — Matt Crypto 15:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Matt Crypto

• 1st revert: 1:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 1:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 1:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 2:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reported by: Mark 15:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user reverted the VfD page made by User:Irate of the user page of the above-listed user. His first reverts were removing "This user is a dishonest and manipulative peice of scum and should be purged from the system.", which was placed by User:Irate, and replacing it with "[personal attack removed by [[User:Matt Crypto]]]." His fourth reversion was of a message he had placed on the page saying "Please don't delete this; it will be used in an Arbitration case. Thanks.", since another user had stumbled onto the page and listed it as a candidate for speedy deletion. As with the above-listed user, I refuse to block this user. His first 3 reversions were made in good faith, removing a personal attack against a third party. I have listed this here for the consideration of the other admins in an effort to remain balanced and fair. - Mark 15:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The 3RR does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism. Please read through User:Irate's contrib history and the evidence from the RFC/arbitration case against him/her. jni 15:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't believe he should be blocked for removing personal attacks like this. BrokenSegue 16:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• even I wouldn't block for this.Geni 16:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Reponse: 1) The first edit wasn't a revert, it was a vanilla edit (removing a personal attack). 2) The 3 rollbacks I used were distributed over two bits of text (a restoration of "please don't delete this" and the personal attack removal) 3) I interpret Irate's removal of the "please don't delete this" sign as vandalism -- not covered by 3RR. (I'd like to note that I deliberately asked on IRC for assistance on this page, rather than reverting past the 3RR limit). — Matt Crypto 16:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Irate's whole "delete User:violet riga" campaign was so far out of line that it's just a waste of electrons to bring its repercussions up on this page.
  dab (ᛏ)
  16:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say it falls under "disrupting Wikipedia", actually. Irate should be given a one-week block, they should know better. Noel (talk) 16:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • he seems to have stopped right now, but I would support warning him, and blocking as soon as he recommences.
      dab (ᛏ)
      16:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • He's blocked for 24 hours (until 14:37 4 April) for his 3RR violation on the VfD page. I agree that he should be warned and blocked without delay if starts disrupting again. Carbonite | Talk 16:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes I should point out that it was me who blocked User:Irate in the first place, for his very own 3RR violation. - Mark 16:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Actually upon re-examination, the first revert is arguably not a revert anyway (since it was the first change the user made) - although I am not too sure about this. - Mark 16:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Even if the 3RR were in question, he checked on IRC before taking any action, and his actions, from what I've seen on IRC and through a debate with User:Irate have been nothing but above-board. Koi 16:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:70.146.199.113/User:70.146.198.208 engaging in "Javier Solana is the Beast" vandalism and reversion

• 1st revert: 04:13, 3 Apr 2005 (by 70.146.198.208)
• 2nd revert: 15:29, 3 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:32, 3 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 15:33, 3 Apr 2005

Reported by: Alai 16:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm going out on a limb here are suggesting that these two users are the same person, with a dynamic IP address, given the similarity of the IPs. And that's not even counting the other anons making the same vandalistic reverts. First edit is a substantial revert, with the addition of a wholly inappropriate comment; the other three are pure reverts. Alai 16:47, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both BELLSOUTH.NET INC from Atlanta according to my IP locator. 70.146.199.113 vandalsied 2 User pages by dumping beastified Solana text. All the Solana modifications were pure vandalism, the most common vandalism to hit this article, whioch is one of the most vandalised at wikipedia. Someone from Washington state I believe, 65.4.16.57, had just finisherd vandalising the article in exactly the same way when this character appeared. Please put

• I warned the .113 user on 15:37 UTC, and he hasn't made any edit since. Please wait for another vandalistic edit, then block for vandalism without further warning.
  dab (ᛏ)
  17:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I suggest this be extended to similar vandalisation in similar IP ranges? Alai 18:25, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is a persistent target of loonies. I have protected it for the moment - it's been around for a while, so it should be in good shape, a spell of quiet will do us all good. Noel (talk) 17:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:JakeGHz

After leaving

blocked for now.Geni 21:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just to let you know: I was logged into Jake's account to change the password at the time of the blocking and got hit by an IP block when I attempted to edit this page to confirm it. Hope you don't mind me unblocking my IP. Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

can't see any reason why anyone shouldGeni 22:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, but it's probably easiest for all involved simply to change the password once it becomes generally known. Anyone, not merely an admin, can do this. The person changing the password can put up a notice on the user page informing everyone involved that the password is no longer public. This would also clear up the blocklist and leave a little less work for admins. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 17:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree it's just that I wanted to shut down the account quickly (requests on this board can often take some time to be delt with) and didn't want to log outGeni 17:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Corax

• 1st revert: 07:35, Apr 3, 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:09, Apr 3, 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:20, Apr 3, 2005
• 4th revert: 08:45, Apr 3, 2005
• 5th revert: 08:58, Apr 3, 2005
• 6th revert: 17:06, Apr 3, 2005
• 7th revert: 17:43, Apr 3, 2005
• 8th revert: 18:21, Apr 3, 2005

Reported by: Davenbelle 22:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Talk:North American Man-Boy Love Association and Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#NAMBLA. Page now protected by Silsor (see m:The Wrong Version). User:Corax also expressed displeasure by vandalising my user page. — Davenbelle
  22:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hoursGeni 22:44, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a sec - why wasn't Adam Carr blocked as well? 5 reverts between 03:29 and 04:53 on 4/3/2005. Rhobite 01:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I verified this, so Adam will be treated equally to Corax. [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] silsor 18:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

(sorry, Adam — Davenbelle 18:32, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC))