Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive34

Contents: July 5, 2005 - July 10, 2005

User:Willy on Wheels

Apparently someone took it upon themselves to become the central bank for Wikimoney. I'm not sure if this is best understood as a joke that isn't funny, a math project gone wrong, or what. I blocked the account indefinitely, based on

Works for me. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 21:59 (UTC)

And now we have a sock; apparently the perpetrator was wise enough not to attempt a logged-in edit and so trigger the autoblocker. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

Um, I think this was kind of just a game people were playing, a system of rewards or something like that. It seems harmless, and maybe beneficial if it boosts morale. Everyking 5 July 2005 22:26 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't see why a separate account is needed for this sort of thing. Mackensen (talk) 5 July 2005 22:30 (UTC)

Did it really hurt anything though? It's sad that the first reaction to a bit of harmless nonsense is to block it.

Yes, I agree other than the m:Role account. I would suggest that whoever founded the bank move it to their userspace and run it there, under their real username or at least a sockpuppet created that only they use. Other "employees" (if it is a shared account) should not use the same account, but instead either create sockpuppets to work at the bank, or use their own accounts. You (Talk) July 5, 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Now there's a User:Bank of Wikipedia Employee5, just thought I'd point that out. You (Talk) July 5, 2005 22:34 (UTC)

I will leave it up to others to block this account if they see fit. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Hmm... As long as these employee accounts are each used by only a single person (being a newbie admin I have no experience in determining that, also I am not referring to a single person using multiple "bank employee" accounts) I feel that they should be allowed to operate since (someone correct me if I'm wrong) I don't see how they violate the sockpuppet policy, nor any other. You (Talk) July 5, 2005 22:43 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Usernames. That username makes it look like it's somehow an "official" account. --cesarb

5 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

I've blocked. Snowspinner July 5, 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Uh, it was a game of nomic from what I can tell. --SPUI (talk) 6 July 2005 00:01 (UTC)

As a block is clearly supported by policy in this case, The Uninvited was within his rights, but I can't help but feel that starting a conversation with the user first might have been, um, nicer. It has to be remembered that being blocked is not a nice feeling, many good editors have left the project over blocks where, in truth, they were acting in good faith. Not everyone is familiar with every Wikipedia policy, (especially those found on meta). Pointing out that he was commiting a blockable offense, and giving him some options, such as creating another account with a subpage, etc., would have worked just as well. func(talk) 6 July 2005 02:05 (UTC)

Point taken. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 6 July 2005 15:55 (UTC)

We are not acting neither in good nor in bad faith. We are a Bank , not a church. If you dont like our name you should say so one month before, when we choosed it. Coming after one month and a half, after all this job we have done, and claiming that our name or that our purpose is illegal according to YOUR rules, this is at least vulgar and hypocritical. Of course we know that you have both the knife and the melon, and you are using violence to succeed in your evil goals. This is the only reason we want to negotiate with you. We accept you to change our name from "Bank of Wikipedia" to "BoW Bank". Please, ask a administrator to do this change, whithout affecting our bank's accounts, files and transactions. Bank of Wikipedia Employee6 8 July 2005 08:53 (UTC)

The issue isn't your strange game so much as the role accounts being employed for it - please use your main accounts. Snowspinner July 8, 2005 11:48 (UTC)

My Main account was "Bank of Wikipedia"! Now my main account is "Bank of Wikipedia Employee7". I have no other account. Bank of Wikipedia Employee7 9 July 2005 08:06 (UTC)

I've blocked employee 6 as well in this same vein as employee 5 was blocked. Sjakkalle (Check!) 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

Bank of Wikipedia Employee7 - (contribs) vandalised my user page and talk page. Hadal kindly rv'd them for me, and has such, blocked the account. <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Question since User:Bank of Wikipedia is indefinately blocked, can the user page be protected to alleviate vandalism? <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Well, if anyone was wondering what happened to User:Iasson, I guess you have your answer. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

There was never any evidence, other than remotely similar style of writing, that this was ever User:Iasson. The Bank of Wikipedia was quite harmless and I am both surprised and disappointed with the approach taken in banning this account. Bahn Mi 9 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)

I wish I could say it surprised me... Everyking 9 July 2005 17:14 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Calton is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. As well, we should have as a courtesy made an attempt to contact the account holder before blocking, since there wasn't any apparent vandalism or destruction going on.

That said, blocking the accounts as m:role accounts seems to be perfectly reasonable. The usernames are also a violation of policy—they imply that they operate under some sort of official sanction or imprimatur. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 9 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I think Calton is jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. Other than the fractured English, obscure self-made rules, raging about a Cabal, use of consecutively numbered/named sockpuppets, and logging in from a Greek IP, no, I guess there's little resemblance to Iasson. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I am the legitimate owner of the account "Bank of Wikipedia". If you doubt about it, unblock "Bank of Wikipedia" account and I will confirm my claim, as long as I know the password. "Bank of Wikipedia" was my unique account, and now it is this one, I have no other. I want to negotiate with you. If you think that my name is sort of official sanction or imprimatur, I accept you to change my name to "BoW Bank" (also please transfer all transactions from my old account to the new one). I think this is a fair solution to the impramatur problem, although I still wonder why this problem occured now and not one month and a half ago, when I choosed this nickname. Bank of Wikipedia Employee11 23:38, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

So, wait, you never actually did anything but play Nomic on Wikipedia? Oh, well in that case, stop wasting our time. Snowspinner 16:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Our goal is not to play Nomic on Wikipedia! We are a Nomic Bank, and our goal is to convince wikipedians, without using any kind of direct ot indirect violence, that our coins have real value, they are credible and they can be used here as a medium of exchange. BoW Bank 21:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually let's not do that. I DO think we should have a wikinomic, maybe at

wikicities? Just not here. :-) Don't forget to invite me! Kim Bruning

00:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikicities is not a place to send banned users. Angela. 07:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Due to the recent ban, we tried to move to wikicities. Unfortunately the wikicities admins are also possessed by the same kind of hate that the wikipedian admins have, they also have the same strange and false belief that we are someone else. Thats too bad. This is a message to all our trusted employees, and to all our customers. We are searching for another place to host our nomic bank. All propositions are welcome. BoW Bank 15:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see that this foolishness has finally been brought to an end. Bank of Wikipedia indeed! And with such rules! Hah! James Bell 23:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid not! Our Bank still operates, under a brand new name (BoW Bank). All trusted employees have been transfered there and they continue their work and their support to the Bank and to its customers. Would you like an account too? BoW Bank 13:39, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked User:BoW Bank as an unsanctioned role account. This user claims to be User:Bank of Wikipedia, who has already been blocked for the same reason. Carbonite | Talk 13:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

While we're keeping up to date on this, the account is confirmed as Iasson. Snowspinner 14:25, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• If that is the case, then I beleive Iasson's block should be extended to one year from today. Its not written into the arbcom ruling, but I beleive that it is standard practice. Thryduulf 15:52, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Out of curiosity, how was it confirmed? (If we're trying to protect our detection methods, 'a developer said so' is a valid answer.) If we are sure it's Iasson, then extension of the ban should probably be a Request for Clarification over at RFArb. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It edits from the same IP range as Iasson in a style that is sufficiently similar. Snowspinner 17:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just deleted User talk talk:Bank of Wikipedia, which had been created by an anon IP with a cut-and-paste of an old version of User talk:Bank of Wikipedia. The deleted page was mis-named and a duplicate stripped of the original's page history. CDC (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have made a request for clarification regarding Iasson's ban at
  WP:RFAr. Thryduulf
  19:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• employee14 blocked as a reincarnation of a banned user. Does this sequence of numbered Employee's remind anyone else of user:Sjorford/Playpen#It's the Faethon Family Smile-Time Variety Hour!? ;) Thryduulf 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh no, not again. Is Iasson using public passwords for these accounts? --Deathphoenix 01:45, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I haven't checked, and am not inclined to on the blocked accounts (even though I could unblock myself, I don't really wnat to have to). If I remember I'll check if he pops up again. Thryduulf 07:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • We are not public accounts, our password is private. But all our employees are using the SAME password which is only known to the trusted ones. You can find only ONE numbered Employee active in the same time, and it is often the one having the bigest number. If a false bank employee appears, we change our number to a greater number, to overcome him. In the future, and if false employees abuse us, we will use a public key infrastacture, to safely separate the true employees from the false ones. You can distinguish our active employee from his dress code, he always wear costume. If you ask him to tell you his name, he always follow a name convention, and this is "BoW Bank EmployeeXX". BoW Bank Employee15 11:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Oh yeah, you are definitely Iasson. --Deathphoenix 11:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
        • Maybe you could get some kind of official sanction for your bank? I'm not sure how you would go about that, though. I suppose we could have a vote on whether to have a bank. Everyking 11:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
        • I blocked employee15 as a reincarnation of a blocked user... Ferkelparade π 12:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
        • No. 16 blocked to. Willy on Wheels involved in this? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:35, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

No one known as Iasson is at our bank, but we have employed our newest recruit. BoW Bank Employee16 12:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure. No one known as Iasson is employed at the bank. We are only the Bank's trusted employees and nobody else. We need a lawyer to help us through this problem. BoW Bank Employee27 13:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

27 blocked. --Kbdank71 13:54, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

netoholic impostor

Someone created an obvious netoholic impostor account, User:Netoholic (used to vote in Uncle G's rfa). The vote was reverted, but noone's done anything about the impostor account yet as far as I know. -- Rick Block (talk) July 6, 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Done. --cesarb 6 July 2005 00:32 (UTC)

Hey! El_C 6 July 2005 00:34 (UTC)

I blame the drop down list. It rejected the "infinite" option as an invalid expiration time. I had to go select "other" and type by hand. --cesarb 6 July 2005 00:45 (UTC)

Same here. It dosen't seem to let you block infinitely unless you actually type in infinite, a homage to the old system, perhaps? El_C 6 July 2005 01:43 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to like any of the pre-selected options. I've had to use the "other" option to block for shorter blocks aswell. Shanes 6 July 2005 01:51 (UTC)

Odd, the rest work for me. El_C 6 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

How amusing. Thanks to all those who spotted this and helped take care of things. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Dispute at

Genseiryu

I would appreciate another admin (with more experience than I have) taking a look at the dispute that is raging over this page. Mario Roering (talk · contribs) and Peter Lee (talk · contribs) appear to have bought a pre-existing argument from outside wikipedia and are now going at each others throats over this article. The talk pages for these two users are astonishing (make sure to look through the histories too as both authors have deleted material from these talk pages). I have had a go at moderating, even resorting to blocking Peter Lee earlier today, however I feel that both authors may be equally in the wrong (and therefore also equally in the right), it looks like this argument is old enough and engrained enough that there is little or no chance of compromise. Thanks, JeremyA 6 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Adamn

Adamn has taken it on himself to close

• I've done a recount and while I'd love to delete because of 20 votes I had to discount, I'm afraid this has to default to keep because the eligible voters couldn't reach an agreement. - Mgm|^(talk) July 6, 2005 12:33 (UTC)
• Are any of those many keep votes by genuine contributors? It looks like some of the early ones might be. I don't know. I think I'd lean towards delete on that, but then again I didn't do a thorough count. Everyking 6 July 2005 12:51 (UTC)
  • I also had a hard time finding keep votes by genuine users. On the other hand, almost all of the delete votes were from active editors. Carbonite | Talk 6 July 2005 13:01 (UTC)
    • You know, this is an interesting issue. I would believe that if this were deleted, given the amount of socks involved, this would quickly be recreated somewhere and largely complained about. So the easiest way to deal with this would be to keep it and ignore it for now. On the other hand that would not exactly set a good precedent. See also #Blocking of GNAA "sockpuppets" above... they're mostly the same people, and we kind of agreed that, if blocked, they would simply create new accounts so it's best to just let them be. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 13:20 (UTC)

User:Sagitario

Yesterday afternoon,

User:Tannin

• 1st revert: 14:32, 6 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:52, 6 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:00, 6 July 2005
• 4th revert: 23:10, 6 July 2005

Reported by: Vorash 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

Comments: Reverts disputed Category:Spyware 4 times in the last 12 hours.

• It takes a little while to find this in the diffs, but yes indeed, he made the same category change four times. -- Viajero | Talk 7 July 2005 20:35 (UTC)

User:Hogeye

• 1st version: 15:36, 6 July 2005
• 1st revert: 17:44, 6 July 2005 (partial revert)

• Quite old version: 14:44, 8 June 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:11, 6 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:22, 6 July 2005
• 4th revert: 23:36, 6 July 2005
• Latest revert: [1]. The edit summary says it's to the version of 16:28, 17 September 2002
• Revert to that: [2]

Reported by: cesarb 7 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

I've blocked Hogeye for 24 hours due to the malicious editing detailed above. -- Hadal 7 July 2005 06:00 (UTC)

Comments:

• And many more. He's doing a lot of partial reverts, which can make figuring what is and what isn't a revert a bit of a challenge. Looks like he's trying to game the system and avoid getting hit by the 3RR. --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:05 (UTC)

• I would like to add that he is encouraging others to revert once he has "used up" his quota, which I believe constitutes "reverting as an editing technique" which also violate the 3RR. 03:11, 7 July 2005: Hogeye (RJ11, feel free to rv the whole article. I've done my 3 whole-hoggers for today.) Kev 7 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

• And he has continued to revert (05:15) even after having been warned. (04:46) Kev 7 July 2005 05:23 (UTC)

• Explicit acknowlegement of gaming the system: (rv3. Darn. I'll have to find another way to edit next time.), followed by Here's a different one.. --Carnildo 7 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

User:211.30.190.44

• 1st revert: 2005-07-06 17:08:28
• 2nd revert: 2005-07-06 18:18:10
• 3rd revert: 2005-07-06 18:30:54
• 4th revert: 2005-07-06 18:35:54
• 5th revert: 2005-07-06 18:43:35
• 6th revert: 2005-07-06 19:04:01
• 7th revert: 2005-07-06 19:12:34

Reported by: Bovlb 2005-07-07 00:14:46 (UTC)

Comments:

• User warned about 3RR 2005-07-06 18:52:20 Bovlb 2005-07-07 00:14:46 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 1 day. --cesarb 7 July 2005 00:19 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

• 1st revert: 3:17
• 2nd revert: 5:28
• 3rd revert: 18:12
• 4th revert: 20:10
• 5th revert: 23:39

Reported by: Friday 7 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)

Comments: Wolf became protected because of this. 3RR violations are a behavior pattern for this user.

• Blocked for 24 hours. I have warned him on his talk page that if he violates 3RR again, the next block will be for 3 days. --
  khaosworks
  July 7, 2005 01:28 (UTC)

Unblocked myself

When trying to edit Wikipedia, I found I had been blocked; apparently my IP address (User:129.176.151.6) had been engaging in repeated spamming and was appropriately blocked. (By the way, for any who were wondering, IP blocks do seem to block any registered user also using that IP address—so if you share an IP with a vandal, registering will not save you from being blocked.) Disconnecting and reconnecting (I just moved and am using dial-up) didn't help, so I e-mailed Jfdwolff and then unblocked the address. Just wanted to note it here for full disclosure. — Knowledge Seeker দ 7 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)

This confuses me. You say you're using dial-up, but the IP address resolves to "cache2-e0.mayo.edu". Looks like a proxy at the "Mayo Clinic College of Medicine" an indeed the spam-ish links being inserted linked to the Mayo Clinic, leading to the block.-- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 03:31 (UTC)

I don't know about Knowledge Seeker, but my university provides dial-up connections to its students. - Mark 7 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)

I just logged on to the Internet again and found myself blocked again, this time apparently as User:129.176.151.7. Netoholic, indeed, I have dialed in through my employer, Mayo Clinic. It would appear that an earlier user, also dialed in through Mayo, inserted the large amount of spam, and I agree that the blocks were appropriate. I assure you that while I think Mayo's web site is an excellent resource (even before I applied here), I did not insert these links, nor do I believe I have ever added a link to any of Mayo's pages. I unblocked this account as well, if that's all right. If possible, I would prefer this section not be archived. — Knowledge Seeker দ 7 July 2005 05:37 (UTC)

I have blocked both IPs again for 10 hours to tidy up their unbelievable linkspamming. I wonder what else we can do to stop this. Can we write to the Mayo sysops? JFW | T@lk 7 July 2005 21:46 (UTC)

The spamming has happened again. I am going to start doing mass rollbacks of this linkspam. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

We're calling this "spamming", but I'm confused by that. In reviewing the updates, I find the following features:

1. The user is obviously not logged in and ignoring the concerns cited. This is clearly anti-social (possibly indicative of a bot, which would be annoying, I agree).
2. The links are all into a Mayo Clinic database of diseases and conditions and are linking like terms such as Actinic keratosis to Actinic keratosis.
3. The data in the database being referenced seems to be quite complete, and the links are likely to be a big help to those researching future updates to these (mostly) stub articles.

So... I'm wondering what we're gaining by referting and/or banning as a result of these changes. Yes, we would like these changes to be made in a more reasonable way by a registered user, but they are clearly a step above anything that could be refered to as "spam".

Would it be helpful if someone like myself went through and checked each of these links for validity and reverted them back by hand if and only if they pan out on a case-by-case basis? -Harmil 19:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

While you're right, the mayo clinic is a reputable organization, the pattern of editing is consistent with

Wikipedia:Bot, although I can't confirm that yet. --DropDeadGorgias (talk)

20:06, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, I have blocked the two IPs for 24 hours, or until this issue is resolved. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:09, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The anon IPs have also started to use extremely sneaky tactics to get around the mass reverts. Look at the recent edit history of Hypothermia. They used the edits from one IP to shield the linkspam from an auto-revert. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not taking any spammer's side here, but I do want to preserve any useful information. Thus, I've created a new personal project at User:Harmil/Mayo Cleanup Project, which I will use to track my progress as I slog through the 158 articles that that IP has touched, and determine which links have any value at all. I will NOT revert anything that would deface or reduce the quality of a WP page, but I feel that there might be some kernel of useful information here that we should preserve (and thus get something out this). I welcome any contribution or discussion on the talk page. -Harmil 21:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Against. This is rewarding the spammer. External links are no replacement for the information that can be covered in an article. The articles just need to be expanded, no more and no less. JFW | T@lk 21:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remove this section from the archive if no one objects. I mentioned it earlier and there were no objections. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Hottentot

• 1st revert: 00:07, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:07, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:02, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 04:33, 7 July 2005
• 5th revert: 04:36, 7 July 2005

Reported by: Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Comments:

• Continues to revert even while begging others to engage in Talk page discussions. Been reverted by three different editors, and Talk page shows noone supporting his version. Of course, none of this really matters, since he reverted five times today. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)
  • I'm cutting him some slack because he may not realise that the proper approach is to leave it at the consensus version, then talk, then add the controversial edit if the consensus is reached. I've left a warning to that effect; one more time, he's blocked for 24. --
    khaosworks
    July 7, 2005 07:10 (UTC)
    • He is not a newbie user. His user page mentions that he's been here since Jan 2004, and he's had at least 5 user names. Looking into the history of those, this is not his first revert war. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, but since he appears to have stopped reverting for the moment (probably asleep) and I've given the warning, let's see if he's stupid enough to step out of line again before coming down on him. --
        khaosworks
        July 7, 2005 07:45 (UTC)

User:El C

• 1st revert: 00:42, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:44, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:46, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 00:50, 7 July 2005

Comments:

• and before someone tries to turn this against me (as happened last time) my first edit [3] before El C's RVs is not a revert. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 07:58 (UTC)
• El C deleted this 3RR report from the page. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. El_C 7 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)
  • Well, I appreciate Mr. C's (current) honesty on this matter. J. Parker Stone 7 July 2005 08:19 (UTC)

Very personal user page

What the heck? I fully support the considerable leniency we have on user pages, but User:Megan1967 seems to include a credit card number, complete with expiration date, and even a driver's license number. There is no indication whether the numbers are valid, or if they belong to Megan, but one would assume so. Just a bit of flash-in-the-pan vandalism, you say? Apparently not so. As far as I can tell, this info was added by Megan herself (see [4] ) nearly a month ago, and has survived numerous edits since then. It's possible that someone has hijacked her account or has access to her PC.

I'd like to hear some other opinions on this. My first instinct would be to leave her a talk page message, but her talk page says that she's "resigned from Wikipedia", and if her account is potentially hijacked, I couldn't be sure that any response I get is really her, anyway. Is there any way to remove the offending numbers from the edit history? Opinions on the best course of action to take would be appreciated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind July 7, 2005 12:45 (UTC)

The only way I know of is to delete the page entirely. Conceivably, you could recreate it then with the information pasted over sans the numbers and you can have a fresh start. --

khaosworks

July 7, 2005 12:53 (UTC)

I've e-mailed her, explaining the problem, and asking if she minds her page being deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 13:08 (UTC)

• Given the sensitivity of the data and the fact that she's inactive, I think we should delete the page post haste, and restore it if her response to the e-mail so indicates. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 13:12 (UTC)

• Take care that the information doesn’t appear in the deletion log. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 7 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)

• I looked at the logs, it would seem that the account was hijacked. There were reverts done before and after that edit, back to her default page. Would it be prudent to block the account, as well? <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 13:20 (UTC)

Yes. Delete it, block it. All this is reversible. --

khaosworks

July 7, 2005 13:23 (UTC)

I deleted the page and blocked the account. The "blocked user" page directs enquiries to the mailing list, which I read fairly regularly, so if she wants her account back, I'll be glad to discuss it with her there. — Dan | Talk 7 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

She's an active VFD regular. I would assume something untoward had happened, such as a guessed password. Presumably she will show up soon enough and the account can be restored - David Gerard 7 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

User:Michael999

• 1st revert: 21:56, 6 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:08, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:28, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 08:44, 7 July 2005

Reported by: <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Comments: User was asked to stop placing POV links on this article, as well as Hayden Christensen, he then reverted both articles soon after the request. Other users have rv'd his entries several times this month, on both articles. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 13:04 (UTC)

Day 2: User:Michael999 & User:67.80.19.94 - contribs - continues to revert:

1st 06:26, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

2nd 07:27, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

3rd 08:25, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

4th 08:36, 8 July 2005 to Trevor Blumas

1st 06:24, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

2nd 07:29, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

3rd 08:28, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

4th 08:39, 8 July 2005 to Hayden Christensen

Believe it is a sockpuppet, as the only contribs are to these two articles. As well as vandalizing

Talk:Trevor Blumas see diff: 07:35, 8 July 2005

Talk:Hayden Christensen see diff: 07:34, 8 July 2005

• I have not reverted last edits, as do not want to violate 3RR, even for vandalism. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 12:45 (UTC)

• Yes, OK — 24-hour block. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 8 July 2005 15:01 (UTC)

7 July 2005 London bombings

Has been protected without explanation. There is no reason to protect it other than to stop legitimate editing and to weaken wikipedia credibility as an up to date source of info,

Is now unprotected but good to keep an eye on for vandalism and rogue protectionists,

If you had taken the time to consult the protection log, you would see that it has been protected many times to fix page duplication. It was not, in fact, intended "to stop legitimate editing", nor "to weaken wikipedia['s] credibility", so please assume good faith, check the facts, and do not be unnecessarily rude when reporting such issues. — Dan | Talk 7 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)

Oops. My apologies if I sounded rude,

SqueakBox

July 8, 2005 17:24 (UTC)

User:Netoholic (I)

• 1st revert: 16:17, July 7, 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:40, July 7, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:53, July 7, 2005
• 4th revert: 21:16, July 7, 2005
• 5th revert: 21:36, July 7, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 20:32 (UTC)

Comments:

• The page reads "Please do not change the wording of this page", but that does not mean that no new proposals may be added. Consensus and compromise, after all, are important, and creating a new proposal to address problems with a previous one may be useful (and if not, consensus is expected to vote it down).
  Netoholic is opposed to the entire proposal, as is his right, but that means he should vote against it - it does not mean he should be revert warring over the page. Radiant_>|< July 7, 2005 20:32 (UTC)
• The 4th and 5th edits are not reverts. Compare with the versions immediately before. Admins are reminded that my mentors (Raul654 and Grunt) should be contacted if there is a problem, and they will handle this. I think Radiant! is strectching the definition of revert pretty thin, especially considering he made four similar edits to insert this against the instructions on the page. Votes are not a moving target - get consensus on wording and then lock it in during the voting period. That vote is so screwed up and confusing, we're bound to end up with a result none of us wants. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

User:FuelWagon

• 1st revert: 12:31, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:00, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:45, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 15:41, 7 July 2005

Reported by: --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Comments:

• User:Goethean is also responsible for violating the 3RR. See below. -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)
• User:FuelWagon, flushed with victory, is now confident enough to change a comment from merely rude to a direct personal attack. [5] --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

User:Goethean

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=18340259
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=18342077
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&oldid=18350840

Reported by: -- BMIComp (talk) 7 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

These are three reverts - breaking the 3RR requires >3 reverts. Guettarda 7 July 2005 23:16 (UTC)

Impersonation account to be blocked

I just noticed User:Jimbo Wales. Pretty obviously, it should be blocked. If there's a better place to list this, let me know. JesseW 7 July 2005 21:27 (UTC)

Here is fine :-) There are so many Jimbo impersonations we hardly bother noting them ... - David Gerard 7 July 2005 22:10 (UTC)

user asking to be blocked

User:wanker001 uploaded a fairly rude picture into Image:Image-Barnstar.png (which appears on user:Tim Starling's user page). I've reverted the image, but I assume someone should probably block the user and delete the other uploaded image as well. -- Rick Block (talk) July 8, 2005 01:23 (UTC)

He uploaded a lot of images. All the damaged barnstars were reverted. --cesarb 8 July 2005 01:36 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. --cesarb 8 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)

Personally I think that user should be blocked for offensive username. In British English it's a nasty enough word to merit removal. DJ Clayworth 8 July 2005 17:27 (UTC)

I have to disagree, just because some people may find usernames offensive, other people have little problem with masturbation. People in England find the term "Bugger" to be offensive, but it is commonly used in the US. Just a thought. MicahMN | Talk 19:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:AI

• 1st revert: 18:49, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:31, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:46, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 22:16, 7 July 2005

• 1st revert: 19:04, 7 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:06, 7 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:44, 7 July 2005
• 4th revert: 22:18, 7 July 2005

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 8 July 2005 03:30 (UTC)

Libertarianism and User:Alfrem

I am not sure whether this should go here or to the incidents page. However, Alfrem continues reverting, but does it very slowly so as to evade the 3RR. I have asked for a temporary injunction against his editing of Libertarianism, but no ArbCom members have replied as yet. On the off chance that they will see this on the noticeboard, I am asking them to respond as soon as possible. - Ta bu shi da yu 8 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)

User:P0lyglut

• 1st revert: [6] Deletes my "monotheastic religion" to revert to his "Abrahamic religion" in beginning statement.
• 2nd revert: [7] No description of change.
• 3rd revert: [8] No description of change.
• 4th revert: [9] No description of change.

Reported by: Noitall July 8, 2005 07:04 (UTC)

Comments:

• As for substance, this edit issue has been discussed extensively on the various related talk pages. P0lyglut has never even attempted to justify h/she edit on any talk page. --Noitall July 8, 2005 07:04 (UTC)
  • I've blocked them for 24 hours. For future reference, diffs are much more helpful than links to old revisions of the page. Thryduulf 8 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

User:Netoholic (II)

• 1st revert: 14:05, July 8, 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:15, July 8, 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:29, July 8, 2005
• 4th revert: 14:44, July 8, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Comments:

• The page
  Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Instructions
  is supposed to detail the TFD process, but it was missing some parts (esp. on when and how TFD discussions are closed). So I went ahead and added them.

1. Netoholic finds a part he doesn't like and reverts it (#1).
2. I change the wording of the part he doesn't like to a compromise.
3. Neto then does a blanket revert of all my edits (including fixes in earlier content; #2).
4. I replace my additions.
5. Neto does a more careful revert of only the new parts (#3), and posts on my talk page that 'many people disagree with the specifics', without explaining who those people or the specifics may be.
6. I once more replace my additions, explaining that instructions on TFD are appropriate on the TFD instruction page.
7. Neto 'fixes' the problem by putting a strikeout on all additions (#4), stating that 'Many of the points in this section are disputed', again without specifying what points. He 'explains' this on the TFD talk page, stating that the information also applies to other pages and thus should not be here, and once more stating that some 'points are just flat out wrong and anti-wiki' without explaining what those points might actually be. His strikeouts include parts such as "Debates can be closed after seven days of discussion, at which point they are archived, and the template listed for further processing (e.g. orphaning/deleting, rewriting, or removing its TFD template if kept). Because of backlogs, the page may sometimes hold older discussions" which have been procedural for a long time.

• Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 15:03 (UTC)

• Can anyone else spot the bigger pattern here? Radiant makes a change, I voice my concern that the change is not a good one, and he pushes into a revert war. Every interaction I've had with him is the same. Obviously, this is again not a 3RR violation on either side (striking out is not reverting). I just want to make this very important point here -- if you make a change (good faith ones even) and someone contests that change - DO NOT keep reverting. Let the oldest uncontested version stand for the time being and discuss. I invited him to discuss the addition on
  Wikipedia talk:Templates for deletion - he reverted rather than take that advice. -- Netoholic @
  8 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
  • That is simply false. Netoholic tends not to raise a concern that changes aren't good ones, but instead simply reverts. As is the case here. This runs counter to the spirit of the wiki: it would stagnate if every addition would have to be discussed before it could be made. This isn't anywhere near controversial, and Neto hasn't pointed out a single thing wrong with my edits other than a general dislike. Besides, striking out is just as much a way of getting rid of something as blanking it, or doing something similar like putting it in a font too tiny to read. Claiming otherwise is simply gaming the system. Radiant_>|< July 8, 2005 17:02 (UTC)
    • Radiant says I "tend not to raise a concern that changes aren't good ones, but instead simply reverts". Isn't the revert and the edit summary by itself "raising a concern"? Between 14:05 and 14:44, I contact Radiant at 14:27 & 14:35 explaining my reservations. I also started the conversation on the Talk page. And what was Radiant! doing during this? Nothing. No replies to my comments, no talk page postings related to this. Just, as he put it, "mindless" reverts. -- Netoholic @ 8 July 2005 17:23 (UTC)

Both of you violated the spirit of 3RR but are familiar enough with the policy to be able to avoid actually breaking the rule. Discuss it on talk and please, neither of you revert again. violet/riga (t) 8 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

User:Vorash and friends

I am having serious difficulty with User:Vorash and various mostly anon associates who keep trying to remove important, documented, and referenced information from LimeWire. Limewire is a well-known spyware application that has infected countless thousands of computers around the world. It is claimed that the latest version is now spyware-free (which may well be true), nevertheless, it is a product with a documented track record for doing harm to computer users, and which is best known for its harmful activity. This, in other words, is not a dispute about how one describes a particular computer program, it is a matter that goes right to the heart of Wikipedia's responsibility to its readers - i.e., we cannot allow links to or publicty for known viruses or spyware or other harmful products without clearly warning the reader first.

By the way, my qualifications may be relevant: I have worked with computers for more than 25 years, and for the last 14 years have been in charge of a computer repair workshop. We have met this particularly nasty program many times, and have had much practice at removing it, using the standard spyware detection and removal tools. But don't take my word for it: hit Google and see for yourself.

(PS: as a matter of detail, I have no commercial barrow to push here: the more people get infected with spyware, the more money I make removing it. But it is a responsibility we should all take seriously.) Tannin 8 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute and a bunch of reverts. I don't see a whole lot of strong evidence(I haven't read everything on the issue in detail), but most of them seem to say the program stopped installing Limeshop in 2004. Pointing us to a google search doesn't help us because we don't know what of those are reliable. I would suggest gathering the highest quality evidence you can that supports the software still being spyware or adware. If it is not, then putting it in the spyware category as if it still is is incorrect. That's all besides the point though because I don't see the major conflict here, nor any reason for admin action. This page is not for content disputes. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 16:47 (UTC)

User:Miklos Szabo

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]
• 6th revert: [15]

Reported by: · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Comments: This new user is a Clay Aiken fan who has been upset that the article includes information on the rather widespread speculation that Clay Aiken could be gay. However, the current edit war centers around a related item, the article's link to "Openly Clay," a fan site for people who think Clay Aiken is gay and are fine with it. There has been a consensus to keep the gay popular culture speculation, as well as one to keep the Openly Clay link on the talk pages. However, now Miklos Szabo (as well as another user with suspiciously similar talk page habits, User:Marie Lavaux) have suddenly showed up and begun reverting the information, declaring that the consensus opinion is false. This article has been protected over this very issue in the recent past because anon users would come by and remove the information in a hit-and-run fashion. I wouldn't be surprised if Miklos Szabo isn't one of those former anons. It's highly disruptive to the article and frustrating for editors trying to act in good faith. Thanks for your consideration. · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 18:23 (UTC)

Now we have an anon coming in and doing the exact same thing. 66.173.235.43 (talk · contribs), immediately after Miklos Szabo got reverted the last time (and I warned him about the 3RR vio pending against him). · Katefan0^(scribble) July 8, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

Anon user is at it again. 18:31, 8 July 2005 Hermione1980 8 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)

And another one [16] -- may have to list this on

WP:RFP. · Katefan0^(scribble)

July 8, 2005 21:04 (UTC)

Yes, I am writing because admin User:MacGyverMagic suggested that before posting the recommended tag for possible sockpuppets as it suggests here "The above text should not be added in the cases of accusations of sockpuppetry which have not been proven. Instead, add Template:Sockpuppet to the page." I should post my accusations here!

I found a situation where one user RJSampson and another User:203.198.237.30 appeared to be one and the same person trying to build a concensous in a dispute against another user. These two users met almost all the suggested clues of a sock puppet they used the same shorthand wrote the same way RJSampson jumped in and began editting with no apparent learning period and when accused of being a sock puppet he protested so loudly and wrote off messages to Jimbo Wales and and MacGyverMagic. I sent MGM a very long message detailing the whole incident here: [17] but he never responded.

I still believe the evidence that these two people are the same is very strong stylistically that I'd be very appreciative if more experienced computer users and Admins looked into this. Thank you. User:Carr 18:58, 8 July 2005

• I don't have the time to look at the whole issue, so help would be appreciated. From what I read above, I'd like to point out that concensus is usually made with users rather than against them. Also, I haven't checked, but the anon IP that is said to be a sockpuppet told me they only edited 2 the same articles as RJSampson. Even if they are sockpuppets, I can't yet see what they've done wrong. Just jump into the article and way in your opinion, that should make POV pushing (if that's what User:Carr meant with making a concensus against another user) much harder. - Mgm|^(talk) July 9, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
• Ah wait. I visited that page before to weigh into an argument about the use of the word "conservative" which seems to be the main issue here. Someone quoted an interview in which Mr. Drudge labeled himself a conservative, so I really don't see what all the fuss is about. It's just one word and it's verifiably sourced. - Mgm|^(talk) July 9, 2005 13:13 (UTC)

User:Peter Lee

• 1st revert: 2:56
• 2nd revert: 10:00
• 3rd revert: 17:50
• 4rd revert: 22:11

Reported by: Jcbos 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

Comments: Doing the same at NL.wikipedia. Jcbos 8 July 2005 22:39 (UTC)

VfD tampering in progress

After being warned on his talk page,

User:Lapsed Pacifist

• 1st revert: 19:46, 08 July
• 2nd revert: 19:56, 08 July
• 3rd revert: 20:06, 08 July
• 4th revert: 22:49, 08 July
• 5th revert: 22:59, 08 July
• 6th revert: 00:04, 09 July
• 7th revert: 00:10, 09 July
• 8th revert: 00:21, 09 July
• 9th revert: 00:28, 09 July
• 10th revert 00:32, 09 July
• 11th revert 00:37, 09 July
• 12th revert 01:09, 09 July

Reported by: —chris.lawson (talk) 9 July 2005 05:26 (UTC)

Comments:

• Have tried asking politely multiple times that user cease this behaviour. Refuses to discuss on Talk page (either article Talk or user Talk) with any of the three editors who have questioned his actions. Filed RfC earlier this evening; reversions have gotten much worse since that time. User needs to be blocked for 24 hours while this gets sorted out.

User:Cognition

• 1st revert: 05:25, July 9, 2005
• 2nd revert: 06:38, July 9, 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:11, July 9, 2005
• 4th revert: 07:14, July 9, 2005

Reported by:

Comments:

• Keeps trying to put a reference to his
  Dmcdevit
  July 9, 2005 07:44 (UTC)

As I have explained to this user on his talk page, the fourth edit does not constitute a revert. (See

The previous edit summary complained about the removal of the Department of Fun Link. Oh really? Then why did the summary on the first revert of you read rv; Wikipedia definitely does not take political positions on cannabis? You know very well what the issue was -- your continual reinsertion of your list; that is, four reversions of the SAME material. --Calton | Talk 9 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

I said I regretted the confused way I handeled it. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Cognition 22:15, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Cognition has already been warned about 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Hadal against three revert rule!

| here. Hadal should be punished for that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.169.145.11 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 July 2005

Yeah! and he, together with User:who they are vandalising a user's homepage! Where is justice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.157.159 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 July 2005

• User:Bank_of_Wikipedia. Yes I reverted back to the version where the User was blocked. <>Who?¿? 9 July 2005 10:24 (UTC)

• Three revert rule doesn't apply in cases of vandalism, and no user had their user page vandalized. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 10:25 (UTC)

The Bank user was blocked illegaly, without a trial, and after a month of normal operation of the Bank. Just because the admin's wife didnt let him f**k her today, this is not a reason for him to come to wikipedia and start banning innoscent people! And it is obvious that you are commiting vandalism, by deleting illegaly a user homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.157.159 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-09 05:30:45 CDT

• Bringing an admin's wife into things, is completely uncalled for. IIRC this was discussed on VFD prior to its deletion, which means it's not out of process or without a trial at all. - Mgm|^(talk) July 9, 2005 13:19 (UTC)

discussed on VFD? where? Could you please provide the link? Bank of Wikipedia Employee11 9 July 2005 16:36 (UTC)

• Never mind, I remember incorrectly. It was discussed right here (
  WP:VFU. - Mgm|^(talk)
  20:59, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Essjay & User:139.55.55.122

Reported by: Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 9 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

Comments:

• Violetriga has warned them on the talk page, see here -- Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale
• Essjay (and, it seems, one or two others) believe this to be vandalism. I do not, but have given them the benefit of the doubt for now and am discussing this with Essjay. The IP has been blocked for 12 hours. violet/riga (t) 9 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

• Although i don't feel that this particular case was vandalism, there is reason to believe that the anonymous user in question was the same one who repeatably vandalized the page on George W. Bush. Although that doesn't justify the edit war, it is worth noting. --Blu Aardvark 9 July 2005 11:48 (UTC)

Based on the actions of 139.55.55.122 (talk · contribs) and 67.140.148.199 (talk · contribs), I'd say that they are one and the same. Note both vandalize Bush/Cheney, and both leave abusive edit summaries directed at Hadal (talk · contribs):

• diff "Hadal, GET THE HELL OFF THIS PAGE!!!!!"
• diff "Hey Hadal, its me from the Bush page,by the way, im a completeist star wars fan, lets roll."

Both were also involved in reverting

WP:AN/I. Telling him "Don't do that again!" should be sufficient. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 9 July 2005 14:26 (UTC)

User:Alfrem

Has violated the 3RR on Libertarianism. 24 hour block imposed. Numerous warnings given, we have asked several times for a temporary injunction due to the disruptive behaviour but this has not been granted by any arbitrator. It has now led to Alfrem getting blocked for 3RR violation. Regrettably, it has had to have been myself that has done this: sure to be controversial as I was "involved" in the dispute. But it is a clear violation, and so I don't feel guilty about doing it. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 14:34 (UTC)

Don't feel guilty. He was also violating the 3RR on Template_talk:Elections, reverting a comment I wrote four times in about 8 hours. Dave (talk) July 9, 2005 15:26 (UTC)

User:-Ril-

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]
• 4th revert: [21]
• 5th revert: [22]
• 6th revert: [23]
• 7th revert: [24]

Reported by: SimonP 20:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has done the same across every page in Category:New Testament chapters. Has so far been reverted by three different editors (including myself), but has not stopped. - SimonP 20:24, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the above is not true. I have only made the changes on John 15, John 20, Matthew 1, Matthew 2, Matthew 3, Matthew 4, and Matthew 5. There are other articles currently in the category. ~~~~ 20:48, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that this is in order to restore an NPOV warning, which SimonP has removed.

Also note that the other two of the "three different editors" were goaded into behaving in this manner by messages left on their talk pages by SimonP, so that he could circumvent 3RR by using proxy editors. ~~~~ 20:29, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

I was not "goaded" into reverting the article (I'm at three times now, so that's all for now). I personally believe that the article is better at the version that SimonP also prefers, and made my own decision to revert. JYolkowski // talk 20:36, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

So why was it that you only did so just after this edit [25] to your talk page, where SimonP writes "I [SimonP] have reverted him a couple of times....perhaps if another user did..." ? ~~~~ 20:44, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours (it's a pretty extensive violation, but I'm not sure whether it would be right to extend the block for that reason). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, 24 hours should enough. Theresa Knott sent him a fairly clear message that his actions were not acceptable, and since then the edit warring has mostly stopped. - SimonP 23:20, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually his edit warring completely stopped after I spoke to him (unless I made a mistake, but I was watching his edits). He seems to have,got on with other edits on unrelated articles, and possibly doing a spot of new pages patrol. I'm not sure that a block was actually necessary at all. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:45, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Update- SimonP also broke the 3RR. Rather than blocking him, I've chosen to unblock -Ril-. Hopefully these two users will repay my trust in them by cesing the edit war and engaging with each other on the talk pages instead. If they don't well we can always block the pair of them later. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

very suspicious

I'm not sure exactly what they're up to, but an anon has created a fake user page and inserted this user in WP:1000 (which I reverted). The "user" is user:Moe Epsilon. I don't know if this is just a garden variety sockpuppet or what. Seems like someone who deals with sockpuppets might want to take a look. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Glancing at some of these edits, this anon has been leaving messages on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling claiming that he made numerous edits on those articles. [26]. But he always signs as "Moe Epsilon", even though we clearly know that this account has not been registered yet because the "user contributions" link does not appear on that page.

I am also concerned about his message here [27] because he claims to have created

List of every professional wrestler even though it was created by another anon IP that has not touched the User:Moe Epsilon page yet. In any case, I don't feel it is appropriate for an anon IP to create a fake user page. Zzyzx11 (Talk)

07:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Update: It looks like that person finally registered... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:30, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Potential linkspam vandalism to Mario Bros/Nintendo related articles

Users of

• There should at least be {{
  Vfd was created 9 July 2005, and there is no evidence of the tag on the page history. <>Who?¿?
  08:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The page

Mushroom Kingdom and protected. --Carnildo

08:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Works for me :-) <>Who?¿? 08:29, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The redirect was done, since once the article was created, it was VFD'ed the next minute. Both of these actions, not the redirect, was done by annons, possibly members of the site in question. Because of this, one person though the VFD process was being used to promote the website. That was why this action was taken. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:213.130.117.51

• 1st revert: 19:19, July 10, 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:31, July 10, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:35, July 10, 2005
• 4th revert: 19:42, July 10, 2005
• 5th revert: 19:45, July 10, 2005

Reported by: Evil Monkey∴Hello 07:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I blocked them for 24 hours. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:35, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

• 1st revert: 21:15, July 9, 2005
• 2nd revert: 07:51, July 10, 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:10, July 10, 2005
• 4th revert: 09:52, July 10, 2005

Reported by: Instantnood 10:05, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• blocked for 24 hoursGeni 11:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Instantnood

• 1st revert: 03:08, 9 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:53, 9 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:12, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 17:03, 10 July 2005
• 5th revert: 17:48, 10 July 2005

Reported by: --Huaiwei 10:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Please note the time stamps of the revert
  #the three revert rule). — Instantnood
  10:48, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Does this mean you actually time your edits by the 24-hour limitation?--Huaiwei 10:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • one revert on the eigththen you have to go foward two days to get over three reverts.Geni 11:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Don't miss the forest from the trees here. Instantnood has obviously
  intent of 3RR. When two parties are lamely edit warring, block them both. SchmuckyTheCat
  17:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This may seem arbitrary, I noticed User:Mr._Delayer - (contribs) in the recent changes log, having several edits a minute. I took a look at some of the contribs, and the majority of them, seem to be (null edits). There were a few legitimate edits too. Just thought it was kind of weird, maybe worth a look by someone else. <>Who?¿? 10:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think it was just to vote on
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America attempt 6, which I didn't realize was up on Vfd again. Evidentally to bypass the (discounted vote) portion. As of this edit, he had made no more edits, other than the vote on that Vfd. <>Who?¿?
  11:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Despite there still being an ongoing discussion about the matter, SimonP is unilaterally moving all expansion templates to article talk pages, even when they indicate a specific section that was intended to be expanded - thus losing this information. Could someone please act to prevent such action before consensus has been reached on the matter, as I feel it is quite abusive. ~~~~ 12:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I have been moving this template, and many others, to talk pages for months with little comment. Unfortunately I have been added to User:-Ril-/Conflicts, which means any edit I make needs to be reverted. -SimonP

I'm almost tempted to give these gives a 30 minute block following this - revert warring over dozens of articles. Discussions should be taking place at the new Wikipedia:Template locations but they are just continuing to revert war. violet/riga (t) 13:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Chutiya

User:Chutiya has an inappropriate name. Chutiya in Hindi is an offensive term, the same as cunt in English. I've posted a message on his talk. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:01, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him under {{

UsernameBlock}}. =Nichalp «Talk»=

19:25, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Does the policy actually apply to foreign languages? I think the person should change the name, but I don't know if I'd go so far as to block over it. I guess it could depend on whether the person edits India-related articles. That would suggest he or she knows the meaning and is trying to offend someone. If not, it could plausibly mean something else also and it's just a coincidence. Everyking 19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

And in fact the only edits made are to an India-related article, so I guess we can bet on it. Everyking 20:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It should cover all languages, that's what I feel. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah, it should cover all languages. Wikipedia is an international effort, so foreign usernames can still be offensive to a significant number of people. Besides, if you know they're from India you can bet they know what it means and are trying to be offensive on purpose. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:209.91.172.140

• 1st revert: 12:45 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:05 10 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:14 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 13:21 10 July 2005
• 5th revert: 13:40 10 July 2005
• 6th revert: 14:01 10 July 2005

Reported by: David | Talk 14:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The editor does not appear to have been warned before being reported.Geni 14:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Ted Wilkes

• 1st revert: 18:52, 9 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 9 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:17, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 16:04, 10 July 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The User had already drawn editors' attention to the fact that I had reverted three times, and he has been blocked for 3RR voiolations before. The diffs make it look like a revert war between the two of us, but the history will show that there four people involved. Three of them us involved in a dispute, but are prepared to compromise; each time that we do reach a compromise, Ted Wilkes sails in and deletes the whole passage. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel, was he warned about 3RR, and did he revert after being warned? SlimVirgin 17:37, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

He warned me (actually, he mentioned to other editors on the Talk page that I was up to three edits, so was risking a violation of the rule); I don't think that it can be claimed that he was unaware of what was happening. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I see where you warned him, but I don't think he reverted again after that. I always have a worry with deletions, because a first delete, almost by definition, is a return to a previous version (not quite by definition: material could be deleted that had been in the article from the start), unlike a first addition, which is more likely not to be a revert. For that reason, whether the disputed edit is a deletion or an addition, I prefer to see diffs for four reverts rather than three — in the case of a deletion, diffs for 1st deletion and 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th revert. I also like to see evidence of reverting after a warning, though the warning need not have been given in relation to this article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm not saying that I warned him (and as I was out of reverts, of course he didn't revert after his last one — he didn't have to); I'm saying that he had not long before said on the Talk page that I was in risk of violating the 3RR. Given that fact (as well as the fact that he's an experienced enough editor not to need warning, especially as he's been blocked for 3RR violations before), I didn't think that a warning was necessary. If I'd realised that he was in danger of a violation I'd have warned him, of course, but as I said, I wasn't the only person involved, so his violation took me by surprise. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I saw where you pointed out to him that he'd reverted a lot, which I'd count as a warning, and if he'd reverted again after that, I'd have blocked him. I think the ambiguity over whether the first edit should count as the first revert is another problem, and not only with this case. I've added to

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader, which is the template we use at the top of this page, that users should also supply a diff showing that the first revert is a revert to a previous version, and then in addition should supply at least four diffs showing the reverts. Let me know if you think that's a good idea or problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk)

20:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK — but see Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard#Status of warnings, where the consensus seems to be that a warning should only be demanded before a block when the offender is a first offender, or where there's some other relevant circumstance. Repeat offenders, like Ted Wilkes, shouldn't need a warning. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Duckecho

• 1st revert: 03:52, 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:50, 10 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:15, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 15:00, 10 July 2005

Reported by: GordonWattsDotCom 15:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: In his favor, Duck contributes well usually, and the reverts are not "technically" reverts, but sustentative edits with the intent to reverting certain material, while making minor changes, as I explain on Uncle Ed's page here at this diff's header. Even though Duck is a well-established editor, "This exception does not apply to reversions of well-established users just because you consider their edits to be "vandalism," as shown here:

You'll need to supply diffs showing four or more reverts to a previous version within 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I was not trying to be deceptive: I admitted above that the reverts were not "technically true" reverts because Duck did not revert to a "prior version," but, instead, manually added size-down "^{" and "}" tags. However, he, and as is the fact, he did substantially "revise" (hence "revert") the page (by editing, instead of using revert tool) in a way that was both HARD to read (small letters), and was NOT discussed nor approved in talk. Below, he rightly points out that the "small" tags were in there in the prior version -my mistake; At least some "small" tags were, --but the "sup" tags weren't (hence he reverted some elements), and he made a small situation smaller (or a bad situation worse). As for the diff you request (and I also see you edited the title of the page to reflect your concern), all you have to do, SlimVirgin, to get the requested diff, is go to the first "revert" link in my entry here, click on it, and note the left half of the screen. It has the version before Duckecho started monkeying around with super-duper small text like he probably shouldn't have been. (I took note of your comment here, in which you asked that we "please supply a link to the version that the first revert reverted to, so that admins can see that the first revert was a revert, and not just an edit." Since I admitted it was an edit that functioned as a revert, and supplied the diffs and history, you should not have trouble locating that which you seek.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal: This should be easy. The first diff cited was an original edit by me in which I added a new article link, reformatted an existing one, and added <sup> tags, sort of as an experiment once I saw the <small> tags already in place by a previous editor. I neither subtracted anything (except one subheading in the reformatted link—fully supportable and in compliance with all guidelines), nor reverted anything. My sole effort was principally an original edit. As can be clearly seen in the edit summary of GW's revert, "Removed non-approved pin-sized font changes with <sup> marker; I'm sure you meant well, Duck, but your experiment didn't work;Removing them only…" [[28] he removed the <sup> tags. I have yet to discern what non-approved means.

In the second diff cited, I reverted GW's removal of the <sup> tags. I acknowledge this as Revert #1.

In GW's revert edit summary, "Microsoft works has completed its search of the document and has made 24 replacements. The text is now large enough to be read by a person reading document…" he makes reference to 24 replacements which is six articles times two each <small> and <sup> tags times two each closing tags of each. He had removed more than I had ever inserted. [29]

In the third diff cited, I reverted GW's removal of both the <small> and <sup> tags. I acknowledge this as Revert #2.

In GW's next revert edit summary, "The burden of proof is not on me, as the lack of the <small> & <sup>tags was the norm before you began edit war;REmoving tags,but not reverting to prior version…" note his description of both <small> and <sup> tags not existing before my addition ff the <sup> tags, which is clearly untrue as shown above. [30]

In the fourth diff cited, I reverted GW's removal of both the <small> and <sup> tags. I acknowledge this as Revert #3.

Notwithstanding all of the non-sequitir smokescreen in the accusation, I am entitled to three revisions within a 24 hour period under the rule.

GW clearly does not understand the difference between an affirmative original edit and a revert. GW clearly did not see that the <small> tags were in place long before I edited the subject paragraph (in fact, the existence of the <small> tags dates back more than 1000 edits, to earlier than at least 23 April as can be seen in this diff [31] ). GW clearly does not understand the 3RR rule. Duckecho (Talk) 19:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

A friend put it more succinctly:

• Page edit by Duckecho: 03:52, 10 July 2005. This was an edit, in which a change that was thought to be useful was introduced for the first time.
• Gordon disagrees, says numbers are too small, and reverts Duckecho's edit to a previous version: 05:57, July 10, 2005

• Duckecho reverts Gordon for the first time: 12:50, 10 July 2005
• Gordon reverts Duckecho for the second time: 13:56, July 10, 2005
• Duckecho reverts Gordon for the second time: 14:15, 10 July 2005
• Gordon reverts Duckecho for the third time: 14:54, July 10, 2005
• Duckecho reverts Gordon for the third and last time: 15:00, 10 July 2005

Just by way of clarification - you are not entitled to 3 reverts in 24 hours, 3 reverts is the most that is tolerated. There is an important difference. Guettarda 20:59, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I take your point, but in practical terms it is a distinction without a difference. However, I wasn't reverting as an entitlement, I was reverting as a correction to, um, muddled thinking. I'm not here to argue semantics about how a three revert rule means three reverts, so let's drop it. Duckecho (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• ::You are correct, Guettarda: I answer SlimVirgin's question above, and I admit I made a minor mistake on the substance of what was "reverted" by using edits (instead of revert tool), but a revert nonetheless occurred four (4) times. I'm not trying to drown the duck, but he went into water too deep, and I would point that out. Thank you, Guettarda. Your point is well taken too.--GordonWattsDotCom 21:16, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sheer and utter nonsense. By what definition of the word revert is an edit that adds, not subtracts material? In my original edit [32], the only thing I subtracted was a subheading in a link which I reformatted to conform to the other links. That part of the edit is not part of the dispute as I'm sure GW will acknowledge. Everything else was additional original (not previously part of the article) material. Revert does not mean add. It is de facto not a revert when nothing was removed.Duckecho (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Revert" means to change to a prior version -it has nothing to do with whether the end result "adds" or "subtracts" material. However, the previous version definition does not apply because you manually edited, to get around the three revert rule. Creative. Nice try! But you did not fool me. Also, chill out; don't make a mountain out of a molehill; Currently, your indiscretion is a molehill, and, in my entry above (replying to one of your points), I admitted my faux pas -and survived.--GordonWattsDotCom 22:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

"Revert" means to change to a prior version… Exactly! Now read diff #1 which you cited as my first revert [33]. What part did I change to a prior version?

• All of the <sup> tags that you're so worked up about were new. They were not in a prior version, so how is that part a revert?
• I added a missing end tag to an existing link (Kumar) It was not in a prior version, so how is that part a revert?
• The article link (Quill) was all new. It was not in a prior version, so how is that part a revert?
• The reformat of an existing link (Wilson) was new work. It was not in that format in a prior version, so it wasn't to change to a prior version. How is that part a revert?
• I did delete a subtitle in the Wilson link, to make it conform to style (and the other links). But I don't see how you can say that was to change to a prior version. Is that what's causing you to claim this edit was a revert?

That is the sum total of changes I made in that edit as can be clearly seen by the evidence you provided. Please, for the sake of mountains everywhere! Explain by what Wiki definition edit #1 was a revert. Duckecho (Talk) 22:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Duck, at this diff at 23:22, 10 July 2005, you asked me for answers, and I answered you at this diff at 01:57, 11 July 2005. You raise a point that i had not considered, because I've only been here a few months and didn't see the 3RR page's fine details. I'm recopying it here because SlimVirgin wanted clarification of whether you violated the rules: --GordonWattsDotCom 02:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

…but the sup tags weren't [in the original version], and when you changed them, it "reverted" to a different version… So let me see if I have this straight. In the version before my first edit (under discussion) there were no <sup> tags. I edited that version by adding <sup> tags (not changing them). When I did that, it "reverted" to a different version, which now even I can't understand. It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion. That is one magic concept. Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened. Duckecho (Talk) 23:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

(quoting Duck in italics) "It appears by your definition, every edit is a reversion." Bingo! You got it. "Please cite this exciting, omnibus new definition so we can all be enlightened." OK: "This can also apply to those that try to "game" the rule on a regular basis, such as by making fourth reversions just outside of the 24-hour time period, or by making complex reverts which attempt to disguise the restoration of the editor's preferred wording." Cite:

WP:3RR#Enforcement, 4th Paragraph, 2nd Sentence. Trying to make a complex revert like you did almost fooled SlimVirgin, but thanks to your smart remark to me, I looked up the exact cite, and I shall bring this to her attention. While I don't think that you will get blocked this time, I am certain that you tried to "game the system."--GordonWattsDotCom

01:57, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, if anyone is "gaming the system", it's you. DuckEcho is a solid contributor to the article, who is always willing to discuss his edits and take others' views into account. You, on the other hand, are a one-issue editor who has pushed a certain POV entirely against consensus on many occasions, to the absolute exasperation of all who have engaged with you. I have reminded DuckEcho that he should take more care not to go anywhere near breaking the 3RR because there are those who will make that the issue and not the edits in question. I advise you too that discussing the disputed edits on the talkpage is the best way to find a solution that satisfies you both, although I recognise that your positions are very, very far apart on this article. Grace Note 03:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Sanity Check / Request for comments: TDC

I would like to ask for your comments about the case of User:TDC; a long-time "borderline case", specialised in taunting and exasperating other users (with already two RFCs, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TDC-2), he has engaged in some sort of campaing of 3RR toying on Pablo Neruda.

I think that TDC has the potential of being a very good contributor; unfortunately, he spends most of his energy in making provocative and disturbing statements, insults other users, and globally act in bad faith. Since he is also very familiar with the letter of the rules, which he tends to use to better violate the spirit of them, I think that it is important to convince him that an actual good faith is indispensable.

I have warned him on the issue, a warning he took as a provocation to do more taunting; I therefore blocked him for two days. Upon his return, he immediately reverted Pablo Neruda twice, upon which I decided to further block him, for 4 days this time (see User_talk:TDC#Blocked).

Giving the rather severe nature of this retribution, I would like to specifically require the comment of other admins and make sure that this is in accordance to collegiality. Thank you in advance for your insights. Rama 16:39, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:PE was created for that kind of situation; I guess you should also add a note there. --cesarb

17:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I am copying the above message there then. Would anyone interested reply on

Wikipedia:Policy_enforcement_log#TDC ? Thank you very much ! Rama

17:40, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Aozan

• 1st revert: 09:26, 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:04, 10 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:09, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 19:22, 10 July 2005

Reported by: Wiglaf 17:35, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 22:50, 9 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:16, 9 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:13, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 09:30, 10 July 2005

Comment: This user has a thorn in the side with the Armenians.--Wiglaf 17:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't see that he's been warned, so I've left a warning on his talk page. He's also written to me saying he wants his account to be deleted, so he may not be a problem for much longer. Are there no legitimate reasons for him putting the POV tag on i.e. has he given examples of actionable changes that could be made that would satisfy him? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

see

dab (ᛏ)

18:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I realized that he had not been warned and tried to unblock him immediately. However, this message was all that happened on the Blocklist: blocked #27321 (expires 19:40, 11 July 2005) (unblock) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Aozan". The reason given for Aozan's block is: "three revert rule".). I am too inexperienced in 3RR and in blocking/unblocking procedures to make any sense out of it. Well, it was only a 24 hour block and since he has declared that he leaves Wikipedia it does not matter much anyway.--Wiglaf 18:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Wiglaf, I didn't realize you'd already blocked him. We're not meant to block where we've been involved in editing, though I don't know whether your reversions were made as an admin or an editor. To unblock, you'd need to unblock each of the autoblocks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf reverted him, so technically, he should not have blocked (although in this case it was rather straightforward that nobody except A was in violation of the 3RR). So for the record, I would support unblocking until he does one more revert, although in practice it proably doesn't make much of a difference.

dab (ᛏ)

19:57, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I will try to unblock him once more.--Wiglaf 20:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Now, he appears to be unblocked. I'll leave the blocking to someone else next time.--Wiglaf 20:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Irishpunktom

• 1st revert: 01:54, 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:59, 10 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:06, 10 July 2005
• 4th revert: 19:23, 10 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Editor keeps inserting a sentence about the author denying the Srebrenica massacre:[34] He has been warned about 3RR many times in the past, and even banned for it. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 19:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Hogeye