• July 31, 2005 - August 5, 2005

Incidents

Besides his 3RR nomination, to which he has just added his 8th revert, this user has been vandalizing Jonathan Sarfati, and calling others additions vandalism. [1] He actually reverted all of my changes, even the ones that corrected the incorrect statement that the person was 23, NOT 21 when he got his paper published in Nature, and I provided a link to the source, which he also removed. H also reverted my fixing the POV statement of "secular science journal" to "peer-reviewed scientific journal", and reverted my correction to the incorrect statement that Sarfat "published a paper". Authors don't publish papers, they get them published in journals. So, 3+ blatant cases of vandalism, and to top it off, his edit summary claims my edits were vandalism. Something must be done about this user. -- BRIAN0918  23:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Please see: Archived summary of this issue, where Brian0918 is deleting pre-existing information, and calling them minor edits. --agapetos_angel 05:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

03:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Thanks. (We won't be needing that stake, I think.) Related to this, what should be made of the following diff: [2]? It's the work of JiangsBellybuttonLint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the many accounts created recently for the sole purpose of harassing User:Jiang (see the history of his user page and his talk page). I'm starting to wonder if a single sockpuppet-master is behind these accounts. --MarkSweep 07:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Added a section on this vandal in

05:05, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Albanau left a message on my talk page [3] about personal attacks against him at talk:Albanians, [4] by user:Chronographos, and asking me to block him for 24 hours.

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

See user talk:Thryduulf, talk:Albanians [5], user talk:Chronographos and user talk:Albanau. Thryduulf 22:06, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to advise you to calm down and fill in a

Request for Comments if you cannot ease your differences together. Rama

13:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Indeed. I merely let other editors know of User:Albanau's activities on the Swedish Wikipedia, in which he clearly promotes [6],[7] armed extremist groups in the Balkans, claiming that they are fighting for "human rights" and against "cultural oppression". These are his words, not mine. His blatant promotion of these groups was later removed by another editor as "redundant propaganda": [8],[9], while his dubious claim that there is a ""Çamëria Liberation Army" in Greece fighting for "human rights" was disputed,[10] and no reference to such a group exists on the English Wikipedia. Finally, seeing as he is complaining of personal attacks, a non-comprehensive list of User:Albanau's personal attacks against me and other editors on Talk:Albanians follows: [11] [12] [13], [14], [15], [16] [17]. Who's the one who should really be banned?--Theathenae 13:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

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

19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

It is amusing to see

21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is describing someone as a "deranged homosexual" in an edit summary[25] also free of homophobic sentiment? I think you've been comprehensively outed as a

homophobe, so it's pointless trying to hide in your closet now. And please refrain from editing my comments.[26] Cheers.--Theathenae

22:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

guys, if you start denouncing each other now over all the frolicking that went down on the XMK talkpage, I'll be very disappointed in both of you.

22:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well I'm afraid my French isn't very good but surely the username is a violation of policy? --

Francs2000 | Talk

14:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

delete away :) this is just kooky graffiti. If somebody cries bloody murder over your deleting this nonsense, we can always undelete it.

dab (ᛏ)

22:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Thanks. Here's a similar one

06:58, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

User:RIDCSP, too. Bishonen | talk

14:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think the issue has been settled:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dab (ᛏ)

10:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Just got the following email from Irate:

--- Irate <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In common terms, exploding Wales is what you get when you get

08:02, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zapatancas persists in using his user page as a platform to launch personal attacks against me.; I have received a lot of abuse from this user in the past, starting when he used

15:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello everybody. I am a user from Spain who has tried to do useful contributions in the article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. SqueakBox has harassed me repeatedly. He insulted me explicitly in my user page as it is found here [29] (in any case, it is the version of my talk page of 17:16, 15 July 2005 by SqueakBox). He said "Fuck off Nazi scum".

I have described the harassment I suffer in the 14:59 26 July 2005 version of my user page, which has been vandalized by him [30]. He claims that I am abusing him and that a [user] page is not an excuse for a vicious and unjustified personal attack. The reason I included the description of his attacks on me in my user page is that he vandalized it when I have not created it, as can be checked in the history page, identifying me with a blocked vandal I have no relation to as I have said him once and again.

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

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

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

16:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Zapatero has been accused of telling the Spanish media in the aftermath of the attacks that suicidal bombers had been found among the victims (something discarded by all the specialists). When he was asked in December 2004 about the issue by the Parliamentary Investigative Committee created to find the truth about the attacks he declared that he did not "remember" what he had said. [31]

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

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

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

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

17:09, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

17:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

17:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

It is not true he has attacked me only once. He harasses me continuously. Today he vandalized my user page eliminating all the text in it, he has added a lot of obscene comments in my talk page, he has reverted my edit in the

18:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

SqueakBox

18:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

SqueakBox

18:34, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

What

Francs2000 | Talk

19:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

True, the sandbox is for experimentation. However, DrZoidberg (talk · contribs) hasn't contributed to any articles in his nine months on Wikipedia (See also Kate's count: [32]), and now he's broken the sandbox. He's soaking up bandwidth and server space, but has been tolerated because until recently he's not actually been acutely harmful. If he continues to not contribute and to do things that require cleanup, then he should be blocked. Wikipedia isn't his personal webspace or playground. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well according to [33] Wikipedia uses the

Difference Engine. No wonder it's so slow! the wub "?/!"

19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

)

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

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

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

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

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

Looks like a no legal threats violation:

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

User has no contributions worth speaking of. May be the same as User:82.34.57.87 who created the article. That address has a smattering of abusive conduct to its name, e.g. [34] [35] --FOo 18:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

OK, I've seen a lot of those same senitments in vandalism to those articles. Yeah, yeah, bla blah, "Schwarzenegger's a Nazi!" But wait a minute. Erm. Now, Peter Camejo, I mean Pete Camejo, a genocidal fascist? I mean Pete Camejo?!

t

22:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

I suppose. It just, er... Pete Camejo?!

t

23:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

t

23:23, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, in the interest of accuracy, it's not just living people. Try Aristotle, Malthus, Locke, Galileo, Newton, Adam Smith, Kant, Hegel, Russel, and on and on. I think Caligula, Tiberius, Mussolini and the Nazis are the only ones anyone would ever consider agreeing. I mean, the Beatles are in there.

t

00:57, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dixie Randock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy crap, what a flood. Are we banning him again? --

Khaosworks

06:10, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Aren't people jumping the gun a little here? At the above link, it sites 3 alledged problems [36] [37] [38]. But when I look them up the first is on his own talk page, the second is not disruptive at all, and the third is a some what impolite but none the less reasonable disgreement with another editor on a talk page. Perhaps I'm a little sensative because of why own problems with adminstrator User:Gamaliel (see below), but these calls for another year of banning seem premature to me.--198.93.113.49 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but given that Plautus was blocked indefinitely [39] (and never unblocked), how is he still editing pages other than his talk page? Carbonite | Talk 16:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

khaosworks

02:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Surely you don't think that statements like "Fuck this monkey bullshit and fuck you, Fred!" (see edit summary here: [40] ) indicate that this user has had some miraculous transformation during his year-and-a-half ban. How does that old saying go... troll me once, shame on you--troll me twice, shame on me. There's a point at which we have to just say that enough is enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:22, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please remember: User:Lamb Chop ≠ user:Lambchop

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

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

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

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

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

Well Ruy you just kinda proved that you're a sock. How many times have you referenced that I've been temp-banned, been short-blocked in the past, OMG WHAT THIS IS NEWS [41] [42][43] J. Parker Stone 06:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• Yeah, probably. Then again, the user appears to be making good contributions. Everyking 07:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yea I seen that, was thinking it was a vandal, but all good edits so far. Granted someone will complain about the userpage eventually. ∞Who?¿? 07:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Let's invite the user to change names. Also the page needs to be blanked, or something needs to be changed about it. Everyking 07:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I would hate for them to get deleted or blocked over a silly name, probably did it for fun. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 07:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

At this point I think I should point out what SqueakBox said in his welcome to this user: "Hello, I love PENIS lots lots lots, and welcome to Wikipedia." I wonder how I should interpret that... --

t

20:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

You should interpret it as me being a part of the welcoming committee. I do hundreds of these. Everyking had left a message saying maybe he should use a different name, so I left a message saying The best way to do this is to press the above move button and folow the instructions. Meanwhile and added the welcome as it was made clear here that his or her edits are fine, and therefore we want to encourage the user to be a regular contributor. It just seemed wrong to me not to welcome him or her,

21:08, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Try reading the sentence... Cheers, [[smoddy]] 21:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Erm. It was, you know... ha ha...? (Of course I appreciate welcomers, and even remember the excitement when I first saw that "new messages" alert)

t

21:21, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That, of course was the wikipedia template interpreting the {{welcome}} template. I take no responsibility!

21:17, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Block him for user name and tell him to contact a bureaucrat to change contribs. We've had other offensive names with good contribs but we still have to block them. Redwolf24 22:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just did the deed in line with our username blocking policy... Redwolf24 22:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I closed this VFD debate:

10:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like "no consensus" was a proper call to me. Note that a kept article can still be moved to a different title or merged or what-have-you after the VfD, of course, if consensus arises to do so. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been looking for the "proper channels" regarding the discussion that's broken out with IZAK two days now, and any assistance would be appreciated. Shem^(talk) 20:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with that no consensus. Redwolf24 22:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Another administrator has deleted this article and its talk page nilaterally, apparently on the basis that he personally believed that there was a consensus to delete. This isn't the way to proceed--such matters should be taken to VfD. I have restored the article and its talk page and ask those who think the close was incorrect to dispute it properly in the spirit of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

19:56, 7 August 2005 User:Neutrality deleted "Religious persecution by Jews" (content was: '#redirect Historical persecution by Jews' (and the only contributor was 'User:Shem Daimwood'))

how is that a rationale for deletion? the redirect was placed there after the move, so I don't see why it should have more than one contributor, and how the number of contributors is even relevant.

dab (ᛏ)

10:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The article was actually moved to Historical persecution by Jews, so the correct entry was

• 19:47, 7 August 2005 Neutrality deleted "Historical persecution by Jews" (VfD debate had an overwhelming vote to delete (at least 2:1).)

Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I see. Of course then the deletion of the redirect makes sense. It is still improper, I think, we do not normally consider 2:1 a 'consensus', Neutrality should at least have argued his point here. Anyway, undeletion is cheap. Incidentially, the title seems a bit awkward, what exactly is 'historical persecution'? (I realize that the original article had a somewhat antisemitic bent, but I think it is doing quite well now).

dab (ᛏ)

11:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Please help me. I was blocked yesterday for this edit [44] by User:Gamaliel.

There is a long discussion of it here: User talk:198.93.113.49. I know it is long, but please read everything under 12 hour block. I think it will show that I am being delt with unfairly. Now Gamaliel has started list of greviances against me here User:Gamaliel/todo. I'm embarrassed to admit that some of these things are true. I have viloated the 3RR rule in the past and did handle the John Byrne edit war badly, but I am a good editor and no troll. I'm paticularly pround of the cleanup I did of Oak Island: [[45]], but most of what Gamaliel says about me on his page is just a personal attack. Please read my response: User:Gamaliel/todo.

Thank you, --198.93.113.49 14:00, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a very random and irrelevant place to leave a comment. I can see no plausible explanation other than it being an attack on Gamaliel, intended to be read by Gamaliel. The anon in question has a single edit and is unlikely to be back to see it himself. -- Cyrius|✎ 16:13, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I had no reason to think Gamaliel would read it and was surprised that he did read it. What exactly is the blockable offense here. Gamaliel has said many things far worse about me and yet my attempt to discuss the situation on Roy Lichtenstein with a user who had had similar problems with Gamaliel is considered an attack. Is it now Wiki policy that admins can block users for anything if they think is inapporiate even if it does not violate any policy? Please read the converstaion at 198.93.113.49. Gamaliel is all over the place on his reasons for blocking me. They're either old issues that have already been delt with, things which violate no policy, alledgedly trollish behavior that he himself engages in, or simply innacurate accusations against me. --198.93.113.49 17:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The talk pages of new users should not be forums to air unrelated grievances. They should be for greeting new users and informing them of Wikipedia policies and customs, not for drawing them into preexisiting conflicts. I feel very strongly about this matter, and in light of the anon's previous history, I feel my actions were warranted. My to do list was merely a personal record/memory refresher of my interatctions with other users (as well as a list of articles I wanted to get around to editing) not meant for public consumption or as a public attack, but I suppose everything on Wikipedia is for public consumption in the end. Initially I reverted his comments to my subpage and locked it, but I decided to let them remain for the time being. Gamaliel 16:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• Now Gamaliel has deleted my last comment to Talk:Rob Liefeld, please help me resolve this. I do not know what to do?--198.93.113.49 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note that

19:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am a gunuine user and this is nothing more than a personal attack. Yes, I was involved in an edit war on Rob Liefeld and yes I lost my temper when a different standard was applied to other users than the one being applied to me. That has no baring on the issue here which is Gamaliel's blocking me 12 hours for a compleately unrelated comment on another page or the fact that he just today deleted a perfectly reason comment I made to the Rob Leifeld talk page which is still in the history for any one to see that it should not have been deleted.--198.93.113.49 19:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Note, the edits in question were:

Francs2000, These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article. rob liefeld doesn't need to be metioned on this website. by 69.243.46.93 (talk · contribs)

wikipedia=censorship by 65.220.54.20 (talk · contribs)

Why was User:65.220.54.20 comment reverted. It was not a personal attack. And while it was negative toward wikipedia and extremely terse it was also relevent to what's been going on here. I agree the sentiment that a spirit of censorship infects Wikipedia, and while I would have expressed it a little different that 65.220.54.20 that hardly means his comment should be reverted. by 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs)

198, Your fighting a losing battle the admins at this site all have god complexs. by 65.220.54.20 (talk · contribs)

To be honest I stepped in as an independent admin following a request for help on this very page for assistance and I'm now spending far too much time being accused of every bias under the sun by anonymous IPs on a page about someone I couldn't care less about. Sort it out amongst yourselves, I'm not going to touch the page again. --

Francs2000 | Talk

19:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure it is obvious to everyone, but I want make it doubly clear that my comment which was deleted was

Why was User:65.220.54.20 comment reverted. It was not a personal attack. And while it was negative toward wikipedia and extremely terse it was also relevent to what's been going on here. I agree the sentiment that a spirit of censorship infects Wikipedia, and while I would have expressed it a little different that 65.220.54.20 that hardly means his comment should be reverted. by 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs)

I also want to reiterate that this is a side issue. My main objection was that I was blocked for 12 hours without cause.--198.93.113.49 19:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please help. Gamaliel continues to delete my comments at Talk:Rob Liefeld. Please go there an see for yourself that my comments are appropriate and should not be deleted. Here is the most recently deleted comment which was in response to Gamaliel ording me t stop commenting--198.93.113.49 20:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you get to determine when a discussion is over? I'm still concerned that there is too much deleting of comments going on here and while most of the comments deleted so far problably won't be missed I want to make sure this does not get out of hand so that this discussion of Liefeld can continue smoothely

Why does no one care about this abuse by Gamaliel?

Now he is threathening me on my talk page:

Get this straight: Wikipedia is not your personal message board. You are not entitled to post your complaints anywhere you want. The sole purpose for an article talk page is for productive discussion of the content of that article. It is not the place for comments like These idiots will never setle these disputes, it a better idea to scrat the whole article and wikipedia=censorship from you or anyone else. Those useless comments do not add anything to the productive discussion of an encyclopedia article, nor does a long discussion of the worth of comments like those contribute anything of worth to the article. You have recieved clear, repeated warnings from both User:Francs2000 and myself about your behavior on that page. For the last and final time, keep your comments on the topic of the article and nothing else. I will not allow you to make Talk:Rob Liefeld your personal soapbox nor will I allow you to continue to waste my time and the time of the productive editors there actually trying to improve the article. If you actually wish to be a productive, contributing editor, I suggest you start acting like one. Your lack of positive contributions combined with your constant trolling over the last several weeks makes me think more and more that a permanent ban on this IP as a troll account is warranted. Gamaliel 21:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Please somebody go to Talk:Rob Liefeld. You can clear see he is lying about what I am doing.--198.93.113.49 21:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The best way for you to demonstrate that Gamaliel is mistaken about you is for you to start making constructive comments on that talk page about how to imporove that article. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:29, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I was blocked for 12 hours for no reason at all. I have no recourse what-so-ever and no one cares, and now I'm told that it's my responsibility to prove Gamaliel is wrong!? He's decided I'm troll, attacked me on his todo page, and used this is an excuse to block me when he feels like whether I've done anything or not, and I am burdened with showing that he's wrong about me!?!. I cannot win. This much is clear. Gamaleil has bocked me without cause, deleted my discussions on the Rob Liefeld talk page, and left vague threats on my talk page. And the only admins who care are the ones that think this is okay. All a person has to do is go see for themselves that I've done nothing wrong in this instance.--198.93.113.49 13:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Most of the comments you guys are attributing to 198, belong to me please do not credit him with those remarks.

Ok, I went to Talk:Rob Liefeld. Let me ask you this, 198.93.113.49, did you, in fact, make ANY comments about Rob Liefeld, or how to improve the article? Or did you waste everyone's time by trying to defend a vandal? Because unless I missed it, none of your comments had anything to do with Liefeld. You complained because irrelevant comments were being removed? Why? --Kbdank71 15:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevet comment?! Three of my own comments were removed and they were completely relevent. Some of the comments made by others may ahve been questionable, but even then I think that when in doubt it's best to avoid deleting comments in a discussion. I think that this is a very valid point of discussion. I'm sorry that you and Gamaliel disagree, but we will just have to have a difference of opinion on that. However, just because you and Gamaliel don't find an issue worth discussing does not mean that those comments should be deleted. Gamaliel is at it again by the way. He's made it very clear on his talk page that he intends to revert edits to Joe Scarborough no matter how many people oppose his version and made a wildly unfounded accuasation about sock puppets (even though he's taken me to task for accusing some of being a sock puppet once) and when I tried to comment on the matter (I'm a part of the group who opposes his POV pushing on Scarboroug) he deleted my comment and left a nasty note on mt talk page.User talk:198.93.113.49--198.93.113.49 19:48, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Granted, I only went back one page in history, but this is what I saw: Vandalism. Vandalism removed. You complained because vandalism was removed. Repeat. Add in removal of your complaints, and that's it in a nutshell. So what's the problem there? BTW, you didn't answer my question: Did you make any comments about Rob Leifeld or his article? --Kbdank71 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see Flgook's upload log. Seems suspicious to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The tags smell bogus - the bunnies, Jeff Probst (I only looked at the first five or so) all look like they were taken off IMDB or professionally taken photos at public events and probably copyrighted. Even the GQ "cover" isn't a cover - the "Click here to subscribe" tag suggests that it's grabbed off the GQ website (and indeed it is.) I suggest going through them with a fine tooth comb. --

khaosworks

08:51, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Yesterday, on RC patrol, I noticed Wikipedia Username (talk • contribs) creating User:Wikipedia Username/Letter, a letter to Hollywood stars about their failure to support the war in Iraq. I asked him to take it down, as I felt it was inappropriate content. To his credit, he did so, although he did label be a "fascist", and accuse me of double standards, since I have some slightly irrelevant stuff on my user page. I do, however, marvel at the comment, And anyway I wasn't "calling" you a fascist, you are a fascist, so I was merely stating fact. Now, having deleted the article, all should be fine and dandy, right? Wrong. He now creates User:Wikipedia Username/Facist Beating (sic) with exactly the same content. Firstly, is the content appropriate for Wikipedia? My reaction was no, although I concede that I may be wrong. Secondly, with the letter actually being written by Charlie Daniels, is the letter copyvio? This is the point when I don't really want to start acting unilaterally, so any advice would be appreciated! Cheers, [[smoddy]] 10:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Since it's a copyvio, it should probably be listed as such.--

nixie

10:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

So it is a copyvio then? [[smoddy]] 10:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is, see http://www.charliedaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html I also copyvio'd the page, just seen this after I did it. Gonna leave a note on the talk page for them. ∞Who?¿? 10:19, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Who. [[smoddy]] 10:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I just want to say for the first part of him writing a letter to stars, that's perfectly allowable, its his own user page and its his own subpage. Saying he's not allowed to is like saying that we can't write about how old we are, etc. at our page. However him calling you a fascist was totally out of line. Redwolf24 22:24, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I had that debate with him. He came up with the extraordinary statement And no ones going to ask you about stuff that is apart of your life, unless they're stupid because I don't care about your life, so no one else should either. From

Wikipedia:User page, section "What should I avoid": Generally, you should avoid any substantial content that is unrelated to Wikipedia and Opinion pieces not related to Wikipedia or other non-encyclopedic material. I was asking whether the content fell into these categories. [[smoddy]]

22:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Smoddy; stating your interests is relevant, because it helps other editors find you. For example, listing my Ph.D. on my page helps others realize that I am a good source of information with regard to theology. However, an open letter to Benedict XVI in my user space wouldn't be relevant to my work here. If WU wants to write an open letter, he should do it on his hard drive or on a free hosting site, like Yahoo!. If it's a copyvio, then that just makes it worse. The user should be warned to avoid personal attacks, and blocked for 24 hours for disruption if the letter-posting and/or attacks continue. -- Essjay · Talk 22:40, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Essjay. Some unrelated content, like the pictures people have on their user page are, IMO, fine. An open letter of complaint to the Wikipedia community is fine. Even Cognition's man-beasts, while distasteful, are useful in identifying him/her as a LaRouchie. But open letters to celebrities are not connected to Wikipedia. Of course, if it's a copyvio there's no excuse for it to be there at all. Guettarda 23:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Louis Epstein, who has never registered an account but contributes from the fixed IP address

16:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• ProudWHITEIsraeli (talk · contribs)

If I came across this chap's edits in the normal course of events I might summarily block him for having an inappropriate username for Wikipedia, or at least have a word with him about engaging in political advocacy (his userpage). However he has made an apparently good faith VfD and this is being taken seriously, and I have taken part in the discussion, so I don't feel comfortable dealing with him as an administrator. But it does seem to me that he probably intends to use Wikipedia as part of some campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Er... good faith nomination? In the nomination, he directly accuses
  t
  05:48, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
• I think Dmcdevit captured my feeling exactly. I don't know if you could call it a good faith VfD, but if nothing else, someone needs to remove the personal attacks on Mustaafa. I won't do anything, since I don't want to be accused of taking racism personally (again), and I have edited his VfD. But I advise any uninvolved admin to take a look at this. Guettarda 06:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  Perhaps what I saw was the edited version of the VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  (I'll warn you I just had a run-in with sockpuppets on VfD today, so I may be on high-alert.) But, any account that is created with a throwaway username, makes its first few edits to VfD a contoversial topic and make racist personal attacks, and then makes allusions to Wikipedia's past and familiarity with an established Wikipedian ("it has been established time and time again on wikipedia that Mustafaa is biased against Whites and Jews") reeks of sockpuppetry. I don't know what conflicts Mustafaa's been in, but this is no newbie. --

  t

  06:32, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely. This guy was obviously a sock puppet. I don't have a problem with socks per se, only abusive socks. The reason I listed this case here is that I'm involved in the VfD discussion so I don't feel that it would be appropriate to deal with this chap myself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Plus, sorry to jump in, I think a username change could also be in order. That name will just call for possible accusations of racism against this user. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
• I would agree with this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • If it was ProudBLACKIsraeli would it have accusations of racism? ‡ Jarlaxle 23:59, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I asked myself the same question yesterday, then speculated that people's opinions would vary. Either would seem disruptive to me.

Wyss

00:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• That question is a
  t
  00:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the username itself, to me the all-caps white hints at disruption/confrontation, not editing.

Wyss

02:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand the argument wrt this guy, but was this appropriate? Has -Ril- been made an admin sometime that I was unaware of? Tomer ^TALK 02:20, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think everyone should be aware that he is a special kind of sockpuppet, a

05:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Wonderful. That still doesn't deal with my question about the appropriateness of what -Ril- did. Tomer ^TALK 05:23, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

There. I've undone -Ril- to make clearer my

point that what he did was inappropriate. Will an ADMIN now please do the job? Thanks. Tomer ^TALK

05:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was already blocked when I made that edit. I was just removing the racism. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked his new account, User:TelAvivKid, indefinitely, as it's clear he's a disruptive sock puppet, and I believe he's banned user Alberuni. I've left a note on his talk page inviting him to discuss it with me by e-mail if he wants to continue editing. [52] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Existentializer (talk · contribs)

This user has been accused of being a sock puppet of user Enviroknot (talk · contribs) who has been banned from sock puppeting and is banned from editing for one year according to an arbitration committee decision. I've looked at his editing and his behavior does seem similar, but I'd like third party opinions before taking this to arbcom for a reset of Enviroknot's ban. He does seem to have Enviroknot's trademark toxicity--I feel like I need a shower after reading his comments. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

First edits

I think these edits establish very well that this editor has a style extremely reminiscent of Enviroknot--in effect, a charm-free zone. The pattern of articles edited, and subjects, also closely fit the Enviroknot pattern.

• 18 July: Somewhat POV edit on MoveOn
• 19 July: Abusive response to User:Radicalsubversiv on Talk:MoveOn
• July 19: Revert edit on Jihad making accusations against a certain User:BrandonYusufToropov. See also 212.247.200.185 (talk · contribs)
• 19 July: Rather trollish Follow up to 3RR report by User:212.247.200.185
• 19 July: Good edit on
  Simulation game
  .
  • User:Elkabong, User:KaintheScion and User:Enviroknot were all sock puppets who interspersed their trolling with serious edits on gaming.
• 19 July: Revert edit on his user page by one User:Envirofuck, accusing him of being a sock of User:Enviroknot.

Because of this editor's continued abusive comments and in particular recent removal of comments from a talk page, I'm blocking him pending a decision on whether he is a sock of Enviroknot. The closer I look the more obvious it is. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I've been out of the loop, but who makes that "decision"? Since when do we hand out pre-emptive blocks without conclusive decisions as to identity? -

Seth Ilys

16:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Indeed! How about contacting David Gerard for an IP check before making hasty decisions based only on somewhat hazy associations. P.S. Wouldn't you expect someone who isn't a sockpuppet to also revert a sock template on their user page? HKT ^talk 18:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with you. His edit summaries, particularly those accusing random users of being sockpuppets of Yuber, are very clearly those of Enviroknot, and he was immediately very familiar with WP procedures and policies, unlikely for a new user. [[smoddy]] 14:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see what your justification to do this is. Having looked at the circumstances surrounding his edits there is some bad language but nothing otherwise out of line. When the presence of good edits is used as "proof" of something wrong, I think you are misconstruing things. And since the same users he was facing off with have vandalized my own user page, I think it is most likely that you are abusing your own authority because you have an axe to grind and need a target.Ni-ju-Ichi 04:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Further, I'll note that nobody has reverted the removed comments yet, quite possibly because they themselves were trollish and a direct violation of the group's mission statement. What he did wasn't out of line.Ni-ju-Ichi 05:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• User:Envirofuck is Yuber Sockpuppet. It's Existentializer's own user page and he can moderate it as he see's fit. BYT is well known as wiki-Islamist, which is why his admin request fell through, BYT has been known to pig-fight with other editors. Again let's not bite the newbies. Klonimus 05:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, from the edits (focusing on Islam topics and now especially out of nowhere jumping back to

05:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not, DreamGuy. I took a look at the users in question and I've watched Existentializer's page ever since mine was vandalized. YOU have been repeatedly told to stop making the edits you're continually reverting at Talk:Vampire by multiple users, not just Existentializer, and it is quite clear that you are in the wrong. Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet to get rid of people who stand in the way of your conduct is no way to act on Wikipedia. Ni-ju-Ichi 05:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only "multiple users" reverting that page are the now banned user, an editor who has a long history of reverting my edits no matter what they are (see his RfC) and yourself (a clear sock... allegedly watching his page since it was vandalized in no way explains your sudden need to jump into and make edits to all the same articles he was making, and your history here is short and extremely suspicious, not to mention your comments use the same over the top accusatory style trying to quote policies you as a new user would likely be unfamiliar with). You can deny it all you want, but your edit history makes it all too clear. Claiming mutliple users oppose my actions when it's really only one (you) and then a person who doesn't oppose my edits so much as everything I do (all the way to his reverting my edits when I changed capitalization in articles to fit the Manual of Style) is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts... and one clearly calculated by a person banned mutliple times and trying to game the system to get his way. DreamGuy 06:13, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

If this is the way you act, Dreamguy, then there's no wonder Talk:Vampire is full of people telling you to knock it off. Ni-ju-Ichi 06:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah... "full of people" sure. You won't fool anyone. Your edit history suspiciously features Isalmic articles, those two vampire articles, and video game articles, and nothing else. It's mighty peculiar that the triad of topics obsessed upon by those previously banned users happen to match you perfectly right down to specific articles, and that all of the socks used the exact same arguments and claims you now use. You must think the admins are stupid. DreamGuy 06:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, because nobody at ALL is interested in Islam, nore in video games, nor in Vampires... do you do Punch and Judy acts too? DreamGuy, you have already been warned by me and other contributors to this article. You do not own this article. Do not make drastic changes without opening it up for discussion. What you are doing is vandalism. (courtesy of Evmore) And now your fallback is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being a sockpuppet? I'm sorry, but you need to chill and you need to start working WITHIN wikipedia policy please. Ni-ju-Ichi 06:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a venerated principe of Western jurisdiction is "innocent until proven guilty". The described incidents in which Existentializer was involved do not seem to be of an extremely intrusive or abusive character which warrants a ban of this user. A mere suspicion should IMHO not be a reason for a ban. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 11:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody that WP is not a project to emulate western jurisdiction. It is a project to write an encyclopedia. No real-life disadvantages arise for unjustly blocked users. Fairness is an a posteriori desideratum, in the interest of a good community spirit. I do think the evidence acted upon by Tony is conclusive enough, although the arbcom may want to have a word in this. I repeat that I think admins badly need to see IPs to facilitate decisions such as Tony's. Also, note that

dab (ᛏ)

12:10, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated at first, I did not initially think a block on Existentializer necessary while we investigated his then-suspected status as a sock of Enviroknot. I did watch him closely, however, and his persistent abusive behavior led me to conclude that a block was justified. We assume good faith, but that doesn't mean we stand back and permit some editors to abuse others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Ni-ju-Ichi blocked as sockpuppet of Enviroknot

I've blocked Ni-ju-Ichi as a sockpuppet of Enviroknot. Ni-ju-Ichi edits follow the exact pattern of

20:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there some sort of due process for determining this? Subjective opinions of an individual about editing patterns do not seem like due process to me. I'm sure that someone around here can look at IP logs to see whether or not the sock puppetry accusation is true. --Zeno of Elea 21:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot is known to change IPs very frequently, but I will post a message on David Gerard's talk page. Since Enviroknot recently was banned by the ArbCom, this may be something David can look into. Still, this is a very obvious case with Ni-ju-Ichi and Kurita77 (another one of Enviroknot's sockpuppets) being the only users to ever edit

Eyeshield 21 (anime). [57]. Also, please see the nice messages left by Ni-ju-Ichi after he was blocked. I asked Ni-ju-Ichi to contact the mailing list if he had further concerns. So far, it appears he does not. Carbonite | Talk

21:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

At the very least, I think that demonstrable evidence of disruptive or anti-policy activity pre-block on Ni-ji-Ichi's part should be put forward. He's upset, but I think that's understanable. I'm taking Carbonite's suggestion and unblocking Ni-ji-Ichi for the moment. --

Seth Ilys

22:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Concur, personally I think potential non-disruptive though abusive sock puppets ought to go through the RfC process. I think that there is enough uncertainty that one can't directly claim that Ni-ji-Ichi == Enviroknot. I think we have to assume good faith untill, proven otherwise. Klonimus 22:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Enviroknot is banned by the ArbCom and thus all of his sockpuppets are also banned. I've provided evidence above that Ni-ju-Ichi is Kurita77 and it was already proven that Kurita77 was Enviroknot. I strongly request that the block be reinstated. I've already asked David Gerard to examine the IP evidence, but as Enviroknot uses dynamic IPs, I'm not sure how much he;ll be able to learn. If Ni-ju-Ichi has concerns, he may present his case to the mailing list or on his talk page. So far, he has done neither. Carbonite | Talk 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I sent my concerns to the mailing list. I got a "your submission has been rejected enviroknot" message back. This is total BS. I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not Enviroknot. Neither is Existentializer. Although I fully expect that you're going to turn around and IP-block me for even posting this. -Ni-ju-Ichi

Please post on your talk page then. The software allows blocked users to freely edit their own talk page. Carbonite | Talk 22:52, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

22:56, 31 July 2005, Carbonite blocked 66.69.128.146 (expires 22:56, 1 August 2005) (contribs) (anon IP of User:Enviroknot) - No it doesn't when you block their IP addresses, Carbonite. Are you quite done with the doublespeak yet?

First, I hardly think you'll have a problem finding another IP. Second, it's already been confirmed [58] that you're a sockpuppet, so discussion is somewhat moot at this point. Carbonite | Talk 23:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Also note that the ArbCom decision bans Enviroknot for one year and prohibits him from using any sockpuppets (abusive or otherwise). Ni-ju-Ichi is a virtual clone of Kurita77, displaying the same editing beahvior and interest in all things about Enviroknot. Carbonite | Talk 22:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Having had an extensive IRC with Ni-ju-Ichi, and having had dealings with Enviroknot in the past, I am convinced that they are one and the same. He claimed to be a "friend" of Existentializer, and that, to me, means he is Enviroknot. My good-faith assuming has been worn out on this user. [[smoddy]] 22:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the definitive evidence: It's already known that Enviroknot (and his sockpuppet Kurita77) are from Houston. [59]. After I blocked Ni-ju-Ichi, he posted [60] using IP 66.69.128.146. This traces to...Houston. [61]. I again request that the block be reinstated. Carbonite | Talk 22:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

And he was kickbanned from IRC with a Houston ISP address. It's Enviroknot. [[smoddy]] 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

That IP address is within the same range as one used by Elkabong, an earlier Enviroknot incarnation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've reinstated the block. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:46, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Both User:Existentializer and User:Ni-ju-Ichi have been confirmed as sockpuppets of Enviroknot by David Gerard. Carbonite | Talk 23:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

This means that the one year ban on Enviroknot should be reset according to the ruling of the arbitration committee. I blocked User:Existentializer only, because the evidence in the case of User:Ni-ju-Ichi, whom I also suspected, was at that time less clear cut. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

note that Enviroknot will almost certainly be back in more incarnations. He has been known to repeatedly lie through his teeth about his identity, and to adapt his behaviour to the way he was found out in earlier instances. The best of these so far was the story about the neighbor cutting his cable in the garden (Kurita77, I believe? I think that was supposed to explain why he had the same IP as Enviroknot :) Any new account with a strong interest in Enviroknot and similar edit patterns will very likely be another sockpuppet. We are dealing with a troll with above-average persistence and resourcefulness (although his main strength is our reluctance to act on circumstantial evidence, he has never been great at simulating different personality profiles)

07:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've made a note on the discussion page of the arbitration case as a reminder that the ban on this user should now run until 31 July, 2006. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ni-Ju-Ichi is Enviroknot or an unreasonable facsimile. He came on IRC yesterday claiming abusive reject messages on wikien-l messages. Then I kicked him as an obvious querulous idiot, then he came back in the new name with a remarkably similar IP. Either his luck with DHCP IPs is so bad he should be in Vegas rather than Houston, or it's Enviroknot. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not play pitter-pat with this fool. He has a string of other usernames too - use your good sense - David Gerard 09:35, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Devilbat might be worth keeping an eye on

Based upon his comments on Talk:Vampire and his likely being the same as the two anon users earlier making the same reverts to Vampire that the two sockpuppets above made (as well as harassing comments) it might be worth it to keep on eye on this account just in case it's the same guy. Too early to tell on the small edits he has, and if it is the same guy he'll probably be trying to make his edits less predictable this time. DreamGuy 05:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I await developments with an especial trepidation. El_C 06:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Even with only a couple of contributions, it's quite clear anon IP user 212.202.190.53 is being used by this guy recently to get around his ban. DreamGuy 19:48, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

User:Devilbat is looking more and more like Enviroknot/Existentializer, etc. -- Apparently because he knows he's being watched he's reserved that name for very few edits but still is largely using it to try to continue the conflict on Vampire and lets anonymous IP addresses do his actual fighting. For example, User:69.41.174.196 (from history can see that same user talking about Islamofascists or whatever and jumping to an Existerntializer thing months back) restores comments by Devilbat and another harassing anonymous user that were removed as inappropriate from Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Vampire -- a whole string of similar IPs have taken this action as well as vandalize my user page (with such regularity it had to be locked) and other's pages. It's quite clear Environknot is still here but is trying to be less obvious with sockpuppeting. DreamGuy 05:06, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Other IPs making edits clearly by the same person: User:85.89.74.5, User:82.209.129.16, User:213.100.4.232, User:66.143.33.180, User:212.112.238.98, User:143.225.138.34, User:66.135.40.6, and probably others as well... he's obviously got the ability to switch IPs rapidly down pat. DreamGuy 05:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of this user. I'm not sure he is acting in bad faith however. Kim Bruning 23:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The next sections have more info that's pertinent, showing a clear link to another sock and the connections to Enviroknot. DreamGuy 04:20, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

DavidGerard has proven that he = Enviroknot, and that Pukachu = Existentializer. Good day. -- A Link to the Past 22:00, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto for User:Pukachu

Extremely new editor, short history includes highly uncivil language, personal attacks, trying to take the side of the sockpuppets banned on Vampire conflict... Seems extremely sockish, but very abusive and unhelpful (only actual article edits -- instead of rampant talk page insults -- already led to a fight, which I had nothing to do with). DreamGuy 23:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looking at Pukachu's history quickly, it appears the only fight this editor is in is with you, DreamGuy. The only other controversy has been regarding the common courtesy of leaving talk-page notification of major edits, and that was an erroneous communication which happened only because I spoke to the other involved user on IRC trying to get them to be less combative and more courteous about mentioning large-scale changes on talk pages in the interest of wikilove. Devilbat

Devilbat, you're Pukachu. I mean, give me one good reason why you were created the same day recently, make very similar edits, and messaged me over an issue that Pukachu reverted. So, yes, you're a problem. -- A Link to the Past 01:16, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I messaged you because I saw the revert on Special:Recent changes, checked the history, and thought your grasp of wikiquette could use improving. We are encouraged to give helpful suggestions to new editors after all. And please clean up your language. I have already messaged Pukachu to clean up his as well. Devilbat

Not to mention comments I leave there are erased by User:128.42.98.102, whose edit history shows more of the "Islamofascist" comments that Existentializer / Envrioknot always pulled... You are getting really crappy at your sockpuppeting, everyone can see right through you. DreamGuy 01:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention comments I leave there are erased by User:128.42.98.102 Or erased by User:212.112.238.98, who tried to delete the comment just above. Looking at the contributor history, this ip has been used by Enviroknot during one of his rage-fueled vandalism sprees. --Calton | Talk 02:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppet template is being constantly removed by anonymous editors. user:128.42.98.102, User:64.230.20.161, User:62.241.240.86, and User:212.112.238.98 as noted by Dreamguy, that first IP seems to be from an Eniroknot sock. Is it possible to protect the userpage?

I am not a sockpuppet and I have been put through too much lately. I make good edits. I have left my suggested edit at the Vampire talk page and I'm leaving there now, I won't post there as long as DreamGuy is attacking any editor who posts there. Pukachu 17:17, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I was not "attacking any editor who posts there". Mostly I was pointing out when people were acting like sockpuppets (remember, two of them I identified previously were confirmed as sockpuppets of a well known troublesome editor who was banned for a year from all of Wikipedia), following the

Wikipedia:Sockpuppets policy, and also identifying false claims of people who were attacking me instead of working toward consensus (and two of those were recently blocked elsewhere for other violations of Wikipedia policy, proving my case that they are problem editors). Pukuchu has already been blocked twice recently for highly abusive actions of the exact nature of taken by Existentializer previously, so the plea for innocence is quite misplaced. DreamGuy

23:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Devilbat

Now that we've gotten that out of the way, can we get to the truth? I came to the Vampire article in good faith, trying to get people to sort this nonsense out. My first edit [62] was to that effect, suggesting that we split the two articles off and leave the main Vampire page as disambiguation. This seems to have been taken to heart by Pukachu, but I think that is merely because it makes sense if we are splitting off sections from the article.

You can freely examine the rest of my edits if you wish.

Further, DreamGuy makes reports and accusations here and THEN uses his own reporting to insinuate that users are illegitimate? Or he makes edits on one page encouraging "fresh blood" to the vampire article but insists on that page's talk page that all editors with less than 100 edits be barred from contributing? I am sorry but these are not the actions of a good-faith editor, they are the mark of a control freak and someone who needs to take some wikibreak time to get a grip on his emotions. At least that is how I see it. Devilbat

Cute, Devilbat called himself DevilBat so the sockpuppet tag got placed in the wrong location. That's fixed now though. The less than 100 edits thing is simply following Wikipedia policy on what to do when there are known sockpuppets about, not something I made up. You have been just as abusive as the others, but then you hide behind anon users clearly linked to Enviroknot to do most of your battling for you, and then go try to stir up trouble with other editors like User:EliasAlucard so they do more fighting too. This must be the account you try to pull the puppet's strings from... except with sockpuppets they just unravel. DreamGuy 04:15, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please can somebody investigate whether the series of page moves made by

as there is currently quite a contentious discussion/vote over what the title of that article should be, but Alexandra Fyodorvna (Alix of Hesse) has no support votes and 1 oppose vote. He moved a whole lot of other articles to similar titles, all afaict without any discussion on the talk pages concerned.

He has proposed a standard, at

, but (again afaict), this is not linked to from any of the talk pages concerned (with the exeption of the Alexandra of Hesse talk page - in a comment left after the page move), so many of the editors will not be aware of it. It is not the clearest discussion in the world, but I can't see any consensus for any proposal there at all.

I am tempted to revert all the page moves, but don't want to get into a war over it, and so I would like to get consensus here. As John is an administrator, page move protection would not stop a move war. Thryduulf 11:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, regarding those who still were under their German birth names, the Kenney moves were towards better direction, but arrived not in the best placements yet. Those ladies could well be at

Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse to its that location which is awaiting the result of the vote. Arrigo

17:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an admin, I could well understand John's frustration with the situation. The vote had reached stalemate, mainly as a result of one contributor's determination not to comply with naming standards. This contributor had previously himself carried out a move without consensus, and I had done so prior to that (before this round of voting began), for much the same reason as John. So yes, it was wrong, but not as mind-numbingly so as the current title is. Deb 17:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Deb is correct in her summary. The vote is stalemated not because a decision can't be taken but because one contributor is determined not to comply with naming standards. I don't think the name picked was right, but the current title is ludicrous and unworkable. John's frustration with the determination of one user to force their clearly wrong name on the page is understandable. (BTW, in case someone misinterpets this: the user in question is not Thryduulf who is also simply trying to untangle the mess.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:06, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

It should be remembered that (1) Deb and F.Eire (above) are users also involved in the vote and discussion, and they have attempted to win voters for THEIR alternative (but are not successful enough), (2) there are no naming standards (except possibly in imagination of Deb and F.Eire) against which the current heading would straightforwardly be, (3) altogether six users have voted for keeping the present heading, (not only one as Deb and F.Eire try to misrepresent above), (4) Deb seems to confess that her attempt to move the page was without consensus and thus not rightful, and it is good to note her that original involvement in the issue, (5) there seems to exist certain bitterness from the part of Deb and F.Eire against those who have not complied to the alternative they personally have ben proponents for in this question. (Actually, such bitterness is clearly displayed even in their comments written above. The problem can be seen as Deb, F.Eire and possibly a few others being not ready to comply with the right of others to vote according to their understanding and own opinion, not according to Deb-F.Eire opinion.) This is quite funny, but also quite petty from their part. Arrigo 20:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Particularly, administrator should be a person who is patient and unfrustrated enough to respect the discussion, respect the vote, and not attempting to push their own personal preference over others. I wonder what sort of defence is the abovestated "frustration", and the clear desire to overcome the process of voting, etc. Arrigo 21:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And still he goes on, mispresenting everything said, making Deb sound like a cross between Stalin and Hitler in drag (as those who know her know well, Deb is one of the politest, fairest and most genuine wikipedians around!), blaming everyone else when his unilateral naming goes wrong, etc. And you wonder why John is so fed up with what everyone has to put up with on the stage. Is there any template that can be added to Arrigo's page to say

users are advised to take a

valium before getting into an endless, pointless, around-in-circles discussion with Arrigo? FearÉIREANN\^(caint)

03:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Funny comparison. However, I believe Deb has at least one thing common with Stalin and Hitler. Regarding F.Eire's behavior, I hereby request him to refrain from intellectual dishonesty. Arrigo 08:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like an second opinion on the manner in which this VfD was declared "No consensus". At my count there were 2 Keeps, 5 BJAODN, and 5 Deletes.

12:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd interpret that vote as delete, insofar as the article namespace is concerned, with a mandate of sorts to translate the article to BJAODN. That said, Tony's suggestion that it be re-listed within a month is understandable, but we really don't want that sort of parody article masquerading as a real one, do we? Mackensen (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I will second the interpretation that this should be a Delete consensus.
  Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, deleting the resultant redirect".” --Allen3 ^talk
  13:29, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't feel comfortable interpreting the BJAODN's as deletes. As the quote from the guide to VfD makes clear, they're completely different animals in terms of the final disposition of the material. Had there been consensus to BJAODN, or to delete, I would have been happy to perform either task. While it is my practise to interpret VfD's in a very strict manner intended to be predictable, transparent, impartial and accountable, I often choose to be bold on my own account as an editor following a closing operation, making it clear that this is not part of closing. In this case clearly it wasn't acceptable to leave the parody as the current version so on my own account I removed the parody text and left the article as a stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:52, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've stepped in and deleted the article, per the VFD consensus. Voting to send an article to BJAODN has never meant keeping it in the article namespace, and this seems like eccentric wikilawyering on Tony's part to override a consensus on an article he personally wanted to keep. Ambi 14:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, Tony restored it, then blanked the article and replaced its text with a sentence or two on a school. While I see no harm in the stub as it stands now, I'm rather baffled why Tony thought the article history should have been undeleted. Radiant_>|< 17:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks like he restored the history because the current stub was salvaged from the past article, and he didn't write it. Therefore, restoring the history would be the correct action. Personally, I think Tony's actions were the best way to diffuse the situation. We could have had a huge clamor over a bad article being kept, or had a bad article deleted, now we have a decent article, and any further clamor is moot. --
    t
    04:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

There were quite a number of BJAODN votes, so for license reasons I didn't think deleting the history was appropriate--any editor who wants to can freely add text from the history to

WP:BJAODN, but only as long as we comply with the GFDL. The current content of the article is not new; I didn't blank the article. What is there now is the introductory text of the original, kept as a stub [63]

(another reason to keep the history).

Some people have argued that the BJAODN's should have been interpreted as "deletes", and I was tempted to do that, but for licensing reasons again I think that's a misconception. Using material from an article licensed under GFDL would require that the history be kept; in the case of deletion we remove everything. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

. The vote was a disaster, and it got kept because no admin could work out exactly who voted what, etc. So it was run again, this time in a far more orderly fashion. The vote was about 65% to delete and the rest to merge or delete. Another admin closed it off, making it a keep vote. I concurred with this, though I do find the article to really pretty stupid and feel that it has major problems.

Anyway, it just go reopened by -Ril-, who readded a VfD tag and created Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus). I have:

1. Deleted this VfD,
2. Removed the tag from
   Authentic Matthew
3. Blocked -Ril- from editing for 24 hours due to disruption of Wikipedia,
4. Left -Ril- a note on his talk page explaining why he is blocked.

I have told him I will leave a message on

13:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree with you, TBSDY, and I have left a note to -Ril-, who has begun a rant on his user page. [[smoddy]] 14:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's bad form to block a user you're involved in a dispute with unless it's very clear cut (i.e. straight vandalism). Ril is a good contributor, and it seems to me that he was acting in good faith - if not completely in the right. It seems a bit harsh to just block him without warning. I'm not going to second-guess you and unblock him myself, but I think it would be a good idea to do so. Ambi 14:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe he was warned in the past about what would happen if he did this. Some of his actions may have been in good faith, but this one reeks of an attempt to game the system. [[smoddy]] 14:12, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- also renominated

previous VfD was closed as "no consensus". The best explanation he's provided is "...you do get to keep re-nominanting stuff until a consensus is reached as to what to do with it..." [64]. Carbonite | Talk

14:09, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The "disruption" blocking provision is intended for dealing with users who won't stop. Ril is not in that category. There are plenty of better ways to deal with this without resorting to a block. Regular contributors who are to be blocked using the disruption provision should be warned first, and there should be discussion among admins before the block. If sie adds a VfD listing again, just remove it, or wait for another admin to do so. I will be watching for such listings myself.

I have unblocked Ril and asked Ril to quit relisting

15:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Since Ril has pulled this stunt before (on Historical persecution by Muslims), s/he clearly "won't stop". Relisting things that just got done with failing to get a VfD consensus after considerable voting is clearly disruptive, and intentionally so. I support the block, but it would have been better if someone uninvolved had applied it. Noel (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are the second person to say this! I administered a VfD, and have made no edits to the article itself. I am uninvolved (except for the VfD administration), and wonder why people are saying that I am involved. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

-Ril- is known for vengeful behavior when he does not get his way. When this happens, he will do anything in his power, use any Wiki trick, to get his way. It has happened a lot recently. Disruption is -Ril-'s real name, from using a name others can't use, to lying and unethical Wiki conduct, to a second 3RR in a few days, to edit war after edit war (where he totally refuses to even consider any point), to this action (which I have no knowledge of except what is written here and on his talk page). --Noitall 00:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I have my own problems with Ril but that's a matter for the AC. Blocking someone is not something to be done lightly, and abusing the "disruption" item in the blocking policy is a sure way for us to lose any discretion in this area. Believe me, I like blocking trolls and troublemakers, but Ril is a contributor albeit a problematic one. The appropriate thing to do would have been to delete the VfD, leave a note on Ril's talk, and leave it at that. Were Ril to re-add the VfD a second or third time within the space of a few hours, a block would have been appropriate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious. What's with his signature (the four tildes thing)? I find it highly confusing and misleading.

01:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, he refuses to change it though. In fact when I aked him to change it and pointed out the problems it causes he accused me of "subtle racism" presumably he doesn't understand what racism means. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Racism: judging people by their appearances rather than their actions - e.g. by my signature, rather than how I edit. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Wyss

01:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My username is -Ril-, this is not "deliberately confusing, designed to cause confusion with other contributors, or features of the software". It is my signature that is ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC).

N.b. there isn't a policy forbidding ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) as a signature.

Well you can try pointing this out to him. You may succeed where I failed. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 01:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• In my opinion the rules for usernames apply to signatures as well. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

This is good news. I've hardly ever heard anything so funny as calling someone "banned by the community" when half the people who have commented have called the ban inappropriate. Further, I have seen nothing from Plautus to warrant a year's block. If he were a new user we wouldn't be doing this. We'd just say he's being a little obnoxious; we wouldn't even be at RfC stage yet. Remember, once one's time is served one gets a clean slate and becomes again a user in good standing. I think we should give him a while to settle in. The problem, most likely, is built up animosity (on both sides). So let's just stress that this is a clean slate. No hard feelings. Back to writing articles. Everyking 08:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I have seen nothing from Plautus to warrant a year's block. - people might actually believe you when you make statements like this if you occasionally did your homework before commenting on issues you know nothing about. Here, I'll even help you - you can start by reading User:Raul654/Plautus, which I have updated to include his recent misbehaviors. →Raul654 08:43, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I imagine that the mocking tone of the note on his talkpage, and the confident signature in the name of "the community", has made Plautus appear as a victim in people's eyes. Gloating easily backfires on Wikipedia. Let him go through his arbitration case, if he really did not reform (which appears very likely, I must admit), I have little doubt he will be banned indefinitely, next time.

dab (ᛏ)

12:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What I have seen from Plautus certainly warrants a block, but as I said, I support the idea of due process. Justice must not just be done, but must be seen to be done. --

khaosworks

12:51, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't have unblocked him myself. I was just taken aback a bit by his protected talkpage. I suppose having sat out his ban, he should be judged for his present behaviour (which isn't good), without recourse to his behaviour a year ago. Anyway, we are likely wasting our time, since he'll probably be permabanned soon (my prediction).

dab (ᛏ)

13:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

To Khaosworks -

20:44, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be a bureaucracy, but really, this is the kind of heavy handedness that leads to people muttering about cabals and arbitrariness and unfairness and all sorts of nonsense. The bigger the project becomes - Hell, the bigger a community becomes, it becomes more and more imperative (and some would say inevitable for survival purposes) for informal customs to become formalized rules. Certainty becomes required, precedent becomes required, not from-the-hip justice. Perhaps it's just my legal and historical training showing, but if we are to be able to justifiably say that there are certain types of conduct we do not tolerate, at the very least we should set out this criteria properly. After all, if Wikipedia is supposed to be a consensus community, shouldn't we get a consensus from the community before we sanction people in the name of the community? --

khaosworks

08:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Why does it matter at all if he rants some on his own talk page? It is not an encyclopedia article and should do little harm, so long as he's not just posting copyvios or personal attacks. Immediate protection would seem heavy handed, if he has legitimate complaint about the block he should be able to use the feature for what it was meant for, at least, and talk page should not be protected just because he has been blocked. After all, that would prevent other Wikipedians from communicating with him too. --Mysidia 22:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  The fact that it prevents other users from communicating with him is exactly why I oppose that misfeature. --cesarb 22:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  On top of that, I would say, let him rant. The more he does so, the more it becomes apparent that is he is unable to be reasoned with, and the more justification we will ultimately have in permabanning him. Letting him rant on his talk page does not disrupt Wikipedia, it merely allows him to show what a tool he is. --08:07, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think this could be a possible sockpuppet of banned User:DrZoidberg, all edits are mainly in the user space or Sandbox. His user page says "I'm back! Can't block me now!." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A sandboxian! El_C 20:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what we can do here, but I suggest a block in order, like what happens to other abussive sockpuppets. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A sandboxian! El_C 20:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC) (let me know when this starts to get annoying)

I say block him permanently for block-evasion. [[smoddy]] 20:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

And if his user page displays a message to defy the ban, as I stated above, he should be blocked. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

A sockpuppet being used to avoid WP policy and a block...

Wyss

20:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Now blocked Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I added the proven sockpuppet tag on his user page, due to this page and due to [65]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I have never used the Wikipedia:Sandbox, how then can I possibly ask y'all to call me a sandboxian? :( El_C 00:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Ahem, I am not a fan of DrZoidberg, he is quite annoying to me. But I think he's innocent and being framed. Really I mean this. Have David Gerard use his check user or something... Redwolf24 05:35, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What would be the point in framing someone who is already indefinately blocked? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 08:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside my remit for the moment - David Gerard 09:34, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He's back as User:DocterZoidburg. Obviously, he will not go quietly by this edit: [66]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he's back, agan, as User:Mister Zoidberg Treason on Wheels!. Here's a sample: [67] - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Could a sysop take a look at this user and determine whether the username should be blocked? Anyone with this user name who edits the

23:30, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

• User has been blocked for having an inappropriate username and for only editing
  Jew, in which all of those edits were reverted. Zzyzx11 (Talk)
  23:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Jews did Apartheid editor has returned

You all may recall about 3 weeks ago, an anonymous editor from various IP addresses in the 69.2__.* range was making disruptive edits at

User:Jayjg/Jews did Apartheid editor

. Well, now he's back, and seems to have switched ISPs, possibly specifically for the purpose of pursuing his insertions (despite clear consensus that they were inappropriate). My review of the situation is as follows:

It appears

02:47, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Likely sockpuppet of Ennis/Sollog, has made four edits to top of talk/user pages, all urging votes against MarkSweep's admin nomination, I've rv'd these as vandalism.

06:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

He's up to a few dozen and has removed this entry twice...

06:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, Wyss. For what it's worth, it's most likely a sockpuppet of the
  GrandCru vandal, who's been going after editors who've opposed or reverted him. --MarkSweep
  06:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I suddenly realized that when I noticed the usernames he was spamming (not vandalizing), along with the obvious skill. Sorry for the wrong take at first... I was kinda busy cleaning up behind him.

Wyss

06:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoever it is, he's been quite persistent, unfortunately. Thanks for cleaning up. --MarkSweep 07:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean.

Wyss

07:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked him for an hour just to get him to stop deleting this discussion (which is surely vandalism). There's also the matter of the personal attacks (calling Mark a communist on the dozen spams and calling Wyss a "wuss") but obviously this one hour block is not meant to deal with that. --

t

06:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly someone's sockpuppet. And is clearly being used in a disruptive way. So IMO we should blocked until MarkSweep's admin vote is finished. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

A few days ago an anon asked for admin help on the Hep desk, so (not knowing what I was getting myself into) I volunteered myself. The anon turned out to be

20:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Recently, a troll name

.

Even more disturbing is that one of the pictures was added back to the

20:35, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've left a vandalism warning, {{test2}}, on Sam Spade's Talk page. I went straight to 2 because I felt that {{test1}} with the "Please see the

welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia" might have offended in this case. Bishonen | talk

20:57, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You were worried enough about offending to not put {{test1}} but not worried enough to write - "what are you up to?" rather than {{test2}}? Just because we have these templates, doesn't me we should always use them. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I was concerned to avoid sounding sarcastic or like I was taking the mickey, so I avoided test1, yes. You think I should have been even tenderer of Sam's feelings; I understand where you're coming from, but I don't agree. If the template is not too unkind to use on newbies or passing anons, I think it's good enough for when a contributor with over 25,000 edits has inserted nudity in an architectural article. As for my avoiding addressing Sam in, so to speak, my own voice, he explains the circumstances behind that in the flame that follows the template on his talk page. Bishonen | talk 22:06, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to talk to someone because of past bad feelings - fair enough. But using a template on a user who has, as you say, 25000 edits and so certainly knows a template when he sees one is bound to be imflammatory. If you don't want to speak to him, then don't edit his talk page at all. Someone else would certainly have done it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 22:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, I'm not sure I understand all this. A user with 25k edits ought to know better than to post boobies on an architecture article! It wasn't an accident, so I don't get worrying about Sam's feelings in this case at all. Newbies and passing IP's who put their favorite breasts pictures up might be clueless, but Sam had to know exactly what he was doing. As such, it had to be a fairly deliberate act of sabotage/vandalism, and personally I wouldn't worry about his feelings when he has as much as said that he doesn't care for the rest of the project's (or the project's goals). As for whether Bishonen should have been on his page, the person reverting should be warning. Leaving it for somebody sometime isn't our way. This exchange strikes me as very odd -- Bishonen's tenderness of Sam's feelings and Theresa's further tenderness. Maybe I'm just extra mean, but I don't see any need for delicacy in a case like this one. Geogre 02:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to keep my comments together, and to explain away from the "personal attack" bit. When someone scrawls "FART" in an article, that person is trying to attract attention to the rude word and destroy the effectiveness of the article. It is an effort at destroying the article. Similarly when someone puts up breasts or penises or vaginas or whatever, the purpose is to say "Look at me! Look at me!" and, simultaneously, destroy the article's function as part of an encyclopedia. Therefore, the person who does this has respect neither for the feelings of Wikipedians nor the goals of Wikipedia. Geogre 03:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, I can appreciate your good intentions, but I do find myself in agreement with George and Bishonen on this, and I feel you've oversimplified this whole silly hyperbole (inadvertantly, of course). I would ask you to reexamine some of the evidence, but since you are likely on (or soon will be in) a plane right now, I will leave that as an open statement. My own protest is elsewhere. El_C 05:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm not leaving intil noon So I'll respond. It's not a question of tenderness. It's a question of policy. What Sam did was either a good faith attempt to improve the article, or a bad faith attempt to damage it. There is no way we can tell. So we assume good faith until proven otherwise. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 06:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, well... how very elusive of you, to still be here, then! In isolation, I would assume it as sillyness (positively), shortlived, and all political-correctness nonsense and puritanical baggage aside, smileworthy. My grievences are mostly related to a key piece of this narrative, but I'd rather not get involved further beyond my own personal protest, for what I feel (and if pressed, can demonstrate) are obvious reasons. Rather, I'll wonder outloud:

where could Theresa be now? El_C

02:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

When have I ever remotely suggested in any way that I don't care about the projector its goals? I find that an absurd personal attack. BTW, there was no need for an admin w a recent history of aggression towards me to accuse me of vandalism, if I were truely vandalising, there are hundreds of perfectly sensible, impartial admins who would take care of the problem. Personally, I like Theresa's method of improving the article w a compromise. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

When I commented on his talk page that the article is about a bridge, and the photo is about something altogether different with the bridge in the background, part of his long, victimized response included references to censorship and the remark, "I thought they wanted happy girls displaying breasts in front of their bridge."

Wyss

03:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Where did I mention censorship? How about you leave this mess on my talk page, where it belongs, and stop putting words in my mouth, or quoting me out of context. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 03:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I should have said tacit references to censorship. I was trying to be polite. He said the image wasn't obscene but that was never an issue.

Wyss

03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

A hint on Broonie, he/she has yet another name: User:ßЯöðñêé. I asked which account they will be using from now on, but the answer was not that clear in my view. [70]. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Not only do they make lousy pictures to illustrate the Skybridge (there are people obstructing the foreground), the images are probably also a copyright infringement. They appear to have been pulled out of some random individual's photo collection on Flickr, but the uploader has added a Creative Commons ShareAlike license tag to them. If someone is familiar with the copyvio process on Commons, now might be a good time to apply it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I will try to get them deleted on the Commons, since I am a user there. I cannot promise when I will do it, though. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

As an outsider to this argument (thank goodness), let me say that it is one of the most humorous and benign arguments I have seen, and is quite enjoyable. It can't be Wiki vandalism if I laugh -- well, that's my definition anyhow. --Noitall 04:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

So can I admit now I've been grinning and laughing too? It's still disruptive.

Wyss

04:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I would just laugh it off, too, as funny though in poor taste, had it not been for the exchange that followed; that upsets me. El_C 05:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think they're very intriguing young women, and they are quite pretty, and I enjoy boobies as much as the next guy (maybe more than the next Wikipedian guy, but that's another matter), but they kind of aren't the point, when you get down to it. The point is knowingly putting the pictures in, thereby vandalizing (see above). I just don't think that "assume good faith" applies when you have 99:100 pieces of evidence suggesting that there's no need to assume and the faith wasn't good (esp. when the reasoning for doing it is, essentially, I like chicks and removing the picture is censorship). Geogre 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite all the chicanery to the contrary I never at any time suggested this incident included censorship. If you consider what I did vandalism, you appear to be deeply in need of a thorough review (or first reading) of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Please, find something useful to do, this snarling and backbiting reflects poorly on your character. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And your disruptive misuse of the image does not? Please. Frankly, you're not suited to be impugning the character of other editors; your long history of snarling is a matter of public record, and I can attest it includes instances of greater insult. FeloniousMonk 20:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"I did not then, nor do I now, think that image was likely to disrupt that article or otherwise bring the wikipedia into ruin."[71] The only explanation for this statement is that Sam thinks we are clueless enough to believe that he is genuinely unaware. That Sam's actually is as unaware as he asserts lacks credibility considering it comes from an editor who's been here long enough to know better and holds himself out as an example of productivity and good behavior (despite mounting evidence to the contrary). As if Sam's misuse of the image wasn't disruptive enough, he compounds the issue by wasting the community's time with intentional falsehoods.

If indeed Sam is as clueless as he claims then he'd better take some time to earnestly ponder why a large and diverse group of peers would confront him over this. Sam's statement above serves to show his contempt for the community; he has no remorse in wasting the time of others with disingenuous claims that, once again as usual, he's not at fault. FeloniousMonk 21:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk speaks my mind on this matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hardly anybody confronted me. Pretty near everybody disagreed with me. A signifigant portion of those who did the confronting confront me everytime they see me (like FM, who makes trolling his wiki-hobby). Anyone else who has any legitimate criticisms has had them addressed. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You're just dodging the issue and thus wasting everyone's time again. The honesty of your claim that you did not "think that image was likely to disrupt that article" [72] and the impact of your subsequent denials of wrongdoing has had on the community is the topic. FeloniousMonk 00:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have begun the deletion request process at the Wikimedia Commons about the photos in question. See Commons:Template:Deletion_requests#Vancouver_Skybridge. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Boo! :( El_C 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think Sam was trying to have a bit of fun. Stupid fun, yes, especially from someone who's been here so long, and inappropriate too. There's no doubt in my mind that Sam knew exactly what he was doing. Wikipedia loses a little credibility for every bit of stupid fun like this, and in my view Sam should be censured for it. Exploding Boy 06:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

You call this fun? Censur? I'll censur the lot of you by volunteering less, how's that? You don't pay me, and I didn't break your rules. The fact I get threads like this instead of praise for my many additions is censur enough. Don't any of you have an encyclopedia to edit? ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we're all editing an encyclopedia. Since you clearly are not going to self-correct yourself here, nor exhibit the least bit of introspection, can we stop with the tired rhetoric and evasiveness, at least? El_C 00:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the proper reaction to this kind of disengenuousness from Sam is, "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out." --

khaosworks

01:15, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please block 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs) for repeatedly removing other users' comments from talk pages and his own RFC? I have warned him about this a few times, but he continues. He claims that he is removing personal attacks, but it would be more accurate to say he's removing constructive criticism and honest attempts to discuss his complaints about article content. Comment removals: Twice on July 22, [73] [74]. He removed the same comment again today, after being warned by several users. [75]

For more information, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix. This is probably headed to arbitration anyway, but I would like him blocked now for repeatedly removing comments from talk pages. Rhobite 01:20, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

His latest removal has been reverted and seems to have stuck. I would prefer to see him completely ignore warnings and approach the 3RR on that before making moves to block him, particularly since there's an RfC going on which he needs to be able to respond to. --

khaosworks

01:56, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that repeatedly removing another user's comment from a talk page sort of waives his right to respond to the RFC? Rhobite 02:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Not in this context, because as I said, the removal was reverted and he hasn't removed it again. If he keeps it up for a string of consecutive reverts, then okay. But per se, no, my view is that it doesn't waive his right to respond to an RfC. --

khaosworks

02:58, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to get a comment on something. I noticed a revert on

03:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• There is clearly a problem, watching this dispute is like watching a naughty toddler pulling on a cats tail. Given the background of this dispute most admins will agree you are trying to provoke Jtdril, your recent posts to the mailing list certainly seem to suggesting that that is your objective. --
  nixie
  04:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Four reverts inside of 24 hours, jtdirl's edits have made the article needlessly prolix, and you're joining in the personal attacks. What's the priority here? Writing an encyclopaedia? Enforcing the rules? Doesn't look like it to me. Pete 04:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

This has what to do with rogue admin(s)? It's an editorial dispute, unrelated to the use of admin powers. El_C 07:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't called "Rogue admins" when I started it off, but I brought it up here because nixie wasn't enforcing the rules on the 3RR. I wanted to get some other eyes on it. Pete 07:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Pete's right. When I added the listing below this one two hours after his original comment, it was called "Rouge Admins", which seemed to me to be either a typo or some form of surrealist image. I assumed it was the former and "corrected" it. Apologies. Grutness...wha? 09:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it back to

Wyss

09:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Nixie is infoceing the rules. The rules say "sysops may block you for up to 24 hours". Nixie is free to chose not to block.Geni 09:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I blocked Jtdril for 3RR; Proteus unblocked, claiming this edit amounts to vandalism, for reasons which I'm afraid still escape me. El_C 09:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My take is that

Wyss

09:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If the consensus is that it amounts to vandalism, then I made a mistake (not the first, undoubtedly not the last today) and Jtdril should be commended for reverting it. I don't command the English language well enough to tell, however. El_C 09:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The English/Irish differences are significant and sort of interesting, so it looks to me like

Wyss

10:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi all - someone has brought User:Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme's user page to my attention. I'd agree that it's not really appropriate material... but I'm not sure how to proceed from here. Anyone? Grutness...wha? 05:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he's

libelling two people. This should be dealt with in the same way as the user (can't remember the name at the moment) who has inflammatory material about many celebrities on his user page, including that Queen Elizabeth II is a drug pusher. The rest of the page is in bad taste but not actionable in my opinion.-gadfium

05:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean User:Cognition, mentioned above? Nickptar 05:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Obviously that user page is in poor taste, but I disagree about the libel (in the legal meaning). In order to qualify as libel under US law, a person's statements must do harm to the victim's reputation. Given the context, I can't imagine any reasonable person taking those statements seriously. Hence there is no harm and by definition no libel. Admittedly, a little bizarre that one can get away with what would otherwise be defamation by virtue of surrounding it with idiocy, but that's my take anyway. Dragons flight 06:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I just removed him from

t

05:47, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I do think WP-related categories should be separated in namespace, i.e. make that Wikipedia_Category:Sex symbols or similar.

dab (ᛏ)

06:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

He has a very impressive record, doesn't he? Seriously now. It's not libel by any stretch of the imagination. Comedians and late night talk show hosts come closer to libel on a daily basis. Everyking 07:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with Ek (yay!) that this is pretty harmless. That still doesn't make him a great asset of WP of course, and nobody will take him for serious, but hell, we have more pressing problems.

dab (ᛏ)

07:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, the user appears to have been inactive since July 16, having made only a few sporadic edits before then. And that last section was added by an anon yesterday. It may have been him not logged in, or it may have been vandalism, unnoticed because he has not been here recently. We may be able to just safely revert. --

t

08:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Skyring has been blocked by Jimbo

10:39, 1 August 2005, Jimbo Wales blocked Skyring (expires 10:39, 8 August 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (temporary block until the arbcom rehearing)

Skyring came back and promptly started up against Jtdirl again, and so has been blocked by Jimbo personally while the AC gets onto it quick-smart.

Note that I will be recused from the case (I have openly stated what I think of Skyring's material at length), so I'm just another admin in this context. I should note, though, that although the IP evidence for the last month's sockpuppets wasn't enough to nail Skyring (and he couldn't take the really strong hints that we were most unhappy and that he should desist, could he), it would would certainly be enough IMO for an AC finding that it was Skyring - same aims, as per stated MO, from the same city. I will be offering evidence to this effect.

I fully expect the sockpuppetry to recommence. You know where to find me. In the meantime, use your good sense when shooting - David Gerard 11:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well now it does. If that is directed to me, I shot straight and again (see comment) during the Arbitration case, but you (being the Committee) ruled he was allowed to continue stalking Jtdirl. If there is consensus against me taking cases on AN3, that's fine. El_C 11:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

No, no, I didn't mean you :-) I was completely off the Skyring case and didn't even look at it when it was in progress - David Gerard 11:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

And again, and again, and again, and again. Yeah, I know, I remember (that much, at least). Actually, I did mis-speak and mis-shoot here. You (meaning the committee) did in fact rule against wikistalking. As for me, I'm off to dishonorably de-admin myself. El_C 12:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey that's quite odd! How did "wikistalking" get into an arbcom descision, when wikistalking is undefined, and recent attempts at finding a definition basically, well, um, failed? Kim Bruning 12:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Good question! I saw it more as harrasment through attrition and despiriting innunedo. But returning to my favourite topic —myself— I note that my other brilliant 3RR block was of a certain Kim Bruning; much to his delight/indifference. Oy. El_C 12:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

If you look further up in the decision, you'll see we defined it (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Skyring#"wiki-stalking") That might not be the ultimate definition, but it explains what we meant by the term in this case -- sannse (talk) 12:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah there it is! Thanks. :-) Kim Bruning 15:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It can, indeed, be tricky, distressing (erm, Kim, please, stop all the downloading!), especially for those who must interpert and carry out the arbitrators' decisions, be it in comptetence or in in incompetence in. El_C 15:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sowwy ^^;; Wikislow. :-/ Kim Bruning 17:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Teehee. Your use of smilies greatly excites and terrifies me. :) El_C 17:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this block. What is the reasoning behind it? Unless it's implementing an injunction I don't see why he's blocked until the case gets underway. Everyking 13:04, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a long story, James. Are you prepapred to read a lot of, mostly distinctly uninteresting material? El_C 13:18, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, I just hoped for a summary. Everyking 13:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Your hope is my textual redundancy. :) Skyring was blocked for two months for having wikistalked Jtdril (a decision I brilliantly managed to overlook a few hrs ago), and continued to do so after the block period expired. El_C 13:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I think (hope) that this action has been taken since the ArbCom did not actaully address the harassment aspect of the original case. There were no provisions where Skyring could be blocked for harassing other users, which was a significant aspect of the original case if you care to read it. Skyring has made it plain in a number of forums including his live journal and the mailing list that he intends to provoke Jtdril. In addition his inital block was also never reset despite evidence of sockpupperty, which according to the original ruling it should have been. --

nixie

13:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

sometimes it would appear that

WP:DICK is inforcerble.Geni

13:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo decided to block because it was brought to his attention that the situation has not been resolved by the arbitration decision. It's his prerogative to ban or to overturn bans as he feels best. -- sannse (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be getting back into this business lately. We have an ArbCom; they can issue an injunction if they want. Either Skyring does something uncontroversially blockable by an admin, or is put under an injunction, or else his behavior must not be all that bad, so we should just let it go. Seems logical? Everyking 13:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Although I'm quite pleased with this specific intervention, Everyking has a point, as misdirected as it may be in the particulars. Jimmy Wales does (decisively) sets the tone. Still, his action largely followd from and not in isolation of the committee's own somewhat vague decision. And while I'm thankful (personally) for it being the correct tone in this case, neverteheless, [That's it, that's the end of the sentence!] El_C 15:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

From what I've seen, Jimbo usually steps in when the AN or mailing list are convulsed with self-recrimination and navel gazing. He will make a decision that allows the rest of us to move on with the important business of building an encyclopedia. Short of asking the Foundation to dethrone Jimbo, I really can't see any way to remove his powers—and I wouldn't want to, anyway. He has absolute power, but it is used sparingly and reasonably. I don't mind working in a benevolent dictatorship. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

To articulate myself further would be defeating that poInt, and I've sidetracked more than enough (and worse). As someone who was involved in the whole Pete Skyring saga, I would have applauded this months ago. El_C 17:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

...and I was wondering why

Wyss

15:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that 'masking'—at least, I wouldn't want to imply it was deliberately deceptive. From his user page, 'Pete' is actually his name in the real world. We have a number of editors who use a name in their sig which doesn't match (or even include) their username. As long as the sig points at the proper editor's user space, I'd say that it is annoying but not actually harmful. Note that Jtdirl, for instance, also doesn't have his username in his sig (he signs as FearÉIREANN). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

My memory might be failing me (and in need of correction), but I do seem to recall him beginning to use it following one specific episode at GoA. Soon thereafter, I began refering to him as Pete Skyring and was not once corrected. El_C 17:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• 203.166.96.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Another day, another round of vandalism from the kids at the New South Wales High Schools. Check out their latest attack on Bronze Age--10 nonsense edits in 20 minutes. I have yet to see a legitimate contribution from this group of IPs. We issued over 100 warnings to them and an occasional short-term block; isn't it time for more permanent action to stop these relentless vandals? OwenX 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep. Time to revoke the kiddys' access. If the teachers can't control them, we will. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps someone (other than myself, obviously!) should attempt to contact the teachers or any other NSW school official... El_C 02:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I could do this. Please note that it's not just NSW. I just blocked a WA IP address - see 203.14.53.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

If someone wants to email the contact for the WA netblock, the email address is greg.johnston2 at eddept.wa.edu.au. Phone number is +61-08-9264-4694 and fax is +61-8-9264-4701. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Be prepared for a large number of angry e-mails from users all over Australia. I blocked this range--only the 203.166.96 portion--for a week once, and received messages from innocent, and regular users (User:MinorEdit comes to mind) who use this IP range; I ended up relenting and unblocking the first day. Yet, this range has caused an incredible amount of time-wastage for us (there's a long thread on this group of IPs on ViP:Long term alerts). Frankly I wouldn't miss them, but ... watch your in-box. Antandrus (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am well aware of the repurcussions. However, if the ISP does insist on using a proxy server for schools where this vandalism is occuring, they will just have to cop it sweet. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have added a note to the talk pages (see below). - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we permanently block AOL addresses next =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 04:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Love to, however not advisable :-) I do, however, think that this is something that the MediaWiki board should be dealing with. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

How bout just a 0.0.0.0/0 block? =D its only ${\displaystyle 256^{4}}$ IP addresses... But yea, I agree we need to do something about anon IP edits... Sasquatch′↔T↔C 05:16, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please note

If you are wondering why you have been blocked, then I suggest the following contacts:

• [email protected] - contact for the owners of this Netblock
• UUNET Australia Limited (if they are still around, otherwise contact MCI)
• https://www.det.nsw.edu.au/ - NSW Dept of Education and Training
  • General Enquiries Switchboard enquiries please call (02) 9561 8000.
  • All other general enquiries, phone the Public Liaison Officer on (02) 9561 8999.

Until someone works out a way of splitting schools and TAFEs from this proxy, the IP address will remain blocked.

Ta bu shi da yu 02:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like that much better than " I know NSW schools can be rough, but that's really not our problem" — respect for the teachers (as overpaid as they may be! :p). But I do note the limitations you mentioned, and otherwise leave it in your qualified hands (read: meaning, I don't have to actually do anything!). El_C 05:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This only involves Australia, right? I mean, no important countries are being blocked.... ;-) Func( t, c ) 05:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Block them, and leave a note on the offending IP user pages inviting the school administrators or teachers to get in touch with you/us to discuss how to best proceed. If there is collateral damage, explain to those affected, politely of course, that it is the schools that are the problem and perhaps they should cc this e-mail to the school admins as well. Ultimately, if they don't police themselves, we will. That's the approach I'm taking with persistent Singaporean school vandals (since I'm in Singapore now and am more than willing to talk to the teachers). --

khaosworks

05:25, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

The problem I have is that I can block an IP address but can't unblock the registered user. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a problem that I have no easy solution for, unfortunately. :( In the meantime though, on a related note, if anybody spots Singapore Ministry of Education IPs causing problems, drop me a note on my talk page so I can start following up on them. --

khaosworks

05:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

See bug 550 - Blocks on anonymous users only. Thryduulf 09:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocking a whole country's schools is utterly appalling. Is the damage caused really worth this heavy handed response? Secretlondon 14:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You have 186.5 pages on your watchlist

Exactly what is 0.5 of a page? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 07:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

HAHA! I beat you! I have 768.5 on mine! This really belongs over at

WP:VP tho. Tomer ^TALK

07:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#.22You_have_36.5_pages_on_your_watchlist.22 Tomer ^TALK 07:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like it's dividing the number of pages in the watchlists by two. - grubber 13:14, 2005 August 2 (UTC)

The anonymous linkspammer identified in the archive has returned as 81.183.165.205 (talk · contribs). He's adding the same links to the same set of pages. slambo 14:01, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I found him again as 81.183.253.64 (talk · contribs) in the edit history from July 31. slambo 14:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

And again August 1 as 81.183.165.170 (talk · contribs) slambo 14:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I found a few more that look like the same linkspammer. I've begun a tracking page at User:Slambo/Linkspammer sightings. slambo 15:17, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

He's back again today as 81.182.153.26 (talk · contribs), and I found Spaland (talk · contribs) today as well. slambo 16:05, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Someone, please block User:Willy Wonka on Wheels! and rollback his multiple nonsense moves. He's done too many. We can't do it by hand. Ryan 19:02, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked indefinitely, four times over. Now to clean up... - jredmond 19:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we prevent people from signing up with new usernames that have the word "wheels" in them? Gamaliel 19:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. Even if you did, he'd choose a new name or use a synonym, like Willy on Roller Skates. Ryan 19:13, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah? Well, we'll ban users from having "roller skates" in their names, too! Ha! We'll see who has the last laugh, Willy on...a Skateboard. Everyking 06:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, not only could that block a very few legitamate usernames, but it would be giving this vandal the attention s/he wants. Also, s/he would be harder to spot without the "wheels" part. Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 19:15, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Right, and wasting our time reverting him isn't any attention at all? --Golbez 19:22, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

By no means am I condoning any of the activity done by this user, but I have to say some of the vandalism is funny Air Reserve Base on Wheels! to name one. I also feel the pains of having to revert them all, so please don't take this as the wrong way. Was wondering if vandalism like this gets posted on BJAODN? ∞Who?¿? 19:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but based on the wide distribution of articles he vandalized, I'd say he simply kept loading random articles. There was no method to his madness. --Golbez 19:36, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Did the new ability to revert page moves work right? --Carnildo 20:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is attention. I mean, it would be giving the vandal more attention, to have "wheels" not allowed in usernames. If we can do that, why not disallow various obscenities commonly used in vandal usernames as well? Y0u (Y0ur talk page) (Y0ur contributions) 20:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, Willy on Wheels has been to Wales as well. Deb 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Could we set a threshold for users to reach before they have the ability to move articles, let's say, 100 edits? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed a while back (I'm sure someoen will remember where). The outcome, iirc, was:

• that it isn't currently technically possible to limit moves in this way
• there was concern that the vandal would just make x nonsense edits before moving
• It is technically possible to deny the move priv to the newest 1% of accounts. I believe this was implemented.
• A feature request was made to allow page moves to be rolled back like article edits. This, and page move logging, was implemented in MediaWiki 1.5.
• It would be useful in these situations to limit the number of page moves a non-administrator can do in 24 hours (iirc 3 was suggested). I don't think this is currently technically possible, but I don't recall what became of this discussion.

I hope this helps, and I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct my mistakes and misrememberences (it is 3:15am here!) Thryduulf 02:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually non-admins can revert moves in the move log, I have done so before due to clueless newbie moves. ∞Who?¿? 03:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been asked to file a complaint here on behalf of Chosen One (talk · contribs). On August 1, User:Mikkalai blocked three users with an expiry time of one week — User:Albus Dumbledore, User:Draco Malfoy, and User:Chosen One — all with the reason "troll" or "trolling" (probably suspecting them to be sockpuppet accounts, I don't know for sure because I didn't ask him). However, Chosen One's edits all seem to be in good faith and he has asked to be unblocked and his userpage undeleted. Could an admin look into this, please. Hermione1980 20:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've restored the userpage because it seemed particularly inoffensive. I'd like to wait for Mikka's comment before doing anything else, but I have a feeling it may have just been an honest mistake. --

t

20:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

How about this edit, in addition to comments made at User talk:Chosen One. Indeed, there was a flurry of silly activity. Wikipedia is not a chat room. A joke or two is OK, but if the whole contribution of an account is joking, I see this as trolling and have reasons to suspect sock puppetry.

I will unblock the account, since you are vouching for it, but if its main activity will be fooling around, it will be blocked again. In addition to disrupting the editing process, this frolicking is an unnecessary burden for wikipedia servers. There is plenty of playgrounds over internet. mikka (t) 20:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking my account.

Now to the reasoning. First of all, one jocular edit by no means implies that a user, be s/he new or not, is acting in bad faith. I still have to see evidence to support your claim of "silly activity". Secondly, I have no reason to use sock puppets, either for vandalism or for other reasons; it follows that I do not use them. Furthermore, I could end up a paranoid schizophrenic, an undesirable state of being to anyone.

This is all I have to say in reply to your suspicions. I know that you meant well in blocking me, but I hope you understand that I am much too mature to be thinking of fooling around in an online encyclopedia.

Chosen One 21:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am slightly disturbed that mikka seems to take it upon himself to block users for "frolicking". I suppose

dab (ᛏ)

07:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Quite right. Aside from that, he did not warn the users of being blocked, and was acting entirely on his own suspicions. And he banned an innocent user for trolling, again based on his own presumptions that I was a sockpuppet, which I have denied many times but without a single dent on his perception of me. For the record, I set up this account at around the same time I set up the one at HP wiki.

The other thing is that mikka deleted my user and talk pages for containing seemingly offensive material, again without warning. The user and talk pages contain no offensive material of any sort. I'm beginning to think that this is more than an honest mistake...

As to that edit, if you (mikka) blocked me just because of that, I suggesr you block

User:Doc glasgow, User:SPUI, and User:Lord Voldemort for doing edts [76] [77] and [78] to User:Severus Snape's user page. Try it and tell them exactly what you told me. I'd like to see their reactions - and yours. Chosen One

12:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that I acted a bit in a haste, thus violating the blocking policy. Two of the three blocked accounts were definitely disrupting wikipedia. The third one (ChosenOne) may possibly be an innocent victim, because I wanted to stop all that nonsense immediately. Next time I promise I will issue a warning in a similar case, since, as I understand this now, there probably was no really malicious intentions, just kids had fun. Examples of other accounts the ChosenOne won't go, since these users have history of normal contributions. Once again, if your sole goal is to chat at talk pages, this is not the place for you. This is a disruption of work, if you are not actually discussing how to improve the article or other things related to work of wikipedia. You create an unnecessary clutter at talk page, so other people would have to spend lots of time to find something useful for article improvement in old discussions.

I suggested to ChosedOne to read

Wikipedia:Talk page

. It looks like he didn't, judging from his last remark "banning an innocent user for trolling", he still holds himself innocent. Here is the direct quote from the policy: Wikipedians generally oppose the use of talk pages just for the purpose of partisan talk about the main subject. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it's an encyclopedia. In other words, talk about the article, not about the subject. It's only the habits we encourage that keep Wikipedia from turning into another H2G2 or Everything2.

Dab, please don't worry. If you look into the block log, you will see that I am blocking rarely. I am not, like, a trigger-happy blocker. I simply forgot to refresh my knowledge of the policy and I am sorry. mikka (t) 17:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems Mikka does not understand my point. I set up this account after I had set up the one at HP Wikicity; in other words, this is only a satellite account. The whole point of setting this account up was to communicate regularly with those HP editors who do not always work there. Everything that I wrote in talk pages here was relevant to Wikipedia (more precise4ly, an offshoot of WP), except of course when replying to other users' irrelevant questions.

Mikka has still not explained why he deleted my user/talk pages. And, yes, I do believe I am innocent. Chosen One 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This conversation is officially worthless. Mikka said why he deleted the pages, because he thought they were being misused. Obviously you disagree, but no one is still trying to get them deleted, so just drop it. Rehashing this isn't doing anyone any good, so, if I could make a suggestion, why don't we go make an encyclopedia now. --

t

18:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am, right now, at [79]. Come and join! (This is not a promotional activity) Chosen One 19:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

PrincessJO (talk · contribs) seems to be a reincarnation of banned user Plautus satire (talk · contribs). They've been editing from the same ISP and no other non-anon has edited from said ISP since Plautus came back. -- Jeronim 22:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Where are you getting the ISP information? Snowspinner 01:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Jeronim is a developer. →Raul654 02:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Also, a quick look at PJO's talk page shows that in the last 24 hours (his first hours here), he's already been warned twice about making statements and citing evidence that total debunks his stateemtns. That's was Plautus's trademark. →Raul654 02:24, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the total conspiracy theories were mostly enough to seal it. I just wanted to double check the IP info. :) Snowspinner 02:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're kidding. No way. Everyking 06:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mostly I wasn't sure where it was coming from, and someone I was unaware could check IPs making an IP claim made me cock my head in puzzlement. But your sarcasm is much appreciated. Snowspinner 23:23, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

From my reading of

, specifically:

• "Use of blocks to gain advantage in a content dispute...are specifically prohibited...Likewise, users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in conflict." Jtd and I have had our differences on several articles.

• "Check the facts with care." Jtd makes a reference on my talk page to "adding in factual errors all over the place" and attempts to substantiate this by claiming I have referred to the Republic of Ireland as the Irish Free State "years after you know very well it ceased to have that name". I'd like to see where I was supposed to have done this, and a short list of other "factual errors" would also be welcome.

• "Reread appropriate parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy."

• "If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning." I believe it would have been much more appropriate for Jtd to ask another sysop to administer the block.

I find references on my talk page to "deliberate POV vandalism" "your political agenda" and "sectarian names" insulting in the extreme. I would welcome the views of others.

Lapsed Pacifist 04:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually you were blocked for repeat 3RR violations on multiple pages, and only after being warned to stop — the person you were warring with was also blocked. (And BTW I was not the person you were in dispute with at the time. (But then you were in dispute with just about everyone on the pages.) When you came back after a short block you went back to the pages again and began the exact same edit wars you had been warned to stop before. In one ten day period on just one page, Fianna Fáil, you carried out 17 reversions. On another page, Northern Ireland, over six days you carried out 11 reversions. On Parliament of Northern Ireland you carried out 23 reversions in 12 days. And that is just 3 examples of your behaviour. There are plenty more. You were repeately asked to stop. You were repeatedly informed by multiple users that what you were trying to put in breached NPOV rules. Instead you reduced multiple pages to chaos, and even after a 24 hour block for breaking the 3RR rule, you went straight back and started multiple edit wars on multiple pages. I was told subsequently by admins that you should have been blocked sooner, for longer, for your behaviour.

And yes, what you are doing is blatently POV. Wikipedia had a couple of Northern Ireland unionist users some time ago who bombarded Northern Ireland pages with pro-unionist terminology (calling Northern Ireland Ulster all over the place, writing biased anti-republican and anti-nationalist rants into articles, etc). They were stopped by users, many of the same users that you in all the pages you are fighting on are fighting with. Then you began, adding in loaded pro-republican terminology in articles. You know very well you cannot call the Northern State the Six Counties. That is POV language from one community, added in to give the fuck you message to unionists on Wikipedia, just as their adding in Ulster is a fuck you message to nationalists. We have to use neutral terminology and the agreed neutral term for the state on Wikipedia is the one registered with the UN and used in both British and Irish legislation as its name — Northern Ireland. At least twenty users on twenty pages have repeatedly pointed that out to you. You have repeatedly ignored them and waged edit wars all over the place. Other admins would have banned you for a far longer period for your antics. (One suggested you should be banned indefinitely). Wikipedia is not here for either side, unionist, nationalist, loyalist or republican, to doctor articles to add in a term they want and that they know will infuriate and offend people from the other tradition. (What is it about you lot on both sides: even when you come on to an encyclopædia you try to find some way to provoke the other.) As was said to the unionist POV-pusher also: grow up, stop waging stupid wars where you are in a minority of one against a long line of people on each page screaming at you to stop, and do some writing for a change, this time. And if you start running multiple edit wars on multiple pages to force your POV language down everyone's throats whichever admin catches you will probably block for a heck of a lot longer than the two blocks you have had so far. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not checked, nor will I check, the contents disputes referred above. After all, they are rather obviously content disputes.I present my opinion based on what I have observed about Jtdirl's (F.Eire) behavior in general. Jtdirl is known to draw hasty conclusions, sometimes without proper basis. This has shown as his hasty accusations. Fitting to his said behavioral pattern, he is known to make very haste reverts and blocks. Even in one very contentious case, the Arbitration Committee admonished Jtdirl of making "blind reverts", and asked him to refrain from reverting valid edits. This means that an expert panel here has found Jtdirl having made baseless reverts, in heat of disputes. I also have seen that Jtdirl has sort of pontificating behavior here with less than sound basis (such as citing his own opinion as established policy), and some others (such as Jkenney) have also testified to the existence of such behavioral trait in Jtdirl. According to my observations, Jtdirl sometimes uses blind reverts and blockings as one weapon in disputes he is personally involved in. Jtdirl also has a habit of writing long rants in defense of his less desirable actions and sometimes has intellectually dishonest habit of denying even self-evident things, if such does not fit into his own desires. It seems to me that it is fully possible that Jtdirl has blocked another user in order to gain advantage in edit dispute. It is undeniable that Jtdirl has some close allies here and despite of shortcomings in his behavior and in his edits, usually finds some support, some of such however being not deserved in terms of objectivity. In general, I would describe Jtdirl as quite hot-headed user and not sufficiently mature to use "blind powers", such as reverting and blocking. My opinion is that Jtdirl should refrain from blocking and reverting altogether, as more mature persons could do that without causing so many problems and disruptions as Jtdirl sometimes causes. Jtdirl's role would be more fittingly to ask others to revert or to block than to be allowed to do such by himself. Arrigo 08:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What you failed to mention is that you have been trying unilaterally to change a set of Naming Conventions without consensus. As I, JohnKenney, Proteus, Deb and others have prevented you from doing that, you have targeted Deb for personal attacks all over the place as if she was some sort of female Pol Pot (when, as everyone knows, she is one of the quitest and most polite individuals on Wikipedia. The fact that even she is frustrated with your behaviour speaks volumes!). You also go around looking to find places to add in attacks on me. However many attacks you launch, the fact is that you cannot unilaterally make up your own rules and ignore everyone else, change what everyone else wrote, and generally move pages to your own pet names for them. Everyone has been telling you that ad nausaum on the NC pages, but you continue making up wacky names, wrong edits, all while screaming abuse at Deb and accusing her of crimes against humanity because she dared to stop one of your nuttier makey-up renamings of a page. (I guess when you get the chance you'll be attacking JohnKenney next, or maybe you have already but I haven't noticed it.) Jeez, I should get a barnstar for dealing with this lot!!! From Arrigo's nutty naming of articles to LP's crazy POVing of Irish topics and Skyring's stalking, this place is getting crazy. Is it a full moon or something? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The above, almost hysterical, rambling and invectives by Jtdirl actually proves very much what is said of his behavior. Does very many continuously believe Jtdirl to be patient and mature? Btw, according to some sources Pol Pot was rather quiet and polite individual. Perhaps Jtdirl's example was unintentionally a good one. 217.140.193.123 08:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You have singularly failed to address any of the issues I raised, and have attempted to cloud the issue by bringing the content dispute here, where it does not belong. I broadly agree with the above assessment of your temperament. In my experience your tone ranges from ingratiating, to pompous, to downright hysterical when you do not get your way. You have misrepresented me here and in other places and ascribed political convictions to me based on your simplistic reading of certain of my edits. If other admins feel as you do, then ask them to comment here. Please focus on the points I made above concerning blocking policy. I especially look forward to your list of my factual innaccuracies.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The "content dispute" (as you refer to your edit warring over the POV term "six counties"), is exactly what is at issue here. I'm sure you'd prefer everyone ignored your blatant POV-pushing across multiple articles, but that's not going to happen. This argument is not about whether Jtdirl is sufficiently polite to other users, it's about whether your block was justified by your behaviour. It's also interesting the way you claim to be insulted by having your edits described as "sectarian" while you see nothing wrong with calling other users "pompous and hysterical" Please avoid personal attacks. Demiurge 10:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Demiurge, I am thinking whether there are reasons for why you ask selectively to avoid personal attacks. I am sure Jtdirl prefers you to ignore personal attacks made by him, and labeled as perhaps "insufficient politeness" by everyone. Please kindly tell us have you ever asked Jtdirl to avoid personal attacks. (As he had made such for example above.)

In my opinion, neither of the parties Jtdirl and LP are highly entitled to accuse each other of personal attacks, and we rest should ingore such accusations. The question here is whether Jtdirl made a block in a dispute he himself was involved in. Jtdirl's such action reeks of impropriety. Arrigo 12:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

No I did not and no it does not. Just about every Irish user here has been caught up with dealing with LP's extreme POVing of articles. I was not involved anymore when I was AIMed by a third party (not themselves involved in the edit wars) who complained that LP had broken the 3RR. I checked, saw that he had on that page, then instead of blocking him, as I could have done, left a message on his page warning him that he had broken 3RR and should stop. He carried on regardless. My attention was then brought to the fact, by yet another person, that he had not just breached 3RR once but multiple times, and was continuing to do so. I therefore, as an admin, took action and banned two users from that page whose edit war had gone way above 3RRs. BTW the people who AIMed me were not combatants in the edit war. (I don't know why they happened to come to me. They just did.) And the person blocked with LP was someone whose edits I personally agreed with. But both were blocked for breaching 3RR. The second guy returned after a 24 hour block and didn't return to his past behaviour. LP returned and went straight back to all the edits and started the edit wars straight away again. He was again blocked to stop this. (BTW one of the many many edits he reverted was one I had made to an article some time earlier. Even though factually his edit was garbage, because I had been the one who blocked him I deliberately did not revert his edit to my own but left his there. It was later reverted by one of the large large numbers of people who have been involved in stopping his blatently POVing articles.

BTW you making an issue of supposed personal attacks, given the personalised, bitter and frankly ignorant attacks you have made on User:Deb, brings to mind the words pot, kettle and black. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 14:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You blocked me for 72 hours, minutes after I reverted to a version of the Northern Ireland page that included election results, that other users were determined to blank. When another user had previously reverted to my version, you left a message on that user's talk page asking them not to do so again, as you disagreed with that version. That's involved enough for me, even if it was'nt already made abundantly clear to me that you disagreed with many of my other edits. I don't believe I was in violation of the 3RR the first time you blocked me (for 24 hours), but I let it slide as you had also blocked another user, which I saw as the impartiality that becomes an administrator. I was definitely not in violation when the second block was instituted. When you threatened me with the longer block, I left a message on your talk page saying that I believed this would be abusing your administrative privileges. I believed that then, and I still believe it. Once again, you claim an edit of mine was "factually...garbage", and your proof is that another user reverted to your version. I stand by that edit, and I would gladly debate it with you on the relevant talk page. As you seem determined to accuse me of factual errors without backing it up in any way, perhaps you could start now. I cannot for the life of me see how the edit in question could be described as POV, but you and many others are fond of painting with broad strokes. I ask you again to concentrate on the points I made in my first entry.

Lapsed Pacifist 18:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I completely agree with Jtdirl's block of Lapsed Pacifict (even though I was the other person blocked). The specific circumstances of this block was multiple violations of the 3RR. That's pretty clear, I think. But the underlying problem of LP is his consistent refusal to accept the talk page consensus. On multiple articles, he continuously reverts wording that everybody else agrees with to a version that nobody agrees with but him. It doesn't matter what the subject of the dispute is, the fact is that this is not how Wikipedia should work. This is a basic Wikipedia policy that is continuously violated by Lapsed Pacifict, apparently in a attempt to push a specific POV. The above paragraph (claiming that other users were attempting to "blank" some election results) is a complete misstatement of the dispute.--JW1805 18:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have not read much of what has been discussed here because I am unequivical of what LP is doing - he is a professional vandal - by this I mean someone who is using wikipedias open policies to push and twist their own agenda at any cost and against many and diverse users in the past who have disagreed - for instance using pov terms as if they were bona fide official terms. The only reason why LP is complaining about Jtdirl is because Jtdirl is someone who has taken a tough stance againt his vandalism - LP will do his best to play the poor mouth and then use a system of never-ending-appeals to stay active and justify himself. The day that wikipedia becomes a haven for the type of activity that LP is justifying is a time for either tightening up wikipedia policies or withdrawing from the project. Djegan 19:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to explain to users who may be confused.

In Northern Ireland, both communities, the unionists and the nationalists, made a big issue of using language to push their own "we're winning, you're losing" agenda. Hence battles over whether to call the second city

Londonderry or Derry. They play these games over the name of the region they live in. Some unionists call it Ulster to claim a historical heritage to the (larger) Irish province of Ulster and so pretend it really existed before 1920. (It didn't. It was created in the Government of Ireland Act

, 1920.) Some nationalists play similar one-upmanship games by calling the region the Six Counties or even the Six Occupied Counties, to suggest that Northern Ireland is a bastard creation of British occupation and has no validity at all.

To avoid appearing to support either side, Wikipedia ignores the names used by both (the Province, the North, Occupied Six Counties, Ulster, Six Counties, the North of Ireland, etc (because each is used to try to give a spin that favours their community at the expense of the other) and only uses the legally registered name for the region, which is used by both the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in both their laws. As both sides use it, and it is the name registered with the United Nations

it is thoughout of as the least POV and most NPOV option available.

Periodically on Wikipedia, people come on and heavily push either a nationalist or unionist agenda by changing names around both to push their version of Northern Ireland history, and also give the two fingers to the other side and in effect say 'our arguments are right. You are wrong. Look, Wikipedia uses our names, not yours. Two months ago we had an extreme unionist who deleted Northern Ireland and replaced it everywhere with Ulster, made sure everywhere said Londonderry, removed things critical of unionist rule in Northern Ireland, etc. He was reverted on sight and eventually blocked for it. Lapsed Pacifist is pushing the other agenda. So wherever he sees Northern Ireland he replaces it Six Counties.

Whereever he sees text that does not unequivacally endorse his community's view he rewrites it to take on his community's POV.

As with Mr Ulster (not his username, BTW, just what I called him because of his agenda!) before, LP has been challenged about this. As with Mr Ulster his edits have been reverted to the more neutral terminology, by a host of users, many of them the same people who stopped Mr Ulster twisting everything to be pro-unionist. LP has waged edit wars all over the place to force his community's language and ensure his community's version of history is accepted as the correct version. As with Mr Ulster when he went too far as breached the 3RR rule he was blocked. While Mr Ulster got the message and stopped, LP came straight back and started it all over again. He was again blocked, this time for longer. He has been told repeatedly that Six Counties is too POV a term to use. Apart from anything else it twists articles and makes them appear biased and offends readers from other community. All efforts to make him stop, by numerous contributors, initially politely, then bluntly when he made it quite clear that he didn't care two figs about NPOV, say every term but those used by his community exclusively as POV — both communities' terms are pretty much exclusive to their side and not used by the other side) he was getting his terminology in come what may. He reduced numerous articles to endless edit wars. Numerous others had Six Counties added in and no-one noticed. (Users have now done a Wikipedia-wide search of the encyclopædia as removed them.)

Finally, re the blanking he mentioned. That is dishonest use of language. The article was not blanked. POV information he added in was reverted by someone. He reinsterted it with an edit summary that claimed all he was doing was reverting some vandal's blanking of an article. Once upon a time, LP was a respected neutral contributor (though not as neutral as people thought when his old edits were later examined). Indeed it was because people initially presumed he was a genuinely neutral editor in all cases that when he began his Six Counties crusade he was not blocked, but given the benefit of the doubt repeatedly while appeal after appeal was made on page after page, asking him to stop. In the last few weeks he has become nothing more that a POV pest, determined to push his side's agenda where he can, whenever he can, as many times as he can, with as many reversions as he can get away with. It has been explained to him at length by many users on many pages why Six Counties is too POV a term to be used. He however has made it clear that he will continue to change Northern Ireland to Six Counties whenever he can get away with. As such he is engaged in little more than POV vandalism on those articles. The irony is that when he gets off his POV hobby horse he does very good work. But users never know anymore when they see an edit from him whether it is a good, NPOV edit, or another attempt to sneak in one community's POV into articles and delete anything from the other community's POV. Regrettably he does not seem to think that Wikipedia rules apply to him, whether NPOV language or the 3RR rule (and is annoyed that many users here dared stop him, and is furious that I dared block him for continuous breaking of the 3RR rule). That is what is going on, and why this complaint is here. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Again with the broad strokes. Much of what you have written above is inaccurate to the point of being dishonest, as would be obvious to anyone prepared to go into it in detail. You blocked me for 72 hours right after I made edits to the Northern Ireland and the Éamon de Valera pages you disagreed with, which had nothing to do with the terminology dispute. I notice you are less-than-subtly altering your position from "factual errors all over the place" and "factually...garbage", to "very good work". You made what I consider to be an insulting accusation, I expect you to back it up or withdraw it. I still cannot figure out why no other admin has seen fit to comment here, when you claim they were in favour of a longer block, and sooner. You are blatantly and deliberately misrepresenting my edit on the Northern Ireland page as "POV information". They're election results, Jtd, and I can't see why anyone would want to blank them from a section called "Demographics and Politics", unless it is to promote their own POV, i.e. that people there vote for politicians they fundamentally disagree with. You neglected to mention that the term "Northern Ireland" falls squarely into one of the categories you mentioned, and your attempt to portray it as acceptable to both sides is dishonest. Your references to "my" community I found risible.

These content disputes have already been gone into on different talk pages (and with varying levels of emotion), e.g. Talk: Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland. I want to get back to the original points made at the top of this section, which have yet to be addressed. Either Jtd was in violation of blocking policy, or he was'nt. Comments (especially from admins) please.

Lapsed Pacifist 19:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. Has any other non-involved, non-Irish editor read every word of the above? I don't see any administrator noticeboard material in it, just complaints from a user who's getting slapped for being too aggressive with POV. No RfC's are likely to result from this, unless at LP, so anything more is just wp:an/i being used as a venue for the same arguments in a new space. Geogre 19:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. lol. LP is making a big issue of it because I enforced the rules and refused to allow him to POV articles. I thought it useful to the facts behind what really happened on the record so that users know what is really going on. Whether temporarily (possibly) or permanently (hopefully) LP has just being doing NPOV edits in the last few days. Hopefully his POVing days are over. If so I for one will be very happy. If however he returns to the Six County nonsense users will be able to see it and take action to stop it, now that their attention has been brought to it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It could'nt be more in my interest that people know what is "really" going on. I have nothing to hide. My first entry on this page specifically said that Jtd and I had our differences. I deliberately have'nt made any edits or reverts recently that could be considered contentious as I did not believe that would be appropriate while this discussion was on the noticeboard. Users who dispute my edits have been less continent. Jtd, your efforts to portray a series of disputes as simply one of terminology is deliberately dishonest, especially given the timing of the block. And you have successfully evaded almost all of the points I put to you. The reason I am making an issue of this is because I believe you have violated the trust placed in you as an administrator. It's beyond me how anyone could consider this page an unsuitable venue for this discussion.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: an RFC is in progress at Requests for comment/ComCat. Tualha (Talk) 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

ComCat (talk · contribs) has listed a whole pile of pages on VfD (8 VfD, 6 CfD, by the look of things), with only "NN, D." as explanation. This appears to be bogus/vandalism - while some are stubby, Carlos Lozada is a Medal of Honor recipient and appears notable. I can't tell if the user is just an overzealous deletionist or whether s/he is a vandal. I would appreciate if a few more people had a look at this. Thanks. Guettarda 06:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what s/he is basing their nominations on- it seems pretty random, but some are clearly keeps and others would not make it through vfd. I just think they're overzealous. Other admins have asked ComCat to make more descriptive nominations.--

06:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like all the CfD edits are just votes on others' nominations, not nominations by ComCat - right? Tualha (Talk) 01:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Data

Discussing this here seems a little over-escalated to me, but it's the only discussion I know of outside the VfD pages in question. So I'll post my research here.

ComCat has several recent VfD nominations, which I would classify as follows:

• 4 reasonable:
  Florencia 13
  .
• 2 not so reasonable:
  Del O'Conner
  (a neo-Nazi leader).
• and 3 flat-out unreasonable:
  Hermann Bauer
  (a WWI German submarine fleet commander).

Just my opinions, of course, but I think most people would mostly agree. So, he's not just spewing out all bad ones. But I'd sure like to know why the heck he nominated those last three.

Tualha (Talk) 01:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• This user did the same thing a few weeks ago, s/he managed to nominate Trudi Le Caine for deletion. While the spelling was off, we found out that Ms. Le Caine was awarded with the Order of Canada. I just think ComCat needs to be careful, and perhaps expand on his nomination comments. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please take a second look at this VfD? Tony Sidaway already closed it with a result of "no consensus", but I see five "delete" votes, two with a helping of "transwiki", and one "keep" vote. The transwiki is already in process, so the article should be deleted. --Carnildo 06:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A number of people did support transwiki (which would imply delete) and others voted delete when told that the transwiki was in process. I made the total five valid votes for delete/transwiki (one delete discounted because the voter is too new). One anonymous vote was also disregarded. There was one vote for keep and one well argued vote against transwiki. With 5 out of 7 for delete/transwiki, 71%, not what I'd normally view as a consensus according to the standards I have sought to apply uniformly for some time now. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 06:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I count three transwiki-and-deletes (including the nominator), three simple deletes, and one "keep". That makes 85%, and a clear consensus for transwiki-and-delete. I don't see Robert Horning's statement as being any sort of vote, just a warning about what's likely to happen to the article after being moved. --Carnildo 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I also got blocked by Tony Sidaway while trying to post this comment. --Carnildo 07:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I apologise to Carnildo for abusing the

WP:ANI if he continues to tamper with closed VfDs under the guise of "correcting" them. --Tony Sidaway^Talk

08:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Since the nominator wrote This is a great idea, but I think it belongs on Wikibooks, not Wikipedia, that's clearly a "Transwiki" vote. And Robert Horning says nothing about deletion, only about not transwikiing ("Don't know what to do...In short, if you want to delete it, kill it outright, and don't transwiki"). So throwing that into the total and counting it as as an undecided, that makes 6 out of 8 (75%) for deletion. This reads less like consistent standards and more like "Conclusion first, rationale later". --Calton | Talk 07:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel comfortable ignoring Horning's vote, which I took as "do not transwiki. Even if I didn't, I consider 75% borderline, and can go either way. Over 75% I'm much more comfortable calling a consensus. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: There are a few people who regard a 75%+ approach to consensus as a problematic view. I don't think this is particularly widespread; we commonly accept a 80% bar for RFA's. However for people who adopt a much more generous level, even as low as 67%, it may make my results appear strange. I'm confident that the higher level is far more workable and less likely to produce poor results, however. Articles that really need to be deleted don't have a problem making 80% and over. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 08:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• It seems to me that the most important function of VFD is ensuring that no information is lost. However, if an article is transwikied to a sisterproject, the information will persist in an easily accessible place. Would it not be reasonable then to interpret transwikefaction as something closer to moving an article than to deleting it outright? And hence, would it not be reasonable to require less support for such a move? Radiant_>|< 08:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I think I see what you're saying--could I have gone with transwiki even without a consensus to do so? No, I don't think I could do that. A normal user cannot reverse a transwiki and its consequent CSD deletion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I understand, but I didn't mean 'without consensus', but rather 'with less consensus'. Personally, I would feel far more comfortable closing a debate as consensual if 67% of the votes were to transwiki, than if 67% of the votes were to delete. Radiant_>|< 13:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'd put the function of VfD more simply, too. The purpose of VfD is making sure that functions not reversible by normal editors are only performed with consensus. This is one of the reasons why I only sometimes perform merges, redirects, etc, where a clear consensus to do so hasn't arisen. A common question is: why don't I lump together the deletes with the merges and come up with a consensus to merge? The reasons are that firstly, delete and merge are different actions, and secondly, if there really is a consensus to perform a merge then anybody can do it. I also want to discourage the practice of people coming to VfD to get an "enforcable" merge. I performed one of these in the early days of my adminship, on a 75% consensus to merge (that is, 75% of voters actually voted to merge), but would probably now if I did the same close again I would probably close pointing out that a consensus existed to merge and the editors should act accordingly. I am not their daddy, and editing decisions made after the VfD is closed without consensus to delete should probably not be taken as VfD-enforced actions. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly not, but fact is that they (sometimes) are taken as VFD-enforced, and it seems unfeasible to change people's behavior to that. If a merge is disputed, a straw poll could resolve the issue; if the article was on VFD earlier, that can reasonably be taken as such a poll, if it shows a rough consensus for some action. If a VFD had a strong majority to merge or redir, unmerging or unredirring it may well be counter to consensus and thus undesirable.
• It is my understanding that several closing admins do not generally perform merges because it involves a lot of work (and so does closing, so there's no need to take on both lots). However, {{merge}} only reads "it has been suggested that this article be merged" - so if two or three people on a VFD make such a suggestion, I'd certainly feel justified to add that template to the article if I closed the debate.
• Grouping votes to merge and to delete is really dependent on the debate and closing admin's discretion - however, in several cases it is obvious that the delete-voters would prefer a merge&redirect to a straight keep. In such a case, it is plausible to close a 4d/3k/3m vote as a consensus to merge. Radiant_>|< 13:01, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Wikis work best when they're left to work it out for themselves, in my experience. A straw poll? No, usually it just needs one editor with some reasonable interpersonal skills. Pointing at the number of merge votes in the VfD would probably be useful for convincing people. But if there's serious opposition to a merge it shouldn't be done. In most cases a missed merge can be replaced by a single wikilink at the appropriate point. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Dirty Animals (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been mass-posting pictures of animals doing and wearing the unthinkable. His contributions need to be reversed. Ryan 12:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Deleted the offending image, warned the user. It looks like he stopped some time ago, but all contributions were adding the same obscene image to user talk pages, so if he comes back, he should be blocked as a vandalism-only account. -- Essjay · Talk 14:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I missed this. What is it that an animal can do that would be unthinkable? Read the Sunday Times? Knit? What can an animal possibly wear that would be unthinkable? Mismatching spats, a plaid necktie? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 09:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My memory is a bit shaky, but I think they had "parts" that weren't exactly contextual. -- Essjay · Talk 06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I apologize for being so vague. They were rolling around in their urine and feces. Their genitals were also visible. Ryan 18:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's what animals do. Good grief, have we become such grundies? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 13:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Whilst I'm not sure which image or article Ryan refers to, I've noted the Klismaphilia article of late, which includes an image of animals doing things 'that would be unthinkable'. I think this is the kind of image he's trying to introduce to your mind Tony. -- Longhair | Talk 14:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

He's probably presuming too much about my mind. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm as open minded as the rest of them, but even I wonder why that image is there at Klismaphilia, if not only to titillate the uploader into some 'Look what I did to Wikipedia' frenzy? -- Longhair | Talk 14:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually if you look at it carefully you'll see that it's a rather well drawn cartoon. I found it very amusing. We're not Mommy and Daddy's big book of nice things for boys and girls. If one were to term that charming little barnyard sex fantasy "disturbing content", what words remain for

14:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't find the image disturbing at all. What I do find disturbing is its' inclusion in an article describing the joy of receiving an enema. Surely that's off your radar, though I'm willing to agree, the image has a place here, just not there. For once, even the imfamous

goatse image seems an acceptable replacement, dare I wash my mouth out. -- Longhair | Talk

15:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Strange deal. This user created a plausible but bogus article

20:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

137.227.16.100 (talk · contribs) is the same guy. 71.11.192.131 (talk · contribs) and 69.137.221.80 (talk · contribs) may also be related. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if checkuser is working yet.. but if it's technically possible, could someone please perform a sockcheck on George Lucas (talk · contribs) and Adamwankenobi (talk · contribs)? Both made similar peculiar votes on Wikipedia:Per-article blocking minutes apart. George Lucas has been blocked indefinitely for vandalism, but I'm curious if Adam is his "legitimate" sockpuppet. However it's more likely that "George Lucas" is just an immature friend of Adam's, or a wiki-stalker. Rhobite 20:15, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Adam has stated the intention to engage in vandalism, and he has acknowledged being responsible for quite a bit of the rather nasty vandalism at George W. Bush and other related articles. I wouldn't be suprised at all if this is just one more sockpuppet to keep the vandalism going. -- Essjay · Talk 01:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Adam has also not made an edit since I blocked "George Lucas", suggesting he got hit by the autoblocker. It's not conclusive proof, but it's worth noting. Rhobite 02:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I checked Special:Ipblocklist and I don't see an autoblock because of "George Lucas" but I'll keep an eye on it. If we catch it with a Campbellsville, Ky. IP, then we'll know we have Adam. -- Essjay · Talk 02:54, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Adam has a long history of vandalism. I blocked him about a month ago when he was hitting the George Bush, Dick Cheney, and other articles -- he had forgotten that he was logged in when he made edits such as this one [80]; normally he logged out so he got one of the dynamically assigned Alltel IPs. I got an e-mail from him, in which he was unrepentant for the vandalism, and managed both to admit that it was him, and deny it, in a single sentence; he asked me to please unblock him so he could "rebuild his reputation." Then he put up his user page, where he bragged about his vandalism. (Here [81] is where I wrote about it on ViP in July; read the whole section, since it includes the full range of the IPs he was known to use.) The edits by User:George Lucas look like his style to me. Bet the farm on it. Antandrus (talk) 03:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow someone noticed this besides me :O x.x I recommend a long block, ala User:Michael. I really want to RfAr his ass... Redwolf24 03:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Check User talk:Redwolf24#Vandalism by User:George Lucas. Redwolf24 03:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe it for a second. Certainly, vandals can reform (I know of at least one that I consider a good contributor now who was a vandal not too long ago) but I think Adam's comments on his user page are the accurate representation of his intent. I suggest keeping a very close eye on him, and if he makes any missteps, take him to RfAr straight away; I'll be happy to support it. -- Essjay · Talk 03:52, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I left a last plea for good behavior on his talk page (as did Redwolf: thanks). We will see. Antandrus (talk) 03:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

If it's confirmed that Adam is behind this vandalism, there is no need for arbitration, we can simply block him for a while. The Arbcom usually does not need to be involved in cases of simple vandalism. Rhobite 09:11, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, certianly, if he slips up and does it under his username we can. However, its a lot of trouble (and potentially controversial) to block him for activities he does through a sock. If he is going to continue with his stated agenda of vandalism, then he needs to be taken to RfAr so we can get an offical ban and be justified in getting rid of him altoghether. As someone else said, I'm not entirely convinced that he gets that he can't just switch between valued contributor and vandal. The ArbCom should have a whack at him, and hopefully put the fear of Jimbo in him. Thats what he really needs, to be forced to realize that we will not tolerate this behavior. -- Essjay · Talk 09:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I have his answer to my "why are you doing this" question: [82]. Antandrus (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Eh? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? What change in Wikipolicy is he talking about? --

khaosworks

06:58, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can we RfAr NOW? -- Essjay · Talk 06:53, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

See his talk page. He says he wants to contribute, so I've unblocked him. If he starts trashing things again, I would expect admins to do the sensible thing - David Gerard 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Temp AC injunction in place. He may only edit his userspace and his arbitration case while the case is in progress. Has been notified - David Gerard 22:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at User:Quercus robur's contributions? He seems to be an imposter and a vandal. John Barleycorn 22:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked as impersonation and vandal. --

t

23:05, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Added the {{

impostor}} tag. violet/riga (t)

23:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

3RRs

User:Huaiwei

):

• 1st revert: 10:55, August 1, 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:03, August 1, 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:10, August 1, 2005
• 4th revert: 11:42, August 1, 2005

Reported by: User:Instantnood 11:51, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• 10:55, August 1, 2005 was strictly not a revert. I kept half of the edits made by Instantnood in his three previous edits, changed the note reference related to China, and only retained the text of the note below. If he considers it a revert, mind saying to which version am I reverting to?--Huaiwei 12:00, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • 10:55, August 1, 2005 was a revert to the footnote itself, and at the same time there was a modification to the hyperlink. In other words there were four reverts by User:Huaiwei for the footnote, and three for the hyperlink. — Instantnood 12:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • This is obviously trying to force the 3RR ban upon me. A revert refers to a single operation completely bringing a page back to its former state. 10:55, August 1, 2005 was clearly an edit in which I accepted some changes, modified others, as well as restored a questionable edit. You dont break an edit down into parts and call it a revert. My issue is not just with your use of the word "Mainland" in the footnote, but also within the table itself, so since when is the footnote the sole criterion to judge if my edit was a revert or not? and btw, what hyperlink are you talking about?--Huaiwei 12:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• And so, here we are again, the three of us. So, I guess that discussion proved less than ideally productive... Huaiwei, yes, we do break an edit down and single out the reoccurences as ("complex") reverts. Question: how paramount is the footnote to this particular dispute? El_C 12:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• the bit being reverted is less than 50% of the amount being dissputed before. No block. Yet.Geni 13:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Amount? Are you defining that purely textually? In this case I tend to agree, though. Hopefuly we will have a final decision soon. El_C 13:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• pretty much yes going by the amount of red text on my screen. The pattern fits that of an attempt to comprimise.Geni 13:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, sometimes a single sentence could qualitatively carry as much weight in a dispute as whole paragraphs, though, as I said, in this case (naming convention), approaching the changes quantitatively is sound. El_C 14:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• El C, I know about the "complex revert" thingy, but it is simply not logical for me to be gaming the rules here. This "complex" revert is in the first edit listed above. If I actually wanted to skim the 3RR rule, then whats the logic of me doing that in the beginning, and with no guarantee that Instandnood might start yet another round of reverts again? If there are some edits which makes sense, then yes, I shall let them stay. I dont simply use a few clicks and do a revert in a trigger happy manner if resolution is within sight.--Huaiwei 13:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

the problem is that an edit warriour looking to avoid the £RR will start by creating a new version in the knolwage that they are garenteed to win a 1 on one straight revert war.Geni 13:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I hope I got what you mean, but that is not going to work if the other party edits it too anytime after that isnt it?--Huaiwei 14:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

no but it is normaly combiened with other tricks.Geni 14:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, and this risk becomes esp. compounded when the dispute is extended to such a wide array of articles. El_C 14:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Sigh...ok...whatever the case it is, I appreciate the fact that some common sense prevails here in this particular instance. If any edit gets labelled as a "revert" just because it contains edits the other party dosent like, then I suppose I will have an IP ban long ago! :D--Huaiwei 14:44, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• In any case, is it not obvious that Instantnood is just as much a participant in gaming this to get Huaiwei on 3rr, repeatedly? SchmuckyTheCat 16:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Both of us were reverting each other, but I knew I have to stop. Before all these reverts I did express my concern to User:Huaiwei at his talk page, but he did not agree there was any problem, and subsequently objected and reverted my edits to the footnote. — Instantnood 17:02, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • I am not too sure what instantnood's little exercise is for this case, but may I just point out that he asked in my talk page if there is a "better way of presentation" based on what he thinks was "misleading" information. I replied saying I didnt find that format misleading at all. When he still carried on asking me some strange questions on the next step to take, I replied quite matter of factly that the proper way to go forward is to wait for someone else to come forth if he thinks it is indeed confusing, utilise the talk page, or to do a RFC. He didnt bother to reply, and then from out of the blue, he suddenly decides its appropriate and jutifiable to edit the page in a way he deems favourable. I dont see how that is supposed to be the fruit of any "discussion"?--Huaiwei 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I myself, may not opt to view it as appreciable enough, and anyway, I'm looking toward an interim solution pending word from the Arbitration Committee. We obviously can't protect all the articles that this dispute encompasses. Is it possible for both of you to refrain from editing these names (either one of you), until this decision is reached? That is, without a formal injunction. This is a complete waste and drain of energy, in all possible respect. Nothing productive has come from these revert war exchanges. El_C 17:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would personally love to be rid of all these silly edits, but not until he stops spreading his agenda all over wikipedia even with an arbcom currently in progress. His current behavior seems to be showing blatant contempt towards the system in place here. The disagreements over the Mainland China issue remains unresolved, and so long that it is so, any sensible person who is not out to cause disputes or to spread an agenda would not be actively trying to use it despite it all. Will he be willing to coorperate? Well...lets see....--Huaiwei 19:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have a basic plan for a cease fire while the RFAr is concluded. It basically involves refraining from making any naming convention edits, anywhere by the participants to this dispute (including SchmuckyTheCat and anyone else). I asked Instantnood if he's willing to do so, and I'm hopeful for a positive reply from himself and everyone else. Let's not waste each other's time while the committee deliberates (a decision that will likely lean more toward one position than the other, anyway). El_C 02:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I am generally agreeable so long that the other parties similarly coorperate. Meanwhile, I have a suggestion to make with regards to the obvious and persistant abuse of the 3RR's intent here. Should either party ever nominate the other for 3RR again, I would suggest that BOTH parties be blocked, especially when both parties have clearly made 3 reverts already. In fact in one of the earliest instances, both of us were blocked, and it seems to work wonders...for a while. :D--Huaiwei 06:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's the spirit, but my diabolical scheme is even more ambititious! If any one participent makes a single naming convention edit, they shall be blocked, due to scroll bar lazyness on my part, shall we say: 15 minute, next 1 hours, next 24 hours per any given 24 hour period? I trust everyone will diligently watchover each other edits, since I certainly do not have the time (or the pertinent watchlist) to do so! I do believe it can work, it isn't that difficult to abide by, and at this time would be of great benefit to all involved. El_C 07:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hoho I wont mind any measure, but how would you define a "naming convention edit"?--Huaiwei 12:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• I would like to add that Huaiwei is respectable Wikipedia editor and articles he works on are often target of vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 22:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Liftarn

):

• Previous version reverted to: 08:20, 31 July 2005
• 1st revert: 07:08, 1 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:43, 1 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 12:18, 1 August 2005
• 4th revert: 16:48, 1 August 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Complicated reverts, but consistently adds the sentence "Also see Self-hating Jew" to the secion on "Anti-Semite". Has been trying to make this equivalence for weeks now. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• Easier when viewed this way:

1. Sometimes applied to those who state that Israel should not exist or are critical of the actions of Israel. ***Also see [[#Self-hating Jew|Self-hating Jew]]***.
2. Sometimes applied to those who state that Israel should not exist or are critical of the actions of Israel. ***Also see [[#Self-hating Jew|Self-hating Jew]]***
3. Sometimes applied to those who state that Israel should not exist or are critical of the actions of Israel. ***Also see [[#Self-hating Jew|Self-hating Jew]]*** (then ''Also see:'' [[#Judeofascism|Judeofascism]]).
4. ***Also see [[#Self-hating Jew|Self-hating Jew]]***. El_C 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• As mentioned directly above, I am more concerned with the quality of the edit than the quantity of text reverted (not to imply that Genie thinks otherwise), and in this case I find it to be key in the dispute. Has the user been made aware of this request, and the 3RR in general? El_C 18:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The user is well aware of controversial nature of this edit, and as he has been editing Wikipedia since 2002 (see the history of his User:page), is likely one of the longest standing editors of the project; hardly a newbie who needs to be coddled and taught the rules. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• In that case, blocked for 24 hours. El_C 02:34, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

User:138.130.203.178

):

• 1st revert: [19:16, 2 August 2005]
• 2nd revert: [09:24, 3 August 2005]
• 3rd revert: [09:54, 3 August 2005]
• 4th revert: [10:03, 3 August 2005]
• 5th revert: [13:13, 3 August 2005]
• 6th revert: [16:08, 3 August 2005]
• 7th revert: 18:20, 3 August 2005

Reported by: Josh Parris [[83]] 07:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User continues to insist that Jonathan Sarfati is a scientist, and reverts any changes removing this description. I have warned this user about the 3RR prior to the 6th revert. Unfortunately, this revert war has almost drawn User:Brian0918 into 3RR violation. Josh Parris [[84]] 07:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • There was no warning that I saw (or see) and there is no 'almost' about it:
    • 00:00, 3 August 2005 Brian0918
    • 00:12, 3 August 2005 Brian0918
    • 02:09, 3 August 2005 Brian0918
    • 01:38, 4 August 2005 Brian0918
    • 14:22, 4 August 2005 Brian0918
    • 14:29, 4 August 2005 Brian0918
  • Sarfati is a PhD scientist, and Brian0918, who is an administrator (who should have known better than a newbie like myself!), keeps deleting the original designation of 'scientist' from the description without citing any sources, and calls the deletion a minor edit. He is also violating the NPOV. User:138.130.203.178 a/k/a agapetos_angel 01:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason I said almost is because none of those edits are a fourth in a 24hr window, unlike yours.
    • And you were warned, repeadly, by several users; just look at User talk:138.130.203.178. Josh Parris # 06:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I blocked the user for 24 hours. Brian0918 is one of the best users on Wikipedia and I doubt he would violate ANY policy. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 23:35, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

      • Oh? Deletion of an appellation (listed on that person's business card and job description) under the guise of a 'minor edit'--thereby 'hiding' the deletion--is not a violation of ANY policy, is it?
        • Wikipedia: Minor edits
          : "Marking a real change as a minor edit is considered bad behavior, and even more so if it involves the deletion of some text. If one has accidentally marked an edit as minor, make another edit, mark it major, and say "the previous edit was major" in the summary."
          • 01:58, 17 February 2005 had 'Research scientist' - original appellation
          • 09:03, 4 July 2005 Brian0918's first removal of the pre-existing appellation of scientist, concealed as a 'minor' edit
      • Brian0918 continued to make so-called 'minor edits' that were actually deletions, including:
        • 10:18, 10 July 2005
        • 14:50, 1 August 2005
        • 09:29, 3 August 2005
        • 10:00, 3 August 2005
        • 10:12, 3 August 2005
        • 11:38, 4 August 2005
      • His violations, or at least wrong doing (continuing even after David Cannon stepped in), can be easily found on the history of that article (if someone cared to look BEFORE 'doubt[ing]'! I was new and had no idea to 'look at user talk' for **warnings**. Regardless, I consider(ed) the administrator's behaviour to be (deletion) vandalism that I was reverting. --agapetos_angel 05:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

User:AI and User:Maureen D

)

There have been 12 reverts (hope I counted right) done on this article since 00:35, 1 August 2005, six by User:AI, four by User:Maureen D, one each by Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) 68.72.21.18 (talk · contribs):

User:Maureen D:

• Previous version reverted to:

13:06, 31 July 2005

• 1st revert: 07:00, 1 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:49, 1 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 03:15, 2 August 2005
• 4th revert: 21:36, 2 August 2005

User:AI:

• Previous version reverted to:

00:37, 1 August 2005 00:49, 2 August 2005

• 1st revert: 00:35, 1 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:24, 1 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:16, 1 August 2005
• 4th revert: 03:20, 2 August 2005
• 5th revert: 19:57, 2 August 2005
• 6th revert: 23:17, 2 August 2005

7th revert added --Irmgard 19:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• 7th revert: 19:49, 3 August 2005

One more revert has been done by IP 68.72.21.18 (talk · contribs) reverting to 01:27, 3 August 2005 which is almost identical with 13:06, 31 July 2005

• 1st revert: 01:27, 3 August 2005

Reported by: Irmgard 07:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• While both users have been sliding tightly by a violation of the 3RR rule seen strictly within 24 hours, this edit war should be stopped as soon as possible. If this is the wrong place, to report such edit wars, please say so. Irmgard 07:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Have the users been made aware of this notice, and the
  3RR in general? El_C
  09:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I've rectified the omission of informing the users
    User_talk:AI - sorry. Both are aware of the 3RR rule - AI was already made aware of it somewhere in a discussion and acknowledged that, and Maureen wrote already several vandalism reports regarding it. As I stated before, none of them violated it to the letter, but there is evidently a hot edit war going on. --Irmgard
    10:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy

).

• 1st revert 20:26 July 30
• 2nd revert 21:54 July 30
• 3rd revert 05:12 July 31
• 4th revert 19:14 July 31
• Reported by: Gabrielsimon 09:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• He was warned aboutthis on his talk page by Slimvirgin, but refuses to acknolwedge any wrongdoing, so i escalate the warning to a report. Gabrielsimon 09:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Erm, those edits are a bit dated. The
  3RR is used to diffuse conflict, not as a penalty. El_C
  09:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'd normally agree about the diffs being dated, but I was wondering earlier if I should block him for it. I received a complaint from User:Evmore about excessive reverting by DreamGuy at Vampire, and a complaint that DG had reported User:Gabrielsimon for 3RR, but wasn't blocked for having violated it himself. So I left what I felt was a fairly friendly warning on DG's talk page about reverting, since when I've been subjected to several diatribes from him about how I'm rude, condescending, misinformed, how dare I, and so on. He does seem to be a serial reverter, and Gabriel's right about him refusing to acknowledge there's any kind of problem. I'm just writing this up here so you're aware of it. I haven't decided how to approach it yet. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:31, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, noted. I'm not familliar with this case. Proceed as you see fit. El_C 09:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Any input is appreciated, of course. Then perhaps his responses would be diverted to your talk page. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:38, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, but my talk page is ... how shall I put it ... busy at the moment. It will get back to you, though (eventually). El_C 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• reverting the edits of banned users does not count towards the three revert rule.Geni 13:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

the useres werent banned at the time. Gabrielsimon 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[85] this diff also shows complete , stubborn refusal to even discuss wrongdoing. Gabrielsimon 00:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've blocked DreamGuy for 12 hours for the 3RR violation at
  Vampire fiction and Otherkin, one of which I've had to protect because of it. Attempts to discuss the reverting with him have met with abuse and deletion of messages from his talk page. I reduced the block to 12 hours to reflect that it was reported a few days late, but I'm acting on it because of a complaint that, while DreamGuy reports others for 3RR who are then blocked, he isn't blocked when he does it. However, I'm now worried about what Geni said about the blocked users, so I'll take another look at who he was reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk)
  00:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• I reversed the block because one of the reverts was against a sockpuppet of Enviroknot's and may not count toward 3RR. I left a message for DreamGuy asking him to reconsider his editing style and stop the serial reverting (he reverted the same section of Vampire 14 times in eight days) but the request met with more of the same abuse. Gabriel, if you and the others continue to have problems being reverted by DreamGuy, let me know rather than reverting yourself, because you need to make sure you're not blocked again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:30, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, this once again shows SlimVirgin's clear bias here... Gabrielsimon did go and revert Therianthropy about five times tonight, and instead of blocking him she let him put protect tags on all the pages he wanted protected his way and then followed around and made them real... She has shown clear favoritism. The "abuse" she talks about is simply my pointing out earlier examples of her poor choices, pointing out that it was hypocritical for her to undo my comments on her page but then threaten to block me when I removed her comments from mine. Specifically regarding this incident, I told her I was willing to discuss the alleged violation with any admin other than her, because I believed she had already demonstrated clear bias against me, and she refused to let anyone else take over. DreamGuy 08:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I count three actual reverts. Although this is still too many, IMO, I don't understand it to be a violation of 3RR. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

After some discussion on my talk page, I've looked over the article again. I still hold that there are only three actual reverts, but there were five times when he altered an edit made by Dreamguy, in the same section of the article - changing wording, etc. I don't know if these could be labelled reverts, however, these edits did occur, and were part of the editting dispute. *mutter*placing a comment here may have been a bad idea*mutter* --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 09:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel's latest game is to pepper the edits with lots of small changes so they are difficult to follow and then changing the wording slightly but of no real difference in the end result. I've gone back through his edits to the page and it's like a shotgun blast trying to sort it all out. The issue that was most controversial was, appropriately enough, whether mental health issues were controversial (he says they are not, that therianthropes do not have any overlap with mental illness at all and that there is no controversy, he's just right so there's no debate). Revision as of 21:06, August 2, 2005 he changes "controversial issue" to "difficult issue" Revision as of 19:38, August 3, 2005 he changes it to "interesting issue" Revision as of 19:43, August 3, 2005 he again changes it to "interesting issue" and then at Revision as of 19:51, August 3, 2005 he puts it back to "difficult issue". I guess it all comes down to whether someone can get around the 3RR policy by knowingly disobeying consensus for a certain wording by picking a couple of ways to changes it and cycle through them. IF the policy is that they can do this as long as the change is slightly diffferent, we'd be opening ourselves up to people gaming the system to make all the reverts they want as long as they have a thesaurus in front of them... Gabriel has progressed to doing the same constant edit warring as always but trying to weasel his way out of them (also including his latest claim that it really wasn;t him who made all the edits overnight but a roommate he just happened to talk like him except oops he "spels better than Ido I type rilly baddly so that oter one oviously wasn't me" -- discounting the fact that the dits in question also had plenty of bad spelling and grammar, just not as much as he's currenlty exaggerating it with). IF this doesn't count as 3RR then I suggest tigtening up the 3RR policy so that these kinds of shenenigans don't become more commonplace. DreamGuy 11:16, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

i dont play games, i just try to make imporoovements, DreamGuy poverreacts whenfer anyone tries to tell him hes wrong in anyway, check hia tlk page ans user slimvirgins's talk page for the proof ( the edit histories atany wate) plus hes hard to work with because of his literally constant incivillity. Gabrielsimon 11:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

and before i forget, im not pushing for anything but NPOV, DreamGuy is pushing for his viewpoint, weather hell admot it or not, that therians, otherkin, vampire lifestylers and many others wh he doesnt like are crazy. i would suggest monitoring him from this pooint onward, but who has that kind of time to waste on a lost cause? Gabrielsimon 11:21, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

From my own edit history of articles, that DreamGuy has been part of every now and then, I can only say that he loves to revert for very stupid reasons. He's often involved in revert wars, that end up of pages being locked. He thinks he's better than everyone. He believes himself to know more than the rest of us mortals. Very annoying editor. Although, I'm sure he's done a lot of good for Wikipedia, since he isn't quite a vandal case, I think someone should give him a six month ban or similar, in order to cool off his attitude. Also, I don't get it why he's sooooooo into removing fiction and what he calls "fictioncruft" from mythological articles. He removes a lot of facts in many articles by doing this.

EliasAlucard|Talk 21:05, 08 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

User:EliasAlucard is a problem user who instead of trying to improve articles insists upon adding nonnotable fictional trivia as if it had a greater importance that information about the actual topic of an article and becomes abusive and unwilling to discuss things, reverting to his own version and unwilling o discuss anything. The idea that he's suggesting a 6 month ban for a cooling off period is ludicruous, as he needs cooling off moreso than others and it's basically just a way for him to try to make his edits without being checked by others. I have had to remove many articles that I was a solid contributor to from my watchlist to avoid conflict with this extremely stubborn and consensus-avoiding editor, and now out of the blue he is following me around complaining again. Not to mention his complaint has nothing to do with this alleged 3RR. It's just bloody ridiculous. DreamGuy 20:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Take my word for it, if there's anything I don't want to do, then it's to "follow you around." I'm avoiding you more than you are avoiding me. It's just that you're found everywhere, and it's not a surprise from my side if there has been some lame edit war that you were involved in. Now, to your defense, some of the edit wars you've been involved with, you've been righteous. In other articles, you haven't. I can acknowledge that I've lost my temper once in a while on some talk page. But you, you're the master of being rude in every edit war you're involved in. The reason why I decided to make these complaints, is that you piss me off. Plain and simple. And calling me a problem user is a major exaggeration, and you know that I'm not, so stop lying. And it has something to do with this 3RR. Why do you think I complained here? Because the Vampire article was protected, because of another lame edit war you caused by removing fiction. I've been in an exact situation like this before with you. And you've removed lots of fiction from many other mythological articles. Why? I find it interesting to have it there. There's not much difference between mythology and fiction, and I don't see how it hurts to have fiction there.

EliasAlucard|Talk 23:11, 08 Aug, 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen

):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:44, 3 August 2005
• 1st revert: 11:47, 3 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:51, 3 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:15, 3 August 2005 revert of previous version 13:13, 3 August 2005
• 4th revert: 14:31, 3 August 2005 revert of previous version 14:17, 3 August 2005

Reported by: Axon (talk|contribs) 14:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I would like to note that the last two reverts are not reverts of the same edit but two seperate reverts of different edits but of the same page. I understand there is some ambiguity over the 3RR here and mention this here and above for fairness. I would also like to note the Germen has been previously blocked two times for breaking the 3RR[86][87] on Islamophobia leading to the page being protected[88]. He has already broken the 3RR within 24 hours of this page being un-protected[89]. He is also supposed to be undergoing RfC/RfA mediation in an attempt to resolve a dispute related to this page with me. Axon (talk|contribs) 14:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• I would like to note that I did only revert once. I did, however, move sections to more appropriate places and I did salvage deleted sections of my edits which represented valuable work and contained numerous references, such as the additional information on the Runnymede Trust characteristics of islamophobia. To summarize, I did try to maximize teh informational content of the article. It is another example of the bad faith and ad hominem approach some Wikipedians seem to prefer. I would like to add as well that Axon has agressively listed me for a RfC and RfAr without attempting a serious mediation effort (this happened only after I explicitly asked for it). This seems to indicate that Axon prefers ad hominem solutions to fact- or argument-based solutions. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Attempting to package your reverts along with other edits so as to avoid the 3RR is still reverting in my book: your edits clearly undo mine and Heraclius' edits. Given your prior experience with the 3RR you should be familiar with Wikipedia policy of reverts and 3RRR. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I know you guys are busy, but is there any chance someone can look at this? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:17, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Specific analysis of the alleged reversion cases:

• 1st revert: 11:47, 3 August 2005 I did move a section to the Definition section, as agreed upon during mediation. I did not edit an out-of-date version of the page. I changed wordings and moved some text, so it was not a revert but an edit.
• 2nd revert: 11:51, 3 August 2005 See first; was edit rather than revert; salvaged deleted section
  • Both of the above are clearly reverts of my early re-ordering[90]. I certainly did not agree to these specific changes in mediation. The second revert is even marked by Germen as "rv."! Axon (talk|contribs) 15:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 13:15, 3 August 2005 Seems a removal of double wording to me. Because of the high frequency of edits and the lousy internet connection here, editing conflicts arose frequently. It is well possible that by accident I overwrote the previous version. In that case, don't whine but do as I do: salvage valuable information and paste it in the new edit.
  • Clearly revert of my edit here[91]. Germen's revert even reverts my spelling corrections. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 14:31, 3 August 2005 see 3).--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Once again, clearly marked as "rv." by Germen. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • So there were just two cases of reverting, which don't warrant the filing of a 3RR case. I recommend Axon to stop wasting valuable administrator and Wikipedian time in his endless and fruitless ad hominem attacks and indulge in more constructive endeavours, like proving your points with high-quality primary and secondary sources, for instance. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 15:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I still count 4 reverts above: only two are actually labelled as reverts by yourself. Axon (talk|contribs) 15:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• I have blocked User:Germen for 24 hours for a 3RR violation here. The third revert there troubled me, however. It appeared that Germen reverted a strange edit by Axon that nearly duplicated a paragraph, however it appears this revert was a deliberate and complete revert of Axon's edit (because Germen made an intervening edit and also reverted a spelling correction by Axon). The rest of the reverts there are far more clear-cut. Thus, I feel the 3RR has been breached, and I am justified in making this block. Germen can still edit his or her talk page while blocked, if they wish to argue against this block. - Mark 14:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Axon and German have agreed to a soft ban on Islamophobia while they work out mediation with dab. Dab can unban them at will. (he should drop me a line when he does, just to be sure). Germen has been unblocked.

Mark and Karynn concur. Kim Bruning 15:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

user:Ronald20 / user: 204.108.96.10

).

Ronald20 (talk · contribs) / 204.108.96.10 (talk · contribs)

• Previous version reverted to: [92] deletes {{US-bcast-stub}} on an obvious stub article
• 1st revert: [93]
• 2nd revert: [94]
• 3rd revert: [95]
• 4th revert: [96] as 204.108.96.10 (talk · contribs)

Reported by: BlankVerse ∅ 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments

As both

.

As both Ronald20 (talk · contribs) and 204.108.96.10 (talk · contribs) this editor has already done a bunch of edits this morning. He needs to be stopped (at least temporarily)! BlankVerse ∅ 15:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This editor, as 204.108.96.10 (talk · contribs) has already been blocked three times for vandalism (see [99]), and as 204.108.80.10 (talk · contribs) once [100]. BlankVerse ∅ 17:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

):

• 1st revert: 16:53, 3 August 2005 [version reverted to]
• 2nd revert: 20:22, 3 August 2005

[version reverted to]

• 3rd revert: 20:49, 3 August 2005

[version reverted to]

• 4th revert: 20:57, 3 August 2005

[version reverted to] Reported by: Heraclius 21:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Sanctu

):

• Previous version reverted to: [101]
• 1st revert: 10:43, 3 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:21, 3 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:41, 3 August 2005
• 4th revert: 22:47, 3 August 2005
• 5th revert: 10:32, 4 August 2005
• 6th revert: 18:30, 4 August 2005

Reported by: Carbonite | Talk 22:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Very straight-forward violation. Sanctu keeps removing a disambiguation notice without comment. There are allegations that Sanctu is a sockpuppet of banned user User:Wik. Carbonite | Talk 23:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No admin has commented on this report and Sanctu continues to revert. I'm going to block since these are all simple reverts without question. I'm consider the first five reverts to have violated the 3RR, the sixth is just evidence he's not stopping. Carbonite | Talk 18:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Instantnood

):

• 1st revert: [102] revert of Jiang, who made some alphabetizing changes (Putting Taiwan at T, removing it from the letter C, with the edit summary "nobody calls it China" )
• 2nd revert: [103] revert of me, who had gone back to Jiangs version and made a change about France
• 3rd revert: [104] revert of me
• 4th revert: [105] revert of me again
• 5th revert: [106] a revert of Carlton

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The first isn't a strict revert to a previous version, but it was a revert of restoring the effort to put Taiwan in the alphabet at C for "China, Republic of" SchmuckyTheCat 23:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The first revert is not a revert at all. User:Jiang moved Taiwan (ROC) from #C to #T, and removed the link of Taiwan (ROC) at #T that pointed readers to #C [107]. I added a link at #C to point readers to #T after Jiang's edit [108] (the so-called "first revert"). — Instantnood 23:09, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Let's go through this:

1. Jiang moved Taiwan (ROC) from #C to #T, clearly indicating in the edit summary it doesn't belong at C at all.
2. Instantnood: "I added a link at #C"

So the link at C was removed, then added. That's a revert, there was no housecleaning necessary after Jiangs change. Here's a bargain to any admin, I'll go back and revert him a fourth time if you promise to ban us both. SchmuckyTheCat 23:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• There was no link for Taiwan (ROC) pointing from #C to #T, therefore no link under #C could be removed. — Instantnood 23:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

• What? What? you just said and pointed at a diff that says Jiang removed the link under C. You put it back. SchmuckyTheCat 23:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• originally, the link to
  Republic of China article still resides under #T, where I put it. I don't really care whether there's a pointer under #C. --Jiang
  01:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Involved editors were supposed to be informed of my interim plan for a truce, I'm sorry to see that did not end up being the case (either that, and/or not followed). Can we still give it another chance and altogether refrain from such edits pending the committee's decision? El_C 09:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have to point out that instantnood failed to comment at all with regards to the above truce proposal.--Huaiwei 13:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• OK, 'nood now made a 5th revert in 24 hours to add Taiwan under C for China. Any arguement about whether the first revert is a revert or not, is moot. SchmuckyTheCat 20:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:SchmuckyTheCat's revert was based on her/his interpretation of Jiang's edit. Calton requested us to discuss in her/his edit summary [109]. Jiang expressed above [110] his position and therefore the foundation of SchmuckyTheCat's reverts was invalid. There's no longer any problem for the pointer to stay. — Instantnood 20:53, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • "rv to last version by SchmuckyTheCat. Got a problem with it? Deal." doesn't sound very inviting to me. Carlton is clearly showing consensus that Taiwan doesn't not belong under C for China. Whether the "problem for the pointer to stay" isn't at issue, Instantnood has added it five time since it was removed. (And no, it doesn't belong either, one country = one listing.)
      • IMO Jiang has clarified his edit, the whole thing is concluded and there's no problem for the pointer to stay. This noticeboard is not a tool for anybody to block anyone else that she/he doesn't like, or to bargain [111]. — Instantnood 21:12, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Instantnood, I clearly said 'any and all naming conventions,' from anyone involved. Further, you were supposed to inform me when you felt the other side violated these, then I could have asked them to revert themsleves, adhere to the truce, etc. Instead, you not only reverted (which is expressly works against the truce), neglecting to employ my offer to mediate, but you also seem to have violated 3RR (regardless, recall that I said one revert = 15 min, 2 = 1 hr and 3 = 24 hr block). This is the last chance for truce as I have devised it; meaning, no edits of such a nature until the committee's decision. In answer to the question of what constitute a naming convention edit: any edit which modify the names of the contested subjects. Surely there are other edits to make aside from the naming. I want everyone involved to keep the naming as they are at present, if there are objections to this, my plan will be discarded; if there are violations, report to me and don't revert (this is directed to everyone else, too). Please, everyone, read the above closely. I am not interested in becoming involved with the specific details and inner workings of this dispute, only to reach a temproary détente. Blocked for 12 hours, as a final benefit of the doubt. El_C 21:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User: 65.110.6.37

):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:50, 3 August 2005
• 2st revert: 22:46, 3 August
• 3nd revert: 02:07, 4 August
• 4rd revert: 02:22, 4 August
• 5th revert (partial): 03:13, 4 August
• 6th revert: 03:22, 4 August
• 7th revert: 03:47, 4 August
• 8th revert: 04:20, 4 August
• 9th revert: 04:42, 4 August
• 10th revert: 16:18, 4 August
• 11th revert: 16:29, 4 August

Reported by: Kev 04:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Note that there is good evidence that this user is banned user Hogeye, who has subsequently gone on to use many different IPs to avoid his ban and continue violating the 3RR. Many of these IPs have been banned themselves by Hadal and cesarb, but he continues to move from one to the next and return to old ones once the ban has expired. He has also ceased to label his reverts, as part of his general gaming of the system. User refered to another user as "ignorant buttfucker" on his 2nd revert summary at 22:46. User was warned at 03:32, and has so far gone on to make more reverts at 03:47, 4:20, 04:42, etc, etc. Kev 16:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• The 65.110.6.37 IP originates from an anonymous proxy called snoopblocker.com Kev 17:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • How can you tell it's an anonymous proxy? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I suspected it given Hoeyes history of moving from one anon IP service to the next, but there are two ways I verified it. First, I checked it with showmyip, by filling it into the search slot on the bottom of the page. Kev 06:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC) Then I tested it by making an edit to a random page while using the service, thus generating the same IP. 65.110.6.37 06:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Permanently blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User: 130.94.121.244

):

• 19:24, 3 August 2005 130.94.121.244 (Misinformation removed & corrections returned)
• 19:07, 3 August 2005 130.94.121.244 (Misinformation removed & corrections returned)
• 17:05, 3 August 2005 130.94.121.244 (Not cool, guys. Misinformation removed & corrections returned.)
• 16:54, 3 August 2005 130.94.121.244 (I agree with rewrite. Knowingly corrupting an entry with misinformation is not cool. Misinformation removed & corrections returned)

very probably the same user as - notice identical comment wording:

• 14:14, 3 August 2005 202.134.255.154 (Misinformation removed, corrections returned once again. By all means feel free to discuss.)
• 21:52, 2 August 2005 202.134.255.154 (Removed misinformation)
• 19:37, 2 August 2005 202.134.255.154 (Full rewrite to correct growing errors and misinformation)

which would give him a combined 7 edits in 24 hours. I'm requesting a longer ban than 24 hours on both ips, since there is no sign that he ever intends to stop or slow down. ObsidianOrder 04:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

130.94.121.241 (talk · contribs), probably the same user given the comment wording, has reverted 6 additional times this morning. Salsb 14:59, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please, someone read this! This editor has continued to make these edits, now at least 8, and shows no sign of stopping. --Icelight 00:30, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24. --

khaosworks

13:23, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I count nine reverts over the last 24 hours. Any admin feeling like, I dunno, actually taking some responsibility here? --Calton | Talk 13:11, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the same guy is back as 198.65.167.221 (talk · contribs) with 5 reverts in an hour. Argh! ObsidianOrder 14:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

He's up to 9 now, over about 5 hours. Can a revert war this heavy, carried out by one person, be moved to it's own vandalism page? I think it's about reached that point, and it might put enough attention on the problem that three or four editors don't have to use up their reverts of the page just to keep on anon address in check. --Icelight 18:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

August 4th-5th:

Prev Version 09:20, 4 August 2005

• 1st Revert 09:35, 4 August 2005
• 2nd Revert 09:42, 4 August 2005
• 1st Revert 15:52, 4 August 2005
• 2nd Revert 18:01, 4 August 2005
• 3rd Revert 09:06, 5 August 2005

-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Article protected and IP blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Denniss

).

Denniss (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 09:13, 1 Aug 2005
• 1st revert: 11:29, 3 Aug 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:46, 3 Aug 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:33, 3 Aug 2005
• 4th revert: 17:32, 3 Aug 2005

Reported by: Jgp 06:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User constantly reverts my edits and will not listen to my explanations. He has done this in the past (but not as far as violating the 3RR) in the Pentium M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article, and was bawled out in the talk page. There, he refused to listen to reason and he refused to cite any sources, despite the fact that the person he was arguing with cited multiple sources. Jgp 06:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, I did make an attempt at compromise, which he outright rejected. I would have been willing to accept that compromise, but he kept reverting. Jgp 06:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I can only find three reverts (the problem is with the version they are ment to be reverting to.Geni 06:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When I made my first edit, I made a change to the presentation (replacing the default tables with the prettytable template) and a content change (the FSB stuff). He reverted the content change, but kept the presentation change. Every time I tried to re-add the content change, he'd revert it out. Jgp 07:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

User:217.43.197.200

).

Version reverted to: [112]

1st revert: 11:47, 5 August 2005

2nd revert: 12:34, 5 August 2005

3rd revert: 12:53, 5 August 2005

4th revert: 13:08, 5 August 2005

).

Version reverted to: [113]

1st revert: 11:49, 5 August 2005

2nd revert: 12:36, 5 August 2005

3rd revert: 12:54, 5 August 2005

4th revert: 13:07, 5 August 2005

Reported by Demiurge 12:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Back again on the same two pages as User:217.43.173.254. [114] [115]

Demiurge 16:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Page protected. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:198.65.167.221

).

198.65.167.221 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 07:43, 5 August 2005
• 1st revert: 07:57, 5 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:15, 5 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:39, 5 August 2005
• 4th revert: 08:55, 5 August 2005
• 5th revert: 09:14, 5 August 2005
• 6th revert: 09:49, 5 August 2005

Reported by: User:Bmicomp 14:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is probably the same user as User:130.94.121.241 -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 14:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti

):

VFD tag

• Initial change: 20:10, 4 August 2005
• 1st revert: 21:10, 4 August 2005 (note: arguably not a revert as the tag may have been removed mistakenly)
• 2nd revert: 00:34, 5 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:55, 5 August 2005
• 4th revert: 15:06, 5 August 2005
• 5th revert: 15:39, 5 August 2005

Removal of comments by User:Katefan0 (claiming Wikipedia:No personal attacks

• Initial change: 21:24, 4 August 2005 (note: commented out the text, but on subsequent reverts removed it)
• 1st revert: 21:35, 4 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:32, 5 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:06, 5 August 2005 (note: same as VFD tag 4th revert)

Reported by: violet/riga (t) 15:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Possibly in violation of
  WP:POINT as well, Benjamin Gatti is determined not to let the VFD run its course and come to a decision. The VFD tag was placed on this VFD when he nominated it for deletion. That page has been speedied but he insists on the tag remaining. Warned on his talk at 13:36, 5 August 2005 yet he still reverted again. violet/riga (t)
  15:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I endorse this block and would do it myself, but I'm one of the people who removed the VfD tag. By the way, the first revert should definitely count as the removal was not a mistake; Markaci's edit summary in removing it indicates clearly that it was intentional. --Michael Snow 16:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I read it that he thought it was a mistake by the nominator and that the VFD tag wasn't intentionally there, so removed it. Could be either way. violet/riga (t) 16:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • The charges are silly. The VfD will run its course, and I have never tried to "Stop" it except by official policy of nominating it for Deletion. The fact that vandals removed the nomination is irrelevent - it was replaced. I think that restoring a duly placed nomination for Deletion is neither a violation of 3RR nor of WK:POINT as there is no disruption. The removal of a VfD is a serious breach of process and ought to be taken up by the admins as well. I would therefore nominate those who admit to having removed it for equal sanctions at least.

In conclusion none of cited edits are reverts because they restore properly placed nominations for deletion where violations of policy had removed them, I will immediately arbitrate any action on that basis. Benjamin Gatti

So far I count 12 people who have indicated they oppose your actions, either by: a) removing the VfD tag; b) blanking, deleting, or calling for speedy removal of the resulting "VfD of a VfD" silliness; or c) calling for you to be censured for such frivolous nonsense. That indicates a growing consensus that your activities are inappropriate, as is your claim to be acting according to "official policy". You have articulated no policy reasons to support deleting a VfD listing; all you've done is complain about the motives and lack of disclosure by those who nominated your page for deletion. --Michael Snow 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal

1. Stop counting people. The question is whether or not I have violated a rule, so put down the popularity meter, and get out the rule book.
2. As for my counter nomination for VfD: It was properly posted in good faith for a stated reason.
3. As to the "Speedy Deletion" of the recursive VfD - I can find no basis in Criteria for speedy deletion for this action - therefore I consider it to be vandalism.
4. In justification of the Recursive VfD, There is evidence that the initial VfD came into existence by a coordinated effort of two people currently pursuing arbitration against Ed Poor - which same events are mentioned in the Article - and they failed to disclose their involvment as required under VfD etiquette. In short, I felt the purpose of the deletion was in part to promote their arguments while censoring counter arguments. Whether you agree with my arguments or not - censoring for the purpose of advancing your own is inappropriate and I properly nominated their censorship campaign for deletion.
5. Once again - my counter nomination was not granted equal process. - and to this day none of the reasons for Speedy Deletion have been even suggested.
6. I maintain that restoring the counter-VfD is not a revert - it is a valid edit to address violation of process (vandalism).
7. As to Katefan0's comments: According to WhatIsIllegitimateSpeech

"any speech questioning the intellectual honesty and moral principles of any person is considered illegitimate." (And ought to be removed). Because Kate's comments went beyond simple disclosure and suggested a conclusion questioning the intellectual honesty of the author, I followed this policy and refactored the comment to the discussion page (4 times), and would be happy to be sanctioned for it if that is the will of the people. Benjamin Gatti 18:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're trying to claim that a page on Ward's Wiki is valid as policy here on Wikipedia? Not to mention that the argument could equally be applied to the reasons you gave for the "VfD of a Vfd", thus justifying the speedy deletion you're arguing against. --Michael Snow 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominum attacks are precluded from every serious forum. I'm sure you are well aware of policies against Ad Hominum attacks on the Wiki. Yes I think Ward's Wiki put it well, and again - I'm more than happy to be sanctioned for upholding the principle of no ad hominum if the people wish it. The line between impuning someone's intellectual honesty and covert attempt at Censorship is clear and wide. I did not delete anyone's comments - I refactored and labelled them as Ad Hominum. Rob Church and Co, on the other hand are trying to Censor a counter argument to their own by seruptitiously nominating a VfD - without disclosing their involvement. But you knew that. Benjamin Gatti

• Please note that I have not blocked this user myself due to my involvement - he is, at time of writing, not blocked. violet/riga (t) 17:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, and I don't even play one on TV, but I find User:Benjamin Gatti's actions -- particularly the unwarranted censorship and more-than-3RRing of Kate's comments -- to be extremely disruptive and detrimental to our ability to form consensus. Nandesuka 19:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:43, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:24.23.221.166

):

User 24.23.221.166 does not mark reverts in edit summaries (a separate matter) and uses undescribed serial edits to achieve the desired reversions.

• Previous version reverted to: as of 21:26, 3 August 2005

(The user has been inserting substantively identical text for some time, with minor variations in form, gradually intensifying the differences between his changes and the consensus changes identified while the page was protected. There are small textual differences between the user's current preferred version and the base version before this series of reverts began. Discussed below.)

• 1st revert: 17:43, 4 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:35, 4 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:41, 5 August 2005
• 4th revert: 06:24, 5 August 2005

Comment: This page was recently released from page protection after a series of vandalism attacks; it has a history of vandalism from partisans on both sides of the disputes. While it was under protection, several users, myself included, attempted to hammer out consensus text in several areas under dispute. User: 24.23.221.166 "lurked" around the talk page during this time, posting under at least one other ID, but refused to participate in the consensus efforts. When the protection was lifted, I edited the consensus revisions into the article. User: 24.23.221.166 then objected to the consensus text and inserted new language reversing the consensus changes (and, in almost every case, moving further away from the consensus language than the previous/text had been. The user initially insisted his changes reflected a "unanimous" view among observers, and "documented" his position by cut-and-pasting threads from various message boards from which all opinions differing from his on the disputed point had been deleted; he now insists that the article should not reflect NPOV guidelines, but should reflect "majority opinion" of its subject. The user has targeted particular sections of the text worked on during the consensus efforts -- most recently, reinserting text that was, without any dispute, previously identified as both NPOV-violating and reflecting original research.

The user is particularly insistent that references to the subject's current prominence and popularity reflect his opinions -- the text he objects to leaves the issue open -- and his changes on this point vary between declaring the subject is no longer popular/prominent and removing the relevant text entirely.

The user in question has edited the article and/or talk page both anonymously and as User: B. Navarro. I can't tell which of the anonymous edits from different IPs may come from the same user, but there's at least one other anonymous ID with similar habits.

This has been a very contentious page, and there are very different, polarized opinions. But, aside from the 3RR violation, I think there should be a stronger "official" response than there has been to a user who refuses to participate in consensus discussions and then makes disruptive, guideline-violating changes to the result of consensus efforts.

Reported by: N. Caligon 19:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Another reversion violating 3RR, fourth in 24 hours, fifth in 26-hour period since first revert noted above

19:27, 5 August 2005

Another editor (independent of me) has removed some of his NPOV-violating text, with an appropriate edit summary, and User: 24.23.221.166 has reverted the change without noting the reversion or otherwise providing an appropriate edit summary. N. Caligon 19:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Chuck0

22:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• • Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

discussion moved toWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents -Willmcw 23:26, August 5, 2005 (UTC)