Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive9

Contents: February 25, 2005 - March 4, 2005

request for investigation into whether I am a sockpuppet or not

In the CheeseDreams RFAr, it is being repeatedly claimed that I am a sockpuppet of user:Rienzo. I request that someone with the abilty investigates all IP addresses I have contributed from, and assess the other factors they use to detect sockpuppets, to determine that I am not (or indeed if I am) a sockpuppet of Rienzo (or anyone else). I ask that they present their findings on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence page. I also ask that they do everything they can to check the IP addresses I have edited from to determine if they are open proxies or not. Thryduulf 00:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

MOST snafu

Can someone reverse the botchup cut'n'paste move from

Fixed, I think. dbenbenn | talk 03:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Noel (talk) 14:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

Due to the fact that CheeseDreams has given her password to the general public and now no longer has access to her accounts, it appears that she is popping up as an anonymous user. The problem here is that I can't be sure that it's not someone impersonating her and just causing her general trouble. I would like propose that anyone who purports to be CheeseDreams have their material removed from Wikipedia unless it comes from CheeseDreams' approved account. I think this is only fair for those reading and responding to that person who claims to be CheeseDreams and for CheeseDreams herself (as she is possibly being impersonated). I'm posting this to Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams_2, please reply there. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another CheeseDreams sockpuppet/impersonation

user:CheezeDreams should be blocked as per the ArbCom ruling. Thryduulf 02:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Lupo 07:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Dismao

• 1st revert: 17:10, 24 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:41, 24 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:10, 25 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 03:36, 25 Feb 2005

Reported by: RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• New user persists in removing a perfectly acceptable external link, saying that it violates some nonexistent external links policy. Proved unresponsive to my attempts to explain policy and community practice on talk, and ignored specific warnings not to violate the 3RR. RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

A troll

Just blocked User:Ampersand a la Carte-le-Fort for 24h for vandalism. Methinks this is a sockpuppet of User:Box of Rice, who had been permanently blocked by Zero0000 two days ago. (That block didn't take though, because I had blocked BoR for 24h before.) If others agree that ACF is a sockpuppet of BoR, I think the ACF account should be blocked permanently. (Amongst other things, ACF recreated an article BoR had created (entitled "Cabbage Hit") after that article had been speedied as patent nonsense.)

Furthermore, I think both are reincarnations of Mr. Diaper (although he seems to have given up on the diaper business). Check out BoR's user page, his (and ACF's) stray posting of comments originally directed at him on other's talk pages, and both ACF's and BoR's repeated use of the "get a grip" phrase, which

I have just blocked Everyking for 24 hours for his reversion of the Ashlee Simpson material in the Saturday Night Live article repeatedly. The arbcom has made it clear that any material dealing with Ashlee Simpson is not to be reverted by Everyking. RickK 23:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, that ArbCom decision is unfair, and I've blocked EK over it before. I'd like to see it overturned! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The more I see of the consequences of that decision, the more unfair it seems to me. For instance, the revert that EK got blocked over was because he added some material to NPOV the wording. An anon came by and just reverted him. He reverted back in his changes. Who was at fault here? I'd say the anon! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you follow the entire revert war? My impression is that the latest revert was just an excuse -- the real reason EK just got blocked was the two reverts people have been arguing over for the past few days. --Carnildo 05:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you think the arbcom ruling is unfair, you should encourage Everyking to appeal it to Jimbo, and run for arbcom yourself in December. But for right now, the ruling is what it is. Snowspinner 05:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Clearly, I reverted contrary to the ArbCom's clarification; my only excuse is that I didn't know about the clarification (I saw on the page that the case was being rejected, and I didn't follow it down the page to the clarification section). So I won't do that again. I would appeal to Jimbo, but my understanding is that doing so is considered to be pointless because Jimbo has no intention of overturning any ArbCom rulings. Everyking 06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why should I have to run for ArbCom to get decisions over turned? I was told that I can just post a request for the decision to be reviewed on the ArbCom page. Situations and people change over time, surely? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't feel Everyking has changed. The spirit of the ruling was to avoid him reverting Ashlee-related material, but he stuck to the letter of it and insisted on reverting Ashlee-related material because it wasn't in an Ashlee-related article. I don't think he's changed; it's apparent he still believes in following the letter instead of the spirit of the law; if he were left unfettered, I feel another edit war over Ashlee wouldn't be long in coming. Don't get me wrong, I know he's a good editor outside Ashlee stuff, but that does not change the fact that he has taken the attitude of entitlement to three reverts and practically every maximum theoretical boundary preventing him from getting into a revert war over Ashlee-related material. He can claim that attitude does not translate to action all he wants; anyone interested can review what occurred and decide for themselves.

I can understand the frustration that Everyking feels over not being able to revert Ashlee-related material even when it does little to no harm, but the idea of the ruling is for him to prove himself, not to allow him to continue his old ways. The correct approach would have been to go on IRC or somehow contact another editor to revert the edit. That is how it's supposed to work. Just because you are in the right does not give you an entitlement to take action that has clearly been outlawed. We don't argue for leniency with otherwise good editors (i.e. Slrubenstein) getting banned for violating the 3RR just because they were in the right. The same applies here. Everyking should just assume he is being placed on an extremely tight version of the 3RR and behave like how he would normally would. Then again, perhaps that's where this problem stems from. Johnleemk | Talk 08:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I wouldn't have reverted if I'd know about the clarification. And no, I'm not going to obey the spirit of a ruling I disagree with; the best you can get is the letter. Everyking 08:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying you only follow the letter of the 3RR because you disagree with it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess, I'm not really sure what you mean. Everyking 10:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking clarification is now officially in effect

The full clarification is below, copied from

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking/Proposed_decision#Revert_limitation_2 for the alternative proposals which were considered and votes on them.

Response by arbitrators

• It is my opinion that any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see (what links to Ashlee Simpson) is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article. Fred Bauder 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• If Ashlee Simpson-related material is put into an article, it is to that extent related to Ashlee Simpson. That's the standard a rough consensus (with some queries) of the admins applied to CheeseDreams and Jesus/Christianity-related material - David Gerard 14:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• We should not narrowly define "related to Ashlee Simpson," and it should be broadly interpreted by administrators. Everyking should be made nervous about getting anywhere near anything that could be considered Ashlee-related. The intent is to restrict him, not give him a change to win the game. ➥the Epopt 15:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's precisely my thinking. This is an attempt to game the spirit of the ruling with an interpretation that I would think was beyond reasonable doubt - David Gerard 17:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with David's, Epopts, and Fred's intrepretations, although I think Fred's explanation is the most clear. →Raul654 19:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• The intent of the ruling, in my view, is to prevent the overzealous reversion of material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Administrators should be capable of determining when such an action is taking place and act appropriately. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:05, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• I concur with the above comments. Neutrality^talk 01:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think The Epopt's comment is quite telling: "Everyking should be made nervous about getting anywhere near anything that could be considered Ashlee-related." The spirit behind that is quite clear! Everyking 12:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The spirit of it is that we didn't think you could be trusted to edit rationally around Ashlee-related articles without great restriction. Remember that you are still entirely able to make your case for particular edits on talk pages. You also need to somehow not let yourself be goaded by others acting obnoxiously elsewhere, e.g. on October 24 - David Gerard 14:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is insulting. Everyking 16:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then, feel free to remove the insult. With the personal attack policy, insults can be removed on sight. ..-.. 21:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [4]

Reported by: Vsmith 15:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Reverts 1,2 &3 are labeled as such in the edit summaries.
• Revert #4 is an unlabeled revert of different material on the same page.
• In addition this was followed by 3 reverts by new users User:Munnin and User:WikiWarming [5] that have the appearance of being sockpuppets or in the case of Munnin at least a "get my friend to revert for me" (note the comment after the welcome on Munnin's talk page [6]). This possible instance of sockpuppetry needs to be fully investigated by admins.

the foruth revert seems to be mearly the addition of a couple of tags the differnece between it and the previus reverts is huge so I make it 3 reverts total. Sock pupet acusations should be directed towards incerdentsGeni 18:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:..-..

Can we keep an eye on this ... person, please? Personal attacks and trolling mode, doesn't sound like a new user. RickK 00:55, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

the user has 3 total contributions to wp [7], the first to this page, the second to user:Mich Church's talk page (where he he posts would could be considered a personal attack on RickK and "his liberal cabal", and the third to Votes for deletion. None of which are standard fare for newbies. Thryduulf 01:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked - David Gerard 22:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fuck you and die

This article and its Vfd page,

It isn't so much interesting as it is long, or rather, it isn't so much lengthy as it is duplicidous. [8] [9] But I did read it, or rather, its table of contents, with great interest! El_C 07:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Ambi & User:Aberglas

Reported by: Netoholic @ 11:08, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

Ambi

• 1st revert: 13:06, 2005 Feb 25 result (reverts back to a Feb 21 version)
• 2nd revert: 04:53, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 3rd revert: 05:15, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 4th revert: 05:31, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 5th revert: 06:50, 2005 Feb 26 result

Aberglas

• 1st revert: 04:45, 2005 Feb 26 result (undoes Ambi's 1st revert above)
• 2nd revert: 05:06, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 3rd revert: 05:23, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 4th revert: 05:47, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 5th revert: 12:01, 2005 Feb 26 result (somewhat complex revert)

Note that Ambi's reverts were to remove aberglas's contribution. Aberglas's reverts were to restore it. Aberglas has never (and would never) just revert anyone else's well meant contribution. (Aberglas 02:35, 7 Mar 2005)

Comments:

• Both blocked for 24 hours.Geni 11:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Ambi was unblocked by fellow Arbitrator User:David Gerard, without providing any explanation. He also failed to likewise unblock the other person. I must insist Ambi serve out the rest of the block, since it is clear-cut, and unblocking only serves to devalue the 3RR enforcement rule. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

• under the rules if a block is disputed (and if a person is unblocked it clearly is) then the person can't be reblocked.Geni 23:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As Netoholic pointed out on IRC, I failed to unblock the other guy. Both are now unblocked.

It wasn't quite a disputed block per se - I don't dispute it was a 3RR vio. But although I like 3RR a lot, I don't tend to be a complete hardarse about the 24 hours and will almost always unblock if someone will admit they messed up, even if it's really soon after.

I do think Ambi was extremely silly to let herself be goaded into a 3RR violation, and do trust it won't happen again. There's all sorts of ways to point out a content-destroying conspiracist (my editorial opinion of the other guy's edits) without getting lured into a 3RR violation.

(Note to any revert warriors who read this and consider me a soft touch for future unblocking: if you do it again, watch me reblock so fast it'll make your keyboard spin.) - David Gerard 23:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I had known that one of the perks in being an Arbitrators was that I can break 3RR at will and enjoy a minimal punishment, I'd have run for the job. I'd like to point out that I have reported 3RR violations on this page against two Arbitrators and at least as many admins, and so far the track record is extremely poor. This policy is meaningless unless blocks are enforced without regard to Wikipedia "rank" and that they are not reversed without consulting the community here except in extreme cicumstances to keep the unblock from looking secretive. I do not like that a fellow Arbitrator of Ambi lifted this block, and I see it as clearly playing favorites. I'm just sure how else I should interpret it. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Oh, don't witter so. I would similarly remove any 3RR block if the blockee contacted me and convinced me of their understanding of the error of their ways and a commitment to strenuously avoid such things as well, and I would imagine that a great many of our fellow sysops would, too.

Ambi's status as an Arbitrator is not remotely relevent here.

James F. (talk) 21:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, the closest Ambi ever got to understanding any error was to (finally) add a terse pragraph to the talk page. Gerad made a very consious decission to (just) unblock Ambi because she is in the clique. The comment about "Ambi being goaded" is also hardly helpful and completely against the facts. Aberglas 07:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

• I'd like to hear some explanation or rationale for the behaviour of Ambi and David Gerard in this episode. David says he unblocked Ambi because she expressed remorse, although I don't where that was. Is an expression of remorse in general a means of becoming unblocked? Was Geni's application of the 3RR incorrect? --BM 23:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• In thinking about this a bit more, I'd like to make the following points:

1. In general, administrators should not second-guess the application by other administrators of rules such as the 3RR. Even if one administrator would have been more lenient than another has been, he should refrain from stepping in and altering the penalty imposed by the administrator who made the decision concerning what penalty to apply -- for example, by shortening a block or lifting it entirely. Otherwise, people will play the administrators off against each other, like kids with parents. No administrator wants to be in the position of being thought of as the one who will "fix tickets" handed out by the others: an administrator who gains a reputation for "fixing tickets" will pretty soon find himself plagued with requests to do so, and will be accused of playing favorites when he fixes some tickets and not others. Other administrators will be reluctant to impose penalties, which involves some conflict and stress, if they know their penalties will be altered or cancelled by other administrators who are more friendly towards the offenders. The whole system will be perceived by non-administrators as corrupt, with penalties determined by "who you know" rather than objective factors. If an administrator imposes a penalty, other administrators should alter that penalty only if it is incorrect under the policies and rules that have been established.
2. In this particular case, the person who had her ticket "fixed" was an Arbitrator, and the person doing the "fixing" was another Arbitrator. This was very unfortunate. Especially given the extremely legalistic procedure and style that the ArbComm has adopted, the administrators should try to maintain themselves above reproach. They are in the position of "judging" other members and potentially imposing severe penalties -- severe anyway in the Wikipedia context. If an Arbitrator so forgets herself that she violates clear rules established by the consensus of the community, she should apologize and accept the penalty imposed. Certainly, the person "fixing" the penalty should not be another Arbitrator. Otherwise, the clear message to the rest of the community is that there is one set of rules for the community and a different set of rules for the Arbitrators.
3. I don't believe that David or Ambi thought of themselves as "above" the rules of the community -- rules that they are charged with interpreting and applying fairly. But the effect in this case, almost certainly without them intending it, was undoubtedly to undermine the community consensus, the other administrators, and the trust that the community has placed in them as Arbitrators. --BM 00:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that I leave a note on the talk page of every person I block under the 3RR suggesting that if they feel that the block was incorrect they can appeal to another admin or contact the mailing. In the end there is always the risk that a blocking admin will make a misstake. Some form of apeal is needed.Geni 00:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geni, that seems like a good procedure. I am not arguing that administrators should "close ranks" and not reverse an erroneous decision by a colleague. That would be as bad as "second-guessing" a colleague. I am saying that if an administrator assumes responsibility for a case and imposes a penalty, the only person who should soften or alter that penalty is the administrator who imposed it, UNLESS the penalty oversteps or misinterprets the rules. No administrator should end a block or shorten it (or extend it for that matter) simply because he would have imposed a lighter or heavier penalty than the person who actually determined the penalty. Administrators should respect each other's decisions, and if they can't, then one of the administrators involved is not suited to be an administrator. --BM 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beyond Revert Wars

I believe that this goes beyond simply the number of reverts. I believe that the manner in which Ambi acted was quite contrary to the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia rules. In particular:-

• Ambi reverted a substantial, well meant contribution. Cold reverting should be reserved for vandalism.

• Ambi did not make any contribution to the talk page until she was threatened with baning. This was despite repeated requests to do so from aberglas.

• The actual excuse for the reverting was highly dubious. Certainly the article could be improved, but to just say "everything" about the carefully researched article was bad is not valid.

I have added a summary of events to the beginning of

Aberglas 03:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

User:Vfp15

Vfp15 banned for being uncooperative

3.1) Vfp15 is banned for one month for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute

Vfp15 has breached the ban, which now needs to be extended a month from the date of his latest breach.

It is clear that (80.250.128.5 | talk | contributions) is User:Vfp15 from this diff [10], and that he edited wikipedia 3 times on 23Feb [11], [12] and [13]. This activity is in clear breach of the Arbcom ruling.

--Mrfixter 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All he did was blank his user page. He didn't edit Charles Darwin or any other article. I think this is a frivolous complaint, especially since his edit suggests that he's willing to comply with the ban. Rhobite 01:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he edited at all is proof he is not willing to comply with the ban. Arbcom didn't specify no editing apart from frivolous editing, did it? --Mrfixter 01:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh for something's sake. If he wants to clear his userpage, let him: he's doing no harm whatsoever. Take it as a sign that he's leaving and, from the looks of it, not coming back. This vindictive tattling is just ridiculous. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vindictive tattling? Why make me feel bad about informing people about an editor violating an arbcom ruling? I thought this was the place to report users evading blocks. I should do what alberuni and his many sockpuppets did, and reported this violation on my favorite admins talkpage, eh mirv? --Mrfixter 02:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps instead you should exercise some judgment and discretion when reporting ban violations. Ask yourself: Did he try to reinsert the same old trivia into Charles Darwin? (No.) Did he show the same extraordinarily uncooperative behavior on another page? (No.) Did he vandalize articles or attack other users? (No.) Did he blank his own userpage? (Yes.) Did he harm Wikipedia or any of its users in any way by doing so? (No.) So why did you report this instead of letting it go? Do you want to see him rehabilitated into a productive, cooperative editor, or do you just want him punished some more? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel bad. That wasn't my intent - I just wanted to express my opinion that not only was his edit minor and inconsequential, it could be viewed as a show of good-faith. In many legal systems, you must prove actual damages before you can be awarded relief. I think that's a fair way to do it. There is no damage here and little indication that Vfp15 will further evade his ban, so I don't believe his ban timer should be reset. Rhobite 02:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Strawman arguments, every one. All that matters is his breaching the 1 month editing ban set out by the Arbcom. I have provided the link to the rulings and the diffs. Vfp15 was aware of the ban and chose to ignore it. What gives you the right to ignore it, Mirv? Are arbcom rulings just not enforced anymore? Vfp15 has evaded his block, no-one has disputed that, and no-one has disputed the arbcom ruling so what is going on? Where are the admins? --Mrfixter 02:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All that matters is his breaching the 1 month editing ban set out by the Arbcom.—So tell me, why is that so important? What gives you the right to ignore it, Mirv?—My judgement and discretion, which are mostly sound . . . but if you want to play wikilawyer, note that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement says "nobody is obligated to help enforce any ban", so there you go. Where are the admins?—This admin is in the Republic of Boredofpettytantrums; he imagines that others may be off in Ignoretechnicalviolationsthatdonoharm-istan. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The penalty for evading a ban is that the "ban timer" is automatically reset (no formal consideration is typically necessary). For example, if Fred is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer will be reset from four more days remaining to ten days remaining. If Fred doesn't subsequently evade his ban, he will be banned for a total of sixteen days.

Banned users are simply not authorized to edit Wikipedia.

Ho hum. Mirvs desire seems to be only to troll this valid request. I don't agree with mirvs assertion that arbcom rulings are optional, to be enforced with an air of whimsy. I am suprised to be having a talmud-style discussion with mirv of all people, but all good things must come to an end. Vfp15 ban has to still be extended. --Mrfixter 12:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum. Mrfixter's desire seems to be only to get a user reblocked for making three trivial edits sometime last week. He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of banning—removing users who aren't helping with the goal of building an encyclopedia. But what do you expect from someone whose contributions to the article space consist largely of joining others' revert wars. Vfp15's ban timer is extended, but the block on his account doesn't have to be extended unless someone decides to extend it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

Optional: Insertion of material 17:57, 27 Feb 2005 .

• 1st revert: 18:41, 27 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:56, 27 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:21, 27 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 10:26, 28 Feb 2005

Reported by: Skyring 01:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: At 09:15, 14 Feb 2005 I noted in the discussion page that I would be making edits to this article to bring it in line with recent changes to the Governor-General of Australia article, changes fully discussed and to which Adam was a party. Two weeks later at 17:01, 27 Feb 2005, in the absence of any discussion, I made those changes. I also noted that the republic article had changed to incorporate a new definition, one that included Australia. I therefore replaced the description of Australia as a constitutional monarchy inter alia with republic. Adam reverted this and made some other changes, which I thought strengthened the article and with which I did not disagree. However, as Australia is a constitutional monarchy, I left that in and added republic. Adam then reverted this, noting on the discussion page that he disagreed and would keep on reverting it. I gave a statement of my reasons, and added it back in. Adam has reached four rvs in 24 hours, and although we have discussed the change, Adam has merely reiterated his opinion, rather than provide any research or attempt to rebut the points I raised. Skyring 01:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Straightforward 3RR. 12 hour block. BrokenSegue 01:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The edits are that Australia is a republic. Do you want us to lose all credibility with the Australia public?!?! I'm reversing this block immediately and apologising to Adam Carr on his user page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Adam Carr was reverting a completely nonsensical edit (Australia is not yet a republic), but he still broke the 3RR. He should have recruited another editor to help him revert this erroneous edit. I haven't checked the edit history to see if it was Skyring who kept adding the material, but if so they should have been blocked for a 3RR violation. If they persist in adding untrue material, it will have to go to the ArbComm for more significant action, of course. Noel (talk) 14:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple trick, isn't it? Add crud to an article and get someone blocked for removing it. I'd suggest that this is anything but a straightforward 3RR breach and applaud TBSDY for reversing it. How would one define a body politic where the enforcement of the law to the letter is seen as more important than the establishment of the truth? I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again; this is a bad rule. Filiocht 14:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Whether it is a bad rule or not, a bad rule that is consistently enforced is better than one that is only inconsistently enforced. The rule explicitly states that you may only revert more than 4 times if the edits are obvious vandalism.

simple vandalism, which I think it does not. BrokenSegue

21:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how else I'd describe the repeated, willful addition of factually incorrect information - information that also pushes a particular POV. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the best way forward would have been to lock the page in this case? However, I am aware that hindsight is a marvellous thing and I have signficant respect for the decision made by this administrator (even if my initial response to the block was a little strong). Admin'ing can be a tough job. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As to how to characterize the addition of the claim that Australia's a republic: this particular point is certainly a grey area, but it's also typical of the kind of edit wars we see in contentious situations. The difference here is that the truth/falsity is a little more apparent than in most of these disputes, but other than that, it's almost identical to all these others (which is also implicit in your comments about "pushing a .. POV"). I know that this whole issue of whether to be a republic or a constitutional monarchy is a very contentious one in Australia, and it may well be that the editor who's adding this claim has some genuine good-faith reason for believing it's true. It may be a grey case, but it certainly feels more like a standard content dispute than classic vandalism (which I characterize as "mindless destruction"). Noel (talk) 13:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR is quite clear. If you make four edits in a 24 hour period that can be characterized as "reverts" of the same article, then you have violated the rule and are subject to blocking. Reverts of persistent vandalism are not subject to the 3RR, but content disputes are not vandalism, and adding false information to an article in good faith is not vandalism. In the absense of some evidence to the contrary, one must assume good faith. The fact that someone won't listen to you does not mean they are operating in bad faith; it just means that you haven't been persuasive enough. It is no defense to the 3RR that the information being reverted is false. An administrator should not be expected to establish the truth or falsity of the text being reverted when applying the 3RR, and an editor should not suppose that he can engage in edit-warring, and that he can overstep the 3RR, because he is reverting edits that he considers false. If the information is indeed false, an editor should have no trouble to convince someone else of this and enlist his help in resolving the edit war. For example, he has the option of enlisting an administrator to protect the article in the state he regards as true, until the factual issue can be resolved on the Talk page. We could have a different 3RR than we have, one that would make an exception for reverting "false" information, as well as vandalism. We don't have that rule. Anybody who thinks we should have that rule instead of the one we actually have is free to propose it to the community and to try to gain consensus for it. Meanwhile, we have the 3RR that we have. Finally, an administrator should not reverse the decision of another administrator unless it is absolutely clear that the first administrator was incorrect and the situation is so urgent that there is no time for others to be consulted. In this case, BrokenSegue's interpretation of the 3RR was correct and even if TBSDY would have acted differently or had a different interpretation of the 3RR, he should not have undone the decision of another administrator, but should have sought community consensus on the correct course of action. The only thing more damaging to the community than edit wars is blocking wars between administrators, and they should be avoided at all costs, even more than edit wars. We are starting to see more blocking wars between administrators. If they continue, we should start to see administrators being desysopped. --BM 02:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For goodness sake! If this is the case, bloody well go ahead and desysop me! if we start seeing us with pages that state that Australia is a republic and people are blocked over removing such inaccurate tripe, I really will leave this project! Good grief man, my country is not a republic, as much as certain people tried to argue (disingeneously, I might add). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that I am being accused of adding incorrect material. Has anyone actually read the discussion? I give my reasoning and sources - Australian sovereignty resides in the people and therefore according to the Wikipedia definition (and many other definitions, such as that used by the Oxford English Dictionary), Australia is indeed a republic, despite the presence of a powerless and symbolic monarch. Adam's latest claim is to say that the Queen is the head of state, when the actual situation is that the title is not defined in any constitutional documents or High Court judgement, and the only convention cited by Adam is that the Governor-General is the effective head of state. In fact it is currently a matter of considerable debate amongst constitutional scholars, and there is no consensus. It is a contentious issue. Adam has fallen to abusing me for pointing out facts that undermine his claims and I don't find his approach to debate to be particularly productive. Skyring 08:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By that reasoning ("sovereignty resides in the people") the UK is a "republic" too - the English (later UK) Parliament has the power to remove the monarch and name a new one, and has had that power for centuries (see, for instance, the debate over Henry VIII's loyalty oath, which named Anne's children as his heirs - heck, they even had Charles I executed). But if you tried to claim that the UK is a republic, that would be silly. Technically, it's a constitutional monarchy, and the fact that Australia has a Governor-General is plenty of proof that the same is true there. So until the Australian Parliament formally changes things, and the G-G goes away, a CM it will technically remain - even though in practise it runs much as any republic would. Noel (talk) 12:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion belongs on the article's talk page not here, but in the case of the UK, Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Parliament can make changes to constitutional enactments without consulting the people, which is not the case in Australia. Also the big difference is that in the UK the executive power belongs to the monarch, whereas in Australia it is explicitly given to the Governor-General. The Queen's powers are merely the remnant prerogative powers such as legation and honours. No reserve powers. Again I make the point that using the Wikipedia definition as well as that of the Macquarie and Oxford English Dictionaries (and dozens of others), Australia is a republic. Skyring 13:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dang! Sorry about doubling up the page. I was only editing this bit, and I wanted to change one word, which I only noticed the instant after I hit "Save", so I grabbed aholt of it before the page had finished loading, removed my word and I must have somehow been given the whole lot when I saved it again. Told me the page was 52K long, which I thought a bit strange, but didn't investigate. Skyring 10:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Optional: Insertion of material 11:44, 3 Mar 2005 .

• 1st revert: 13:43, 3 Mar 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:48, 3 Mar 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:04, 3 Mar 2005
• 4th revert: 18:20, 3 Mar 2005

Reported by: Skyring 02:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: On reading Adam's additions to the article, I noticed that they were heavily skewed towards a point of view that was not supported by informed research. In particular, I objected to Adam's contention that there was a convention that the Queen was the head of state, especially when the only convention he cited supported an opposing point of view, that Australia had two heads of state. In fact the "two heads of state" view is common amongst constitutional scholars, and few express an unequivocal view that the Queen is the one and only head of state. I replaced "matter of convention" with "matter of contention" because that is the truth - the current debate is contentious and there is no consensus. Ensuing discussion with Adam demonstrated this fact in spades. Much to my dismay Adam preferred increasingly abusive language rather than presenting any solid research. He then withdrew entirely from discussion when it became apparent that he considered his own opinion to be all that mattered. He also seems to think that having access to friends who are administrators makes him immune from the 3RR. I hadn't actually intended to pull the trigger if he had been civil and provided some checkable sources to back up his opinion, but he has withdrawn from discussion, even though he has continued to edit the article. I take this step with some reluctance after what he acknowledged (in rather juvenile terms) was good warning. Adam is an excellent writer, and I would prefer he continue to edit this article, but I must insist that opinion be labelled as such instead of being presented as fact. Skyring 02:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4 Reverts for both (see their User_talk: pages), blocking both for 24 hours. Noel (talk) 03:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've pulled the block on User:Skyring the 4 suposed 4 reverts were an insertion followed by 3 reverts.Geni 04:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You think it's an "insertion" (which it isn't, Skyring changed one word, moving the article back toward his POV - and then entered a mendacious edit description), I think it's a revert. As for blocking both, it takes two to tango. Since they are both involved in the edit war, as far as I'm concerned, they either both get blocked, or neither. I have pulled my block on Adam Carr. Noel (talk) 04:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it was a change, but it was an insert. The word "contention" did not exist beforehand. It is a matter of fact that the question of who is head of state is contentious. For one thing, that's what Adam and I are debating, it's a matter of dispute in the wider community and it is especially a matter of vicious academic debate amongst constitutional scholars. As is apparent from the talk page, Adam and I were discussing the matter well past the time when I could have reported him, but when he became abusive and withdrew from the discussion I gave him a good twelve hours before I assumed that he wasn't intending to discuss the matter any further and reported him. Ironically, while I was cutting and pasting, he joined back in, but I didn't notice until too late. Skyring 05:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We do not have the power to block for edit waring without a mandate from arbcom. Making 4 POV edits is not the same as reverting 4 times (and it doesn't matter how much you streach the whole complex revert thing it doesn't apply in this case. If you feel that an edit war has overheated page protection maybe in order (although as I have stated before I prefer the everyones gotta sleep sometime aproachGeni 04:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I have reported Adam twice for clear breaches of the 3RR. The first time he was blocked for 12 hours and quickly unblocked by TBSDY. The second time he was blocked for 24 hours, and I was included despite not having breached the 3RR. Both of us were speedily unblocked. In the process, I cop considerable abuse from Adam:

• “If you carry on with your carping bullshit I will retract it and we can go back to trench warfare.” 06:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “You just can't help yourself with your childish and stupid insults, can you?” 02:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “As I expected, your flippant, fatuous, dishonest and generally pathetic answers to my questions demonstrate the pointlessness of debating this question with you further.” 07:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “It is a stupid, flippant and fatuous answer, and typical of your conceited arrogance.” 08:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “Gee, I try to be conciliatory and all I get is more of your obfuscatory crap.” 10:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As may be readily seen from the

User:NCdave

• 1st revert: 01:08, Feb 27, 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:26, Feb 27, 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:07, Feb 27, 2005
• 4th revert: 00:21, Feb 28, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 05:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• All times EST. NCdave accuses nearly every other editor of vandalism or sabotage. Rhobite 05:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

problem is that first revert is close to the boarder between reveting extream POV and vanderlism. Oh well user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 05:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts I've removed it the user appears to be pretty new and the history shows some efforts to collabirate on the article. I have warned the user and any future violations will result in a blockGeni 05:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance of the three revert rule is not an excuse, especially for such an obnoxious user. There's no question that NCdave has violated the rule: He inserted all those POV links yesterday [14]. His first revert was not fixing vandalism, or even POV - the version he was reverting from was itself a revert to JYolkowski's version from 15:51, Feb 26, 2005. [15] Some quotes from NCdave on Talk:Terri Schiavo: "Many here wrongly think she has the IQ of a carrot stick. So they think that anyone who wants to prevent her death is crazy -- and SOME of those people keep vandalizing the wikipedia article, and deleting the information that doesn't match their prejudices". "Once again the supporters of finishing off poor Terri have vandalized the article". "Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that people with such hard hearts that they want to bump off a harmless handicapped woman, also are not above trashing an article to promote their POV". Rhobite 06:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

User behaviour is a matter for arbcom. There is a lot of preserdence for not blocking users who are ignorant of the 3RR. The user is new. There are no mentions on talki pages or edit summeries of the 3RR. If you can find any I will of course block the user.Geni 06:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm new, but I had heard of the 3RR rule. However, I got confused by the time zone difference, and undid some vandalism 47 minutes before the 24 hours was up. However, I've just now actually read the 3RR rule, and I see that there is an exception for undoing simple vandalism. In this case advocates for a particular POV keep DELETING large amounts of information from the article, including most of the references. They don't discuss it on the talk page, they just delete it. Isn't that vandalism? Here's an example, showing vandalism that I reverted. Don't you agree that this is simple vandalism, the reversion of which should fall under the exception? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=10634764&oldid=10632744

As for Rhobite, well he just makes stuff up. On the discussion page I complained about these people deleting all those references, and he replied that it was because "link descriptions you used were unacceptably biased ('pro-death')". But I didn't. I never put such a description on any link or reference. He just made it up. Likewise, he now says that I "accuses nearly every other editor of vandalism or sabotage." But that is an exaggeration. When people DELETE factual information, I call it vandalism, because that's what it is. But when there are disagreements over changes that are made in good faith I discuss them on the Talk page. On the other hand, I've been repeatedly accused of "vandalism" for ADDING well-supported information and references that were missing from the article. For example, the first of my 4 reverts was in response to an anonymous revert to delete this entire body of work, over four successive revisions, which I had done to improve the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=10604498&oldid=10600605. That work added considerable information (including facts "favorable" to BOTH sides in this fight), corrected factual errors, and added links to many very useful references. But here's how the anonymous person described the change which undid it all: "(rv severe vandalism, should be reverted further soon)". Of course, Rhobite didn't complain about THAT person's poor manners, in calling me a vandal. That's all that anonymous user did: he removed all my work. Surely THAT also qualifies as "simple vandalism," which should not count toward the 3RR limit. But look how Rhobite described it to you, in his attempt to get me blocked:

His first revert was not fixing vandalism, or even POV - the version he was reverting from was itself a revert to JYolkowski's version from 15:51, Feb 26, 2005. [16]

Yes, I was undoing a revert. But the revert that I was undoing simple vandalism, and Rhobite just plain lied about it to try to get me blocked. NCdave 08:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Jeebus Cripes. You're a bit paranoid, and not everyone is out to get you. If you stopped making the editing of the Terri Schiavo article a moral dilemma and just state the facts in an NPOV manner, maybe you wouldn't have been reported here.

Mike H

08:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite is "everyone?" He's the only one who accused me of a 3RR violation (and lied to support his accusation). As for the rest of your complaint, it doesn't even make any sense to me -- I haven't made anything into any kind of dilemma. Making an accurate, NPOV article is exactly what I've been trying to do. Maybe you need some coffee. Then click on those two "compare" links and tell me whether you disagree with me that the first of them was simple vandalism, and that removing all the changes in the second of them was also simple vandalism. Since I was reverting simple vandalism, I didn't violate the 3RR.NCdave 09:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That claim (that you were reverting "simple vandalism") is utter, complete, absolute balderdash. You will find vandalism defined quite well on Wikipedia:Vandalism. What you are engaged in is a rancorous content over dispute, which is something quite different. Please do not abuse our intelligence by making such claims ever again. Noel (talk) 13:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading the Wiki entry for "vandalism," I stand corrected. Since the real-life definition of vandalism is malicious destruction, I assumed that the Wiki definition would be similar, and that massive deletion of content would surely qualify. But it doesn't. Wiki's definition is something quite different.NCdave 19:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In POV disputes, one person's "malicious destruction" is another person's 'removal of factually incorrect propoganda', though, eh? What I found particularly trying was that the instructions at the time you added your assertion of vandalism clearly linked to the Wikipedia definition, but you seem not to have gone to check it out. (Lots of people seem to have this problem, though, which is why such claims make me rather cranky.) Noel (talk) 13:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:John Gohde

Consensus on VfD was to delete

I want this index restored. -- John Gohde 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a threat. If he attempts this, I will block him. RickK 06:59, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Has it been determined that John Gohde is Mr. Natural Health? And what is the status of Mr. Natural Health's right to edit alternative medicine articles? RickK 05:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

He has not tried to hide the fact that he is MNH. He is banned from editing iridology and its talk page, but is otherwise unrestricted. [17] —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Closing off VfD

Can someone please close off

Done. dbenbenn | talk 14:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help with (relatively urgent) page move

Sorry to bother you all—

Update: looks like Slowking Man deleted the p.s. links version as vandalism; can it be undeleted to restore the edit history, then moved back to Pages needing attention? I'll leave him a message too. If I'm horribly mistaken let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is weird. Wikipedia:Pages needing pelican shit links has only one revision in history, and that's the redirect. Wikipedia:Pages needing attention only has the move in history. Where'd the history go? --Slowking Man 08:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I needed to clear my cache, that's all. The history's there. --Slowking Man 08:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks—sorry about that. I had tried clearing my cache but maybe the database hadn't updated yet or however it works, or I just didn't clear properly. Thanks for your help. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Heimdal

• 1st revert: 01:41, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 2nd revert: 02:58, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 3rd revert: 03:54, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 4th revert: 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)

Reported by: Jiang 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I would like another administrator to hand down the punishment because I am a participant of this dispute. I am being mass reverted without explanation by User:Heimdal. I made my position clear on Talk:United Kingdom#Politics. He refuses to respond, despite requests on his talk page, calling my edits "vandalism" and posting in the edit summary, "Jiang, I think you just need to accept that it's not up to you to decide how an article should look like". All my edits to that page are just being mass reverted with no further explanation. I have already warned him of this rule on his talk page after the third revert. --Jiang 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

User:172

• 1st revert: 13:10, 27 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:59, 28 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:19, 28 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 09:54, 28 Feb 2005
• 5th revert, not technically a revert but a compounding bad faith edit: 10:04, 28 Feb 2005

His last edit summary was also bad faith, I quote it here "replacing this with Silverback's orginal research linking migraiton laws to "captive markets" " He said "replacing", when his edit bears little resemblence to any of my edits.

Reported by: --Silverback 17:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I might be missing something, but the first diff you've given seems unrelated to the later edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is unrelated, but it is a revert to the same identical version, and the edit reverted was not obviously vandalism. However, if you don't think this qualifies, I will defer to your judgement. --Silverback 18:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see 172 reverting "emigration was aggressively suppressed" and "captive workforce" 4 times, in the last 4 edits. Do others see this as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see it (this is why I normaly look at the history and compare the users versions rather than just looking at the difs which are only any use in a simple case. User blocked for 24 hoursGeni 20:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a mistake, so I unblocked myself. There were four edits but only three reverts. The fourth edit was a modification of the text. (I am allowed to edit the article. I wrote almost the whole damn thing, which required dozens of revisions on my own text, after all.) 172 23:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself like that is a significant protocol violation. You should have told someone else to unblock you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

There was no mistake. Your first revet was at 20:10, 27 Feb 2005 the second at 15:59, 28 Feb 2005 the third at 16:19, 28 Feb 2005 and the fourth at 16:54, 28 Feb 2005. That is four reverts in 24 hours. I have reblocked you for Geni 01:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support block, these are 4 (5) reverts. 172, please do not unblock yourself, but wait 24 hours before further editing. Below is an excerpt from the block log (which seems to show all (un)blocks three times), with 172 unblocking himself at least three four five times.

• 20:44, Feb 28, 2005 Geni blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• 22:42, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (I did not violate the 3RR. The fourth edit was merely an alteration of the text.)
• 22:43, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Unblocking yourself is verboten.)
• 22:47, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Feel free to get somebody to look at the page history. I'm just saying, don't unblock yourself.)
• 22:49, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (Well, blocking a user for no reason who did not violate the 3RR is forbidden as well. Take a look at the page history.)
• 22:54, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I don't care about the article. Get someone else to unblock you. Don't do it yourself. This is not a hard concept.)
• 23:20, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (Listen, I am busy, and I have to post something on talk. Quit playing games with me. I did not break the 3RR and should not have been blocked.)
• 01:39, Mar 1, 2005 Geni blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• 12:03, Mar 1, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (no violation of the 3RR)
• 12:27, Mar 1, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (multiple admins see this as a 3RR. Please do not unblock yourself!)
• 12:41, Mar 1, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (They did not look at the content of the last edit, just the edit summary. Now quit wasting my time. I have one reply to make on talk, then I will go away.)

Chris 73 Talk 02:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be any mistake here. The four edits listed above are all reverts. Three of them are rollbacks - clearly reverts. The fourth (11:19, Feb 28, 2005, "This article is not a random grab-bag") is easily verifiable as a revert to 172's previous version from 10:59, Feb 28, 2005. 172, I think you should look over the diffs again. Rhobite 03:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not just read the edit summary. Compare the page histories and look at the content of the edits. It was an attempt to find some middle ground. There was clearly no fourth revert. Now will you people find something better to do than focus on this pissing contest on History of Russia (like the content of the dispute)? 172 12:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Excessive reverts - "Sysops blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves."

• I would support anyone who would like to enforce a longer block for 172's repeated violations of this provision. If he unblock's himself again, I suggest an RFC certified by all the blocking admins. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

He's already got a longer block. When I reblocked him the clock was resetGeni 05:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did 172 protect