Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents: March 30, 2005 - April 3, 2005


Bahá'u'lláh[edit]

A editor using a collection of anonymous log-ins and proxies is editwarring on above page being rude and obnoxious in his edit summaries. While trhe subject under debate might well require more community input currently it appears that said editor is alone agiant all otehr editors involved with the page. It is getting quite tedious now. An RfC has been filed. I would appreciate if someone could protect the page. I am too involved in this to do it myself. Thanks. Refdoc 01:20, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the worst offenders and I'll protect the article if it gets any worse. Gamaliel 02:54, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This seems to be overwhelmingly the bad behavior of one foul-mouthed user who has a list of open proxies and just wants to bully people. Michael Snow's approach of protecting the page will not solve this problem. I will unprotect and watch closely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Martin2000 created a sock puppet, Nitram002, which proceeded to vandalize user pages, make homophobic insults and edit war. Blocked indefinitely; he can stick to one user like the rest of us. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He's worked his way up to Nitram0011 (talk · contribs) now, with Bahá'u'lláh's family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) being protected because of him. violet/riga (t) 16:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
17 nowGeni 21:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
See WP:AN for an account of the actions I've taken on this. Not very successful, alas. Any ideas? Apart from getting him arbcommed to hell and back, I mean. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:35, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Arbcom is probaby the only choice now there is little more we can do (my block button is starting to melt anyway)Geni 22:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The page is now protected (not by me). I've really come to favour this approach to dealing with edit wars, for several reasons. For one, it bring the edit war to a screeching halt - anon socks, etc are useless to the edit warriors (and no need for us to chase them and block them). For another, you don't have all the arguments over "is this a revert"; edit warriors don't get to use the 3RR as a weapon against each other, etc. It can last more than 24 hours, unlike a 3RR block. Finally, it's most economical in terms of admin time/energy. Noel (talk) 13:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

but that just brings in the timing of prtection requests game. this isn't done much at the moment but if protecting becomes standard then it will increaseGeni 23:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Blocking is far and away a better method of dealing with miscreants. Protecting a page stops every edit to a page, not just the problematic onces. There are times when protection works, but it isn't a cure-all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Geni/Tony, I never said protecting pages was without any downside at all. I just claim it has less downsides than the 3RR rule, and the enforcement thereof via short blocks (I listed several severe problems with that approach above).
To quote from someone else's comment, at WP:AN/3RR#User:Snowspinner - this page smells like legalism, pettiness, and revenge. Exactly; and hardly what is recommended at Wikipedia:Wikiquette - show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who if permitted would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here. Noel (talk) 16:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just because the wrong version joke page exists doesn't mean that the wrong version thing isn't a serious problem. Ultimate page protection means taking action against every person who wants to edit the article not just edit warrioursGeni 16:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Protection policy#How does say when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. Noel (talk) 17:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Beacuse the 3RR page is often the first news tha wider wikipedia gets of a conflict. We are dealing with over heated conflicts so it is not going to be the nicest part of wikipedia. The Snowspinner/John Gohde thing is part of a much wider conflict and it is quite posible for it to breakout where everGeni 16:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have also protected Bahá'í Faith where there seems to be a related edit war. I'll check to ensure that both articles are listed on WP:PP. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Javier Solana[edit]

Something wierd is going on. I can only get MY NUMBER IS 666. TAKE MY MARK OR ELSE! on the article page; when i try to change it the edit page shows up an outdated Beast version which User:JeremyA probably mistakenly reverted, it certainly is noyt the consensus version but a beast nandalism. When i try to change the text to the version (last User:Curps version all i get is the same page with this MY NUMBER IS 666. TAKE MY MARK OR ELSE! message again, most wierd. Can someone please urgently take a look, --SqueakBox 02:47, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

i have solved the problem but I am mystified. perhaps just gremlins? --SqueakBox 02:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Was in the process of reverting it myself. Didn't notice any such gremlins. Alai 03:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It looks like user:JeremyA has reverted the vandal twice in 2 minutes. I suspect your timing was just unfortunate. judging by the history page [1] one user posting from several IP address has been waging a war on this article (User:65.4.16.211, User:68.159.159.208, User:68.159.154.196, User:68.159.154.119, User:65.4.16.6 and others). At least 16 edits in the past few days have been from vandals. It might be a case for protecting the page. Thryduulf 03:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For some reason possibly connected to the vandalism Deco dcided to keep the outdated text the Beast vandal was using, ignoring the many contributors who have made the article what it is since then. i think this user, who knows why, played into the hands of the beast attackers who naturally want the old POV original thesis about the disturbing rise of Solana's powers. I have reverted the version that JeremyA was unknowingly using to the latest Curps version. Can people please make sure that is the version kept. It is not on for anyone to start using the vandals version stripped of biblical comment without even consulting the talk page. --SqueakBox 03:15, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
For the record, I was not promoting this vandal. I was doing RC patrol and reverted the changes, but then felt unsure about whether I should have done so due to unfamiliarity with the topic, so I reverted them back. I intended no statement of endorsement for that version. I made virtually no net changes to the article and feel strongly that I was unfairly criticised for this action. Deco 06:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

User:TheCustomOfLife[edit]

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

Reported by: NCdave 09:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • All four are full reverts to earlier versions, to undo other editors' work (none of which was vandalism).
  • Unfortunately, the page is now Locked at TheCustomOfLife's latest (4th) reverted version: 08:19, 30 Mar 2005 David.Monniaux (temp protection)
  • I recommend that it either be unlocked (after TheCustomOfLife is banned for 24 hrs), or else locked at the version which TheCustomOfLife last reverted. NCdave 09:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • In defense of TheCustomOfLife I would like to point out that he is well respected and that NCdave's obsessive behavior regarding the Terri Schiavo page has been notoriously childish, and he is far more guilty of edit warfare regarding said page. --Teknic 09:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I could rebut that, but "We really do mean this; this is not the page to bring up accusations of bad faith, or POV pushing" NCdave 09:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't do 3RRs, but this one looks cut-and-dried to me. No disrespect to the TheCustomOfLife, but he should have known better than to be drawn into an edit war like this by such an obvious POV-pusher. NCdave's edits would have been reverted in due course. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Plenty of other people have been reverting NCdave's edits in addition to the TheCustomOfLife. If he made a mistake, it was the mistake of not watching the clock closely enough to avoid violating the letter of 3RR, and not reporting NCdave to a higher level of dispute resolution. NCdave continually reinserts the same POV material which doesn't withstand the light of the talk page, effectively making a reversion. The intent of the policy is to encourage discussion rather than edit mongering, and TheCustomOfLife has done a good job of working towards this goal while NCdave's recent editing history comes rather close to being simple vandalism, even if it does not quite cross that line.Gmaxwell 14:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • TheCustomOfLife is not in the wrong here - he is a decent and honourable servant of the Wiki - it is NCdave that should be penalised not Mike. PMA 15:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I would like to apologize for this. Before I felt like I could revert NCDave, who has repeatedly stated his POV on the talk page for Terri Schiavo then inserted it sporadically into the article, I checked the Terri Schiavo history and thought I saw that there was no edit from me in the last 100 edits, so I had just assumed I didn't touch the article earlier. I simply did not remember I did the first edit. I had just lost track on the time after the 24 hours, I suppose...I really forgot I had even reverted that same day. In any case, you can be well-assured that violating the 3RR was NOT my intention. Mike H 15:35, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • NCdave's edits could easily be considered vandalism (they're outrageously POV), and it appears TCOL made an honest mistake. Let the man have his extra revert, we don't need zero-tolerance in this situation. This type of thing isn't what the 3RR was made to prevent. BTW TCOL, next time you think you're getting close to three reverts in 24 hours, tell me and I'll see if I can help you out. AngryParsley 15:46, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • That is complete nonsense. This violation was blatant. TheCustomOfLife has been around Wikipedia for a long time, and should know better. All four of his reverts made the article less accurate and more POV-biased. The four reverts were all within less than 12 hours, and three of them were within less than half an hour, two of which were of my carefully NPOV corrections which I had discusssed at length in advance on the Talk page, discussions that TheCustomOfLife did not bother to participate in. NCdave 00:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Why say things everyone else had already said? Your POV is quackers and everyone else articulated that just fine. Also, if you're gonna bring up the Talk page, people might want to read past versions and this response from User:Firebug, which sums up the situation quite nicely. Mike H 01:14, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
        • Whether my POV is "quackers" (and whether my disapproval of serial adultery or my use of that term is "quackers") is irrelevant. So is MikeH/TheCustomOfLife's disagreement with the rest of what I have said on the Talk page. The fact is that my edits to the article were completely NPOV, and two of his four reverts were of those NPOV edits: his reverts replaced my carefully NPOV prose with grossly POV-biased and inaccurate propaganda for his POV. NCdave 14:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • The fact is that my edits to the article were completely NPOV
          • That's just delusional. Pretty much every user who wasn't an anon IP agreed that your edits push a particular point of view. Ask Viriditas, or Astanhope, or Firebug, or GMaxwell, the list goes on and on. Seriously. Mike H 20:27, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I am certainly outnumbered, but it is the POV-pushers who are in the majority, and they are absolutely ruthless at pushing their POV. TheCustomOfLife's buddy, Astanhope, even vandalized my User page. Another guy put my work phone number on my User:Talk page, to encourage harrassment. These guys make it impossible to Assume Good Will. NCdave 10:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you're going to try to cite facts, do them correctly. I actually reverted the vandalism on your page, [2] left you a note saying that I fixed it, [3] and yelled at AStanhope for doing that. [4] I actually did something nice for you and dragging me through the mud just proves how much you aren't worth any iota of kindness. Mike H 11:56, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Mike, you did revert Astanhope's vandalization of my User page, and I'd have thanked you if you hadn't used the occasion to simultaneously insult me with a false accusation of "POV pushing." You have a funny way of "doing something nice." You have a strange definition of "yelling at Astanhope," since your "yelling at Stanhope" was nastier to me than it was to him. POV-pushing is what you & Astanhope & neutrality & several others keep doing to the article, not what I do. E.g., the very first sentence of the article now states (as if it were an undisputed fact) that Terri was in a PVS, even though something like four DOZEN neurologists (the majority of those who have reviewed the case) say was a faulty diagnosis. It doesn't matter how thorougly I document the facts, y'all just keep deleting them and substituting Felos propaganda, and then, outrageously, insulting ME with the false charge that I am the one pushing a POV in the article. NCdave 21:13, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who thinks that your "alleged" POV pushing is false obviously hasn't read any of the talk pages on Terri Schiavo. Seriously, all the points he brings up here have been refuted on the Talk pages. And it wasn't like you didn't deserve what horrible "mean" thing I said about you on User talk:AStanhope. You call it nasty, I call it truthful, something you can't master. Mike H 15:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • NCdave's edits aren't vandalism, they're arguably POV pushing. Vandalism is different from an edit you disagree with. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I thought NCdave was a troll until some in #wikipedia said otherwise. I'm sure others have made the same mistake. I've never heard the term "serial adulterer" used in a serious manner before. AngryParsley 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 12 hoursGeni 06:52, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Unblocked. Reverts were valid. 3RR does not take precedence over NPOV. Neutralitytalk 07:28, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes it does. Reread WP:3RR the only exception is simple vanderlism. This is partly because almost every case where someone breaks the 3rr they think they are reverting POV (amost of the exceptions seem to involve people using th 3RR to get rid of vandels). Now what good does reverting POV 4 timkes do anyway? If it really is POV you should be able to get someone to support you (this is of course edit warriour thinking but hey) the alturnative is to do through the wikipedia disspute resolution process. If you do revet 4 times it means that you have failed to do either of the above and to be honest doesn't look great in front of arbocom if you end up there. It's not like Terri Schiavo is a hidden page which onlly you and one other person care about if you run out of reverts I'm sure someone else will be along with some more shortly (one again this is edit warriour thinking but so is reverting 4 times)Geni 16:21, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Neutrality is one of the worst POV-pushing offenders, ruthlessly pushing the POV he shares with TheCustomOfLife. Like TheCustomOfLife, he routinely and ruthlessly deletes information from the article which conflicts with their POV, and if that information is carefully supported by references to supporting documents he just deletes the links to the references. My edits to the article were very carefully NPOV, and two of TheCustomOfLife's reverts were of those NPOV edits: he replaced my carefully NPOV prose with grossly POV-biased and inaccurate propaganda for his POV. Now Neutrality is abusing his Arbitrator position to protect his ally's ability to break the rules and ensure that the article is heavily POV biased. NCdave 14:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • In case you didn't notice, it's over. TCOL was blocked for about 10 minutes. I wish I could somehow put you on ignore, because you are very annoying. People like you are the reason responsible, well-meaning wikipedians such as TCOL take permanent wikibreaks. I honestly thought you were a troll until the phone number thing. I mean come on, you cite your own web page! AngryParsley 14:59, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering, "the phone number thing" was when another Michael Schiavo supporter 66.52.193.147 posted my work phone number on my user:Talk page, with an encouragement to call and harrass me (which did, indeed, happen). NCdave 10:51, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that my NPOV edits, which 2 of TheCustomOfLife's reverts undid, were heavily discussed, sentence-by-sentence, in advance, on the Talk page, and when I made my edits to the article I pointed out that fact in the edit summary:
07:54, 30 Mar 2005 NPOV, first few paragraphs only, as heavily discussed on Talk page.
But TheCustomOfLife/Mike H ignored that. He reverted it all anyhow, without even commenting on the Talk page about the discussion of those changes. I tried again, pleading this time for NPOV:
08:10, 30 Mar 2005 rv Cummon, dudes, the whole rest of the article reflects Michael Schiavo's POV, can't you let even the first few paragraphs be NPOV?
TheCustomOfLife/Mike H didn't even respond to that plea, he just reverted it all, again. This 3RR violation was blatant. He should be banned for 24hrs, and Neutrality has proven that he should not be entrusted as an Arbitrator. NCdave 14:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I think I finally figured out what's going on. Somebody here thinks NPOV stands for "NCdave's Point Of View" --Teknic 15:22, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Haha, TheCustomOfLife seems to think it stands for "Neutrality's Point Of View" NCdave 21:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dude, that doesn't even make sense. Why the hell are you still focused on Terri Schiavo and Mike after the entire fiasco has been over for days? Nothing you do can get Mike blocked or the Terri Schiavo article changed how you like it, so forget about it. BTW, I still mean everything I said on your talk page. AngryParsley 08:13, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Blair P. Houghton[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Blair_P._Houghton:

  • 1st revert: [5]
  • 2nd revert: [6]
  • 3rd revert: [7]
  • 4th revert: [8]

Reported by: Taxman 14:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Blair apparently does not consider the first one a revert because he is counting them up and didn't include it. It is functionally a revert because it changes the meaning of the text from that which is supported by the sources on talk to his own POV. I have over 13 abstracts of peer reviewed studies and the external link which summarizes the findings in many of those studies that support the fact I have added. I even went with the proposed text of a neutral party in order to try to diffuse the situation. Blair has only one source that does not anywhere claim what he is claiming. He dismisses peer reviewed studies that disagree with him and clings to this one leap of faith that the study does not claim. His edit summary also shows that he plans to revert no matter what the sources say: "00:00, Mar 30, 2005 Blair P. Houghton (third revert; i'll be back thursday to fix what taxman will surely break)" - Taxman 14:53, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't consider the first a revert either. So now we're straining the definition of a revert in order to satisfy the Mickey Mouse rules of this Mickey Mouse process? Nice. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • How is switching the article to his own POV (again) not a revert? I reallize you don't like the 3RR, but Blair has spent less than 5 cumulative minutes leaving the article in a way he doesn't agree with. The one time the article stayed without him reverting, he simply had not logged in. He makes no attempt to discuss first, instead simply reverts. Reverting added material that is supported by peer reviewed papers is unnaceptable. - Taxman 13:51, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm The user has been blocked for breaking the 3RR before but I can't see any past evidence of gameing the system how far has the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution gone here? Becuase to be honest a quick glance through suggests that this is more of a arbcom case than one for the 3RRGeni 16:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The goal is to get him to reallize that reverting without discussion or providing references for his point of view is improper. Better wikiquette would help too. I don't think this is arbcom material though. - Taxman 17:17, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
the two previous blocks did not have the desired effectGeni 17:41, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


User:10001[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Chick Publications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 10001 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This user also vandalised the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress page [9] a couple of days ago, and has twice vandalised my User page [10], [11]. The last vandalism was noticed and reverted by Guettarda, and 10001 committed a minor vandalism on his User page too. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I have protected this article and made myself available to mediate the differences between the editors, who are now discussing their differences on article talk. I can't guarantee that this will work, but we have dialog and it can't be worse than sanctioning users. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
blocked for 12 hoursGeni 06:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
User:Neutrality unblocked User:10001. Thank you, Neutrality. This is a textbook case of where the 3RR process does more harm than good. Geni apparently blocked without notifying 10001 before blocking and examining the situation to see what the story was. See my comment above. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You mean you don't think I have enough namespace edits already? I knew exactly what the story was (within reason if it turns out to involve a large nuymber of RL events then no I don't). The thing is none of these events count under the 3RR I did of course regard them as mitigating cercemstancesGeni 16:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And the issue of vandalising User pages? What he did to my user page was trivial (I reverted it based on the nonsense edit summary before I even looed at the diffs), but I am deeply troubled by the fact that, in retaliation for me reverting his/her vandalism of Mel's user page, 10001 went after my user page. That really falls far outside of what I understand acceptable behaviour by a Wikipedian to be. Guettarda 14:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


User:JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

This user may be violating his arbcom rulings. Examples:

  • 189K page of ASCII art. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. Also, he seems to have removed the copyright licence from the image—see the original at [12] or [13].
    • That was from Big Dave's cow page. I saw it many many years ago. Like in 1999. - 203.35.154.254 00:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Those of us who have read the citations will know that it's been around for many years before that. Like in 1989. Anyway, the source is irrelevant; the question is, why is it on Wikipedia? —Psychonaut 09:47, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Continues to upload images with questionable "fair use" status, or add the "fair use" tag to existing images which are not clearly fair use. [14], [15] [16] [17]
  • Removing valid and indisputably correct information from articles. [18]
  • Recreating VfD'd content (for the second time). [19]
  • Making personal attacks, then justifying them, then repeatedly removing complaints about them. [20] [21] [22] [23]

Psychonaut 17:18, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Sockpuppet Double Voting?[edit]

It appears that User:Centauri is a sockpuppet of User:Gene Poole.

See [24][25] for evidence of sockpuppetry. Also note that recent listings of the edits of User:Centauri and User:Gene Poole chronologically don't show much overlap:

That's fine, but it appears that it's being used to double-vote on WP:VfD:

--Calton | Talk 04:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


User:203.213.77.138[edit]

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

203.213.77.138 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Firebug 06:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This anonymous user has inserted blatant POV comments into the Terri Schiavo article at least 15 times in the past 24 hours. On at least four occasions, encyclopedically inappropriate comparisons of Schiavo's situation to Auchwitz have been inserted by this poster. All of them have been removed as NPOV violations by several editors (myself included), but he continues to paste them back in. I do not know if this constitutes a violation of the 3RR rule or merely a non-actionable edit war. I do know that I and many other contributors are beginning to tire of this childish refusal to cooperate in creating a NPOV article. In my opinion, this user's actions are beginning to border on vandalism. Firebug 06:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours for multiple reverts, POV warring, and making personal attacks. RickK 07:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


Jersey City, New Jersey[edit]

I'd appreciate if some people could come take a look at this article. While doing RC patrol, I noticed an anonymous user was removing sections of it which I reverted as vandalism. However, he did respond to me on his talk page and explain his overall reasoning. It's not simple vandalism, so I'm not going to revert him anymore or block him. Furthermore, it looks like he's now at least making an effort to compromise. I'd appreciate an outside perspective on this. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker 10:02, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Can someone unblock 216.226.232.8[edit]

This is no longer listed as an open proxy. Please unblock. Conchroti 16:42, 31 Mar 2005


Sockpuppetry at Laura Bush[edit]

Someone with a growing army of sockpuppets very badly wants Laura Bush not to include details of a fatal car accident she caused while in high school. See User:StanleyBirch, User:Arnold4Prez, User:Tacosmell, User:Gmyu. RadicalSubversiv E 19:03, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gmyu's additional POV edits to Soviet Union leads me to suspect this is a reincarnation of banned user Libertas (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas). See also Rhobite's note on RFAr). RadicalSubversiv E 19:23, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great, another major problem user's back! NB: User:Libertas aka User:Ollieplatt. — Davenbelle 23:10, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


User:Coolcat running roughshod over Talk:Armenian Genocide[edit]

Coolcat, who's actions on Armenian Genocide are opposed by the other editors there and on the talk page, is insisting on shoving recent talk into archives; the article was recently listed for peer review and I feel that his archiving amounts to an attempt to sweep all the criticism of him under the rug. This user is a problem user who is pushing an Armenian Genocide Denial POV and is attempting to purge wikipedia of anything that does not fit his POV. He has made over 3100 edits in the last 7 weeks and has made a mess of just about every article that mentions Turkey, Armenia, Kurds, or Genocide. I earnest request review from admins; thank you. — Davenbelle 22:30, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am active, thank you. I worked on Diagnosis Murder, Ranks and Insignia of Starfleet, Ranks and Insignia of NATO aside from "messing" with articles regarding the Kurds, Armenians, and Turkey. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is about 1.1mb of archived material. It is absurd to suggest not moving it. --Cool Cat My Talk 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This sounds like a content dispute with some behavior elements. You may like to file a RfC on the user at WP:RFC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:57, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is about Coolcat's conduct on the talk page; I do not agree with his POV, but I have never had a conflict with Coolcat over the content of the article itself; I have never edited the article itself (and his sockpuppet allegations are absurd). I reiterate my request for admin review. — Davenbelle 23:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
It is not an allegation, its a check, too many people apeared conviniantly, I am playing safe. If you arent a stickpuppet you can ignore it. Here is what I placed on two user talk pages: --Cool Cat My Talk 06:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
==suspected sockpuppets (same person, using multiple usernames)==
THOTH, Davenbelle, Stereotek, Fadix
Please advise me. I also posted this ...bla
So far I havent had any response. I wouldnt want a ban even if you were sockpupetting, I just dont want this "overwhelming crowd" made out of 1 person. I am discussing how we can discuss, you are discussing how horrible I am... --Cool Cat My Talk 06:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it's over his conduct, you still need to put up an RfC. As long as he hasn't been seriously disrupting Wikipedia--vandalising, spamming, engaging in sock puppetry, excessive reverting, and so on--there isn't a lot of "reviewing" we can do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As I write this, there is a large block of the talk that is not present in either the talk page or the archives. Coolcat archived it -- with intent of sweeping it under the rug, IMHO -- and I hauled it back to the talk page where it was subsequently edited by User:THOTH at least. Coolcat has since deleted it again and it needs to be carefully restored; he will not allow this; he seeks to control the talk page where everyone opposes his actions. This is enough to make one wish a talk page protected! He is a problem. Sincerely, Davenbelle 00:14, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
The large block of deleted talk is: this
He also just deleted (correction, moved —00:28, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)) an edit of mine: here
— Davenbelle 00:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the talk page was pretty big and the discussion had frankly degenerated into a series of personal attacks on Coolcat. This is unacceptable and I actually tried myself to delete the attacks on Coolcat leaving the substantive discussion, but in the end gave it up because there was so much attack and so little discussion. It's a shame that you're accusing him of bad faith here when he clearly did, by your own admission, try to archive the discussion and not just delete it.

Your citation of a deletion of a comment of yours by Coolcat is nothing of the sort. Coolcat simply took a comment that you had embedded in another's comment, and put it at the end. Correction accepted. Yes, he moved it. Then he replied to it. I consider moving embedded comments to be good practice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

this edit by User:THOTH has been lost from Talk:Armenian Genocide/Archive 15. User:THOTH has made many excellent point in his posts to Talk:Armenian Genocide. — Davenbelle 01:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

FYI, anyone, Talk:Armenian Genocide/Archive 1 is now 1068 kilobytes long. -- no joke; must be fun on dial-up. Davenbelle 09:56, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

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


User:Powertranz[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

I checked this user's edit history. He continues to violate the 3RR and is also injecting personal insults into his edit summaries. I think he needs a 24-hour cooling-off period. Firebug 02:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed and done BrokenSegue 02:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


Armenian Genocide. Did I do the right thing here?[edit]

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

I believe that short term protection was warranted given the tension between User:Fadix and User:Coolcat. I think that the next step is for the editors of this article to list the points they believe are false or POV. The personal attacks and snide edit summaries should also cease. Carbonite | Talk 00:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you've done anything wrong. This dispute has been brewing for far too long. If you can solve it you earn a barnstar. I've tried to get them talking and failed. Mgm|(talk) 12:47, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
The edits were not good faith, and I shown you how CLEARLY they were not. You have decided to keep a version by a new alias just regitering to edit it in the way Coolcat wanted it, when the article that was already there was the result of days and days of neutralization and was in the process of further changes in that direction. Your attempt is a clear abuses of power. I suggested you to read the changes and you have even asked me where the mistakes are. The previous version was submitted for comments and peer review AND mediation, but you preffered locking it on a POV oriented version by taking a position for a new dubious alias that landed up in Wikipedia as sole purpouses to edit the article. Fadix 02:03, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Wikipedia Has Been Hacked[edit]

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

Did you notice today's date? (a sysop was having some fun with MediaWiki:Edit, that's all.) —Charles P. (Mirv) 02:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh, that is right. Although that may be confusing to those of us where it is still March 31st or unaware of April's Fools Day. Good prank though. :)

Apollomelos 02:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it's giving vandals free rein. Somebody changed the Main Page to say that Terri Schiavo died from autofellatio. How do we tell people not to vandalize the encyclopedia when everybody's doing it? RickK 06:34, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
So that's what it is, I thought that "vandalise this page" was really a hacking attempt. - Yamamoto Ichiro 02:48, 1 Apr 2005

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

But I liked the takeover by Britannica! --Carnildo 06:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is getting out of hand. Sneak vandalism everywhere, and it seems like every wikiuser feel they should have their own April Fools prank somewhere. I'm thinking maybe the best joke would be to let wikipedia not be editable today. Use the day to reindex tablebases or whatever it is that a day off can be used constructivly to. Wikipedia should be correct all the year. God knows how long all this misinformation will live on on forgotten pages and various cashes around the net. Shanes 06:47, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
just block every user involved under this dissrution clause (well it's tempting)Geni 06:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is much more serious (if this is the right word...) then a year ago - see Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense#April fools. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:34, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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


User:G Rider (vandal)[edit]

User:G Rider is a vandal impersonating User:GRider, and mass nominating school articles for VfD. I ask that xe immediately be blocked and all VfD nominations made by xir withdrawn. calS !pu kaeps 02:39, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Dan | Talk 02:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Also, User:GRuder. Please treat similarly. Radiant_* 11:29, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


Wierd gremlins[edit]

Look at the edit button here, --SqueakBox 02:45, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Now here too --SqueakBox 02:48, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC) The edit this page button had been changed to vandalise (in English) this page, not that it made any difference, but bizarre. or am I going mad or was it just an April fool? --SqueakBox 14:58, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)


April Fool's Day[edit]

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

Damn script kiddies! El_C 06:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC) Synthesis of sitosterol.gif
Misspelled! PWNED! PWNED! OMG! :P --Cool Cat My Talk 06:48, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We *have* been hacked. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, seeing dozens and dozens of April 1st jokes mixed with the usual vandal garbage trickling through during first ten minutes in RC-patrol is not very funny. Even some regular users seem to think they are allowed to commit all kinds of tasteless vandalism today: [29] . jni 08:05, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is no April's Fool's joke. We got tough on Mr. Diaper. How is it possible we tolerate the recent insistence to have Wikipedia hosting gay porn? dab () 09:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Because it's not illegal and it clearly had an educative function when divorced from whatever negative connotations our societies might assign to it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
negative? porn making for a substantial part of internet traffic, its connotation is hardly negative. rather, it could only be encyclopedic if its positive fascination was reduced (e.g. by reducing image size!!). Note that I'm not singling out gay porn, I would be just as opposed to hetero porn, it just happens that people insist on uploading gay porn to WP, these days. dab () 09:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the 'you have new messages' (redirecting to April Fools) note I get on all pages another developer who believes he is funny? Jordi· 11:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Disruptive users[edit]

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

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

User:Stereotek[edit]

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

I am not being disruptive. You are. Latest example of you disruptive behavior is a few hours ago, when you moved a large part of the Abdullah Öcalan article into a template (!). Stereotek 10:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am improving quality, you are only reverting all my work, including spelling corrections are "POV vandalism" for you. (Coolcat 11:41, 1 Apr 2005)
This is addressed to all of you involved in this fuss. Please settle your differences on the talk pages. The only senses in which you are being disruptive are continuing to make personal attacks and spreading your arguments over other pages. Please stop both at once, all of you. If you have a bone to pick about another user's conduct, start a RfC. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle[edit]

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

I replied to User:Coolcat on User talk:Davenbelle 05:36, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • You guys are all being disruptive. There's no need to bother everyone by spreading your dispute across every page you can. There's a perfect dispute resolution procedure. Stick with mediation, RfC and RfA. Besides, no one will do anything without diffs to prove allegations. There's too much edits to wade through. Mgm|(talk) 11:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Hear hear. Both of you please resolve your personal disputes without trying to get others involved. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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


User:Coolcat's new trick[edit]

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

First of spell my nick correctly and do not refer to me anyway else than my nick, that is insultive. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This isnt wikipedia templates for deletation. I incorporated the material in both articles. This wahy if the template is edited it affects both pages. Prevents inconcistencies. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your disruptive behavior is becoming painfull. --Cool Cat My Talk 11:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

Some time ago, Coolcat attempted to redirect Abdullah Öcalan to Kurdistan Workers Party and this was soundly rejected. Consensus was to retain separate articles, as both are noteworthy in their own right and one is not the other. Your templates are nothing but a way to try to subvert this consensus. -- Curps 11:55, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
By "your templates" I assume you're addressing Coolcat, not me. I agree that he seems to have no consensus for this edit. Ah, the costs of being bold. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Templates been discussed in the proper median, this is not that median. --Cool Cat My Talk 22:50, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Nazi attacks on TBSDY[edit]

66.193.230.226

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

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


Crush by Elephant[edit]

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

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


User:Martin2000[edit]

+ various open proxies.

Persistent chap. He seemed to be relatively well behaved until early March, since then he's been extremely disruptive, escalating his misbehavior. He's been edit warring over the placement of a photograph on Bahá'u'lláh, and has developed the most distasteful habit of using abusive words and insults. When blocked (for WP:3RR for instance) he has resorted to using open proxies and sock puppets. The socks get blocked indefinitely, he creates a new one. Typically the socks will do nothing except insult someone or perform a revert, or both. By the time he'd done around five reverts in a row I decided to apply an escalating block formula:

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

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

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

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

There's also a RFC.

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

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

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

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


User:Madchester[edit]

Three revert rule violation on The Amazing Race 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Madchester (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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


The Fort Bleakeley vandal[edit]

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

Fort Bleakeley II[edit]

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

A Letter to the Wikipedians[edit]

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

KNOWETH AND UNDERSTANDETH YE THE FOLLOWING MEN BY THEIR PRESENTS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be careful.

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

Oh, this is going to be so much fun!

P.S. Spread the word.

I'm back[edit]

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

  • Submitting hoax articles is also considered vandalism as it disrupts Wikipedia. Why not be productive and stop creating hoaxes? Mgm|(talk) 21:19, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Pelican shit is back too. Yea, though the wicked Pharisees do continually hide the pelican shit under the Holy Altar of the Delete, yet doth the Great Google see the same even there and shareth it with the unwashed multitudes! (Heavydooty 08:53, 2 Apr 2005)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit! Our ultimate goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge in a way that is factually accurate and espouses the neutral point of view. We'd very much like it if you joined us and helped the encyclopedia along in its goals.
Alternatively, if you prefer acting like a five-year old and have us waste time on undoing your defacement, time we could have been spending on improving the encyclopedia, that's fine as well. Don't expect any sort of satisfaction from anyone but yourself in your juvenile craving for attention, though, and don't expect us to indulge you. Unwashed we may be, but all of us can at least claim to have advanced humanity, in whatever a small and trivial way, by contributing to this project. I could hold a straw poll among our readers, but I doubt they'd say the same about you. JRM 11:53, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

what jerks... also the NY kid would do well brushing up his Early Modern English to sound less like an idiot. dab () 12:07, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

It's a shame. That is all. Inter\Echo 13:58, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • In light of the situation, I feel the need to repent for what I have done. I take back all the hoaxes and other sorts of vandalism that I have committed in the past four days. I am sincerely sorry for all this. To all who have been troubled by me, please forgive me. That is all I ask. 84.154.103.46 21:48, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


User:Earl Andrew[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:April 1, 2005/-2005 Britannica takeover of Wikimedia-. Earl_Andrew (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

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

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

No there is a specific excemption for the sandbox (and a few other articles under the maintenance clause). I can't find anything for april fools day jokes. This is not the first edit war on what many view as a non serious page and I doubt it will be the last. You accuse me of being hard line. Do you remeber whqat this rule was like in the early days? It almost reached the point of being "do not make more than 4 edits to a contiversal article in a 24 hour peroid". You think I'm pretty sure the block would have been puleed by other admins if they were asked (so far I have had only one case where I blocked an admin and they were not unblocked either by themselves or others). Are yoiu suggesting that the 3 revert rule should not apply to silly pages? If so could you provide a defintion of silly pages that will not result in people trying to game it (and obtain some kind of consesus for it)? I mean what if there was a 3RR violation on exploding whale? In the end I am trying to inforce policy. If you don't like it get it chagedGeni 11:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lets put some perspective on this. This article is a joke that has no bearing on the greater functioning of this encyclopedia. This is not Terri Schiavo or even Exploding whale. As there are no facts in this article, 4 reverts can't really be that bad. Burgundavia 11:34, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, Geni, I recognise that the Sandbox is a special case whereby reverts are exempt for the purposes of actually clearing it from time to time. Perhaps a more pertinent analogy would be made with BJAODN. Would a revert war about what to include warrant a block for 3RR violation?
Yes (although it migh be suggested that that could be clasified under mercy)Geni 13:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As for remembering what the "early days" were like, yes I do remember what the rule was like (although the rule could hardly be considered to come from the early days of Wikipedia). Not only was it not a hard-and-fast rule ("In the case of edit wars on important pages, users are sometimes blocked"), but it was not specified whether the four reverts had to occur in a 24-hour period, or one UTC day. The situation was significantly different to now and does not bear comparison.
I was refuring to the situation shortly after admins were given the power to block for 3RR violationsGeni 13:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am not proposing a change in the wording of the policy. I am merely advocating an exercise of discretion. You know, the thing which allowed you to block the user above for 7 hours for a 7 minute violation. You already use sysop discretion – it is not codified but it is implicit: "[A]fter your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." So not only do you have the discretion not to block, but if you do decide to block you can do so for a very short period of time as well. By using common sense in determining whether to block, situations like this can be avoided. Specifics about 'silly pages' do not need to be incorporated into the policy wording. - Mark 12:11, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I try and keep the role of admin discression to a minium. Remember that one cuts both ways both ing reducing any penitaly and in people starting to talk about the spirit of the rule and blocking for things that are not 3 revert violations. This case involves a user who is aware of policy (well I assume all admins are) and who clearly violated the rule. That rules out the areas in which I normaly excersise discression. This does not say that other admins have to accept my descision. If you look at the standard note I leave on people's talk pages I remind people that they can appeal to other admins (an option I wish more would take).Geni 13:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Revert seems to disagree. Snowspinner 19:33, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
Now why couldn't I find that earlier when I was looking for it? (And I'm sure I've read it before, too.) Thanks, and I take back what I said about the lack of definition. Alai 21:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

"partial" reverts are not allowed if they add up to the equiverlent of a revert."complex" reverts are not allowed when they are being used to game the systemGeni 19:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What's generally referred to as a "partial revert" would seem to be covered by Wikipedia:Revert#More general reverts. A "complex revert" seems to generally be used to the "how", rather than the "what" of a revert... Alai 21:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Revert is not an official policy. While it is in Category:Policies and guidelines, it has not been through any process to establish whether it commands consensus. I, for one, reject the notion that a "partial revert" is a revert for the purposes of the 3RR. The article itself has only about 5 editors in all, and there is no discussion whatsoever on the Talk page. So, Alai, you can go back to your original position that what counts as a revert is vague. --BM 01:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You can reject what you like; revert is a clear explanation of the issue, as understood by the people who voted on the 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 01:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
it has not been through any process to establish whether it commands consensus: "[Wikipedia] is not a democracy" - Jimbo Wales. Noel (talk) 01:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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


User:Itai[edit]

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

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

Comments:

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


User:TDC[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Anti-globalization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). TDC (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Chamaeleon 01:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • It pains me to use this rule that I disagree with, but TDC is a problem user. He has been reverting against the rest of us on Anti-globalization. Reverts 1, 2 and 5 are clear-cut. Number 3 is a revert with an extra bit of slander thrown in too. Number 4 is a revert with two other differences: a) some HTML comments deleted (I don't think they count) b) a paragraph left in that he forgot to delete (It is my version of the section; he obviously didn't mean to leave it in there next to his). Chamaeleon 01:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've blocked TDC for 24 hours for a 3RR violation. One of his edit summaries leads me to believe this is probably not the end: "well, someone had best protect this page becasue it's time for an edit war". Carbonite | Talk 02:52, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Before Vile Triga[edit]

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

It also appears that it has now reverted 4 times on it's user page. So according to the rules she should be blocked.--Jirate 12:50, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
hm, what? who is 'it'? dab () 13:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
never mind, I checked your talkpage. you've chosen an appropriate username. what gall, you vamdalise somebody's userpage, and then come here calling 3RRvio? Maybe you need a short block for vandalism, then? dab () 13:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I didn't vandlise. I put in a {{VFD}} which was removed and then a {{delete}} that is not vandalism, and according to the rules of 3RR VileTriga should be blocked, end of story. It the kind of logic vile triga uses herself, excepting that in this case 4 reverts does break the rules, were as she just normally lies. I think you need to have you admin rights remmoved for that last comment. Oh but of course the clique will protect you, wont it.--Jirate 13:29, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Irate, stop vandalising and calm down. Others, see also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irate and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Irate_vs_User:violetriga_et_al. — Matt Crypto 13:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to distort a username in this manner or to refer to another editor as "it". If you are unsure of an editor's gender, reword the sentence, use "he", or use "they". Please keep discussions civil. — Knowledge Seeker 05:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Matt Crypto[edit]

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

LOL ;-) I challenge you to cite one personal attack that I've made against you. Again, Irate, I suggest you take a break from Wiki for an hour or so, and cool down. — Matt Crypto 13:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
WHat you have written here is a personal attack. "Irate, stop vandalising and calm down." is a personal attack, "User:violetriga_et_al", is a personal attack. --Jirate 14:04, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
No, that was a request -- you'd listed someone's user page for deletion and called them "scum": that was a personal attack. There's a difference. — Matt Crypto 14:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
More of your dishonesty or is it stupidity?--Jirate 14:10, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
What dishonesty? — Matt Crypto 14:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
They're called "statement of facts" where I come from. --Calton | Talk 14:12, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your attacks on me a real, that you keep denying them is the dsihonesty.--Jirate 14:16, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
Are you that badly in need of a dictionary, that you don't seem to understand the meanings of simple concepts such as "personal attack", "vandalism", "statement of facts", and "dishonesty"? And while you've got that dictionary open, look up "self-centred" and "solipicism" "solipsism". --Calton | Talk 14:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what a personal attack is. — Matt Crypto 14:19, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Too both of you. I doubt you actually know the meaning of the words yourself, mearly the spelling, your just assume you on the side of right, because your you. I suggest you look up the words sophistry, disengenious and manipulative.--Jirate 14:24, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
mearly the spelling. Okay, that was funny. So in other words, Humpty Dumpty, you have no idea what those big words mean and how people use them. --Calton | Talk 14:28, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I know perfetly well what they mean unlike you. --Jirate 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
quite funny, actually, since it's really solipsism, Calton :o) Dbachmann 14:43, 3 Apr 2005
D'oh! --Calton | Talk 07:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The evidence suggests that you don't use the phrase "personal attack" like anyone else does on Wikipedia. Seriously, though, if you're feeling very angry (or intoxicated) or whatever, just take a break for an hour or two. Otherwise you'll regret your actions later. — Matt Crypto 14:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And the 10+ users on your RfC? I suppose they were all VioletRiga's cronies, too, eh? (And why can't they be my cronies? I want cronies!) — Matt Crypto 14:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
And as a percentage of users 10 is nothing, but the again why represent the facts with any itegrity, you haven't done it before.--Jirate 14:34, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
"Integrity": another word you can't spell or understand. --Calton | Talk 14:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Eh? The fact that 10+ users responded critically, and none defended you, gives some evidence about the feelings of the community as a whole. You're out of line, and I strongly doubt that you'd find anyone here to support your behaviour. — Matt Crypto 14:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cronies? Are they anything like an entourage? I've always wanted one of those. --Calton | Talk 14:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Blocking Jirate[edit]

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

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


User:Violetriga[edit]

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

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

Comments:

  • This user reverted his or her own user page 4 times. I refuse to block him or her as a result of this, for 2 reasons: this was in the user's own user space, and the reversions were of VfDing of the user page, which can be construed as a personal attack, vandalism or disruption. I am listing it here on the demand for fairness by User:Irate who I blocked for 3RR on the VfD page for this user's user page. Upon being insulted by User:Irate in IRC, I felt I had become too involved in the situation to make an unbiased decision, and so I list this user here for the consideration of the other admins. - Mark 15:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • you mean Irate's User page was put on VfD? Why was that? I don't think anybody was ever blocked for reverting their own user page, and that's as it should be. dab () 15:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I see, Irate was blocked for reverting the VfD page of vr's user page [30]. If Irate continues his behaviour (running amok all over Wikipedia), I think he should be warned and blocked as a vandal. dab () 15:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would certainly consider another user placing a VfD or speedy delete notice on my user page to be vandalism. Violetriga may revert such vandalism without violating the 3RR. I would also note that User:Irate is dangerously close to violating the 3RR on the page in question. Carbonite | Talk 15:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The 3RR explicitly does not apply to vandalism. I would think that spitefully adding a deletion notice to someone's legitimate user page (with the linked page reading "This user is a dishonest and manipulative peice of scum and should be purged from the system") is clearly vandalism. (Bias warning: I'm a disputant with User:Irate). — Matt Crypto 15:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


User:Matt Crypto[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violetriga (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Violetriga|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Matt Crypto (talk · contribs):

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

Comments:

  • This user reverted the VfD page made by User:Irate of the user page of the above-listed user. His first reverts were removing "This user is a dishonest and manipulative peice of scum and should be purged from the system.", which was placed by User:Irate, and replacing it with "[personal attack removed by [[User:Matt Crypto]]]." His fourth reversion was of a message he had placed on the page saying "Please don't delete this; it will be used in an Arbitration case. Thanks.", since another user had stumbled onto the page and listed it as a candidate for speedy deletion. As with the above-listed user, I refuse to block this user. His first 3 reversions were made in good faith, removing a personal attack against a third party. I have listed this here for the consideration of the other admins in an effort to remain balanced and fair. - Mark 15:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • The 3RR does not apply to reverting obvious vandalism. Please read through User:Irate's contrib history and the evidence from the RFC/arbitration case against him/her. jni 15:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't believe he should be blocked for removing personal attacks like this. BrokenSegue 16:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • even I wouldn't block for this.Geni 16:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Reponse: 1) The first edit wasn't a revert, it was a vanilla edit (removing a personal attack). 2) The 3 rollbacks I used were distributed over two bits of text (a restoration of "please don't delete this" and the personal attack removal) 3) I interpret Irate's removal of the "please don't delete this" sign as vandalism -- not covered by 3RR. (I'd like to note that I deliberately asked on IRC for assistance on this page, rather than reverting past the 3RR limit). — Matt Crypto 16:03, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Irate's whole "delete User:violet riga" campaign was so far out of line that it's just a waste of electrons to bring its repercussions up on this page. dab () 16:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I would say it falls under "disrupting Wikipedia", actually. Irate should be given a one-week block, they should know better. Noel (talk) 16:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • he seems to have stopped right now, but I would support warning him, and blocking as soon as he recommences. dab () 16:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • He's blocked for 24 hours (until 14:37 4 April) for his 3RR violation on the VfD page. I agree that he should be warned and blocked without delay if starts disrupting again. Carbonite | Talk 16:31, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes I should point out that it was me who blocked User:Irate in the first place, for his very own 3RR violation. - Mark 16:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually upon re-examination, the first revert is arguably not a revert anyway (since it was the first change the user made) - although I am not too sure about this. - Mark 16:10, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Even if the 3RR were in question, he checked on IRC before taking any action, and his actions, from what I've seen on IRC and through a debate with User:Irate have been nothing but above-board. Koi 16:17, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)


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

Three revert rule violation on Javier Solana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.146.199.113 (talk · contribs) (and 70.146.198.208 (talk · contribs)):

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

Comments:

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

Both BELLSOUTH.NET INC from Atlanta according to my IP locator. 70.146.199.113 vandalsied 2 User pages by dumping beastified Solana text. All the Solana modifications were pure vandalism, the most common vandalism to hit this article, whioch is one of the most vandalised at wikipedia. Someone from Washington state I believe, 65.4.16.57, had just finisherd vandalising the article in exactly the same way when this character appeared. Please put Javier Solana on your watchlists, --SqueakBox 17:00, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

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

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


User:JakeGHz[edit]

After leaving Wikipedia:Votes for deletion#Fruitafossor in a huff, JakeGHz has posted his account password at his user page. I used it to successfully log in to his account just now. Please block his account. FreplySpang (talk) 21:21, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

blocked for now.Geni 21:27, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just to let you know: I was logged into Jake's account to change the password at the time of the blocking and got hit by an IP block when I attempted to edit this page to confirm it. Hope you don't mind me unblocking my IP. Mgm|(talk) 21:32, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
can't see any reason why anyone shouldGeni 22:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, but it's probably easiest for all involved simply to change the password once it becomes generally known. Anyone, not merely an admin, can do this. The person changing the password can put up a notice on the user page informing everyone involved that the password is no longer public. This would also clear up the blocklist and leave a little less work for admins. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 17:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree it's just that I wanted to shut down the account quickly (requests on this board can often take some time to be delt with) and didn't want to log outGeni 17:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


User:Corax[edit]

Three revert rule violation on North American Man-Boy Love Association (edit | talk |