Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive21

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: May 5, 2005 - May 10, 2005


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

Reported by: JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)


  • Has been removing the name "Edmond Heinz Wollmann" as recipient of the "Kook of the Millennium" award. While unfortunate for mr. Wollmann, it also happens to be factually accurate, and referenced. Has gone and reverted a fourth time despite being warned not to. JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours--nixie 01:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


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

Not blocking him myself since I've been involved in the issue, but someone should. —Morven 00:30, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24. BrokenSegue 01:07, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

An inclusionists' sock puppet[edit]

A new user Quaalusionist (talk · contribs) has posted what is quite probably the most rabidly inclusionist piece I've seen on Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) - its more partisan than the AIW pages!
Obviously they are a sockpuppet of somebody, but I don't know who. Please can someone block this Qaullusionist and take any apropriate action against the sockpuppeteer. Thryduulf 15:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Reading that, only one comment springs immediately to mind: YHBT. YHL. HAND. JRM · Talk 16:56, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't understand the acronyms, please could you translate for me. Thryduulf 17:23, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
"You Have Been Trolled. You Have Lost. Have A Nice Day." See the Jargon File for a more thorough explanation, and our article on Internet trolls. In short: my comment implies that you have been giving the person in question exactly what they wanted by treating their screed as if it were meant seriously. JRM · Talk 17:34, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
This looks to be another Iasson sockpuppet, but this is based solely on a hunch after looking at the wording of the post you mentioned above, particularly "The encroaching hordes of deletionist" and "Friends, now is the time to come forth to do battle against the enemy. We must marshal our forces at once." The analogy of battle doctrine and fighting hordes of enemy is a particular favourite of Iasson. --Deathphoenix 17:09, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The four edits to my talk page to make one statement [1] is also rather typical. Thryduulf 17:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The user also vandalised my user page [2] after anouncing on my talk page he was going to do it (apparently I'm a deletionist because I defended Pcb21 although I'm puzzled what event this might refer to as I don't recall having interaction with them recently. Thryduulf 17:31, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Judging from spelling and grammar, though, I don't believe this is Iasson himself, but someone parodying his style; our troll has a little too good a command of the English language to reliably pass for Iasson, and he takes it just a tiny bit too far. Of course, these things are almost impossible to pin down for sure. JRM · Talk 17:34, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

user:Knowledge Seeker's userpage has been vandalised as well now by (talk · contribs) who is obviously the same person just logged out (I'm trying to revert atm, but my connection is very very slow. WP:VIP isn't working either). Thryduulf 17:40, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 17:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel I should point out that being a sockpuppet, even a loud and long-winded one, is not in itself grounds for being blocked. As far as I can tell, this person isn't serious, just having a bit of fun at the expense of our competing "ideologies" of inclusionism and deletionism. Everyking 19:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  • True, but vandalising someone's userpage to get across those ideologies is grounds for blocking. Mgm|(talk) 21:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


KapilTagore (talk · contribs) using obscenities in mky talk page. this person does not want to collaborate they want to troll, [3] --SqueakBox 16:48, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


I believe Zapatancas (talk · contribs), who is also Zapatero (talk · contribs), has created a sockpuppet SquealingPig (talk · contribs). Zapatanecas began reverting my work this morning here and here. he then switched to (talk · contribs) to contineu here here and here. Note the SquealingPig ref, seems to be a reference to my name. He then begins to attack my user page here which he has now done 7 times, --SqueakBox 18:28, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I blocked SquealingPig as a pretty obvious case. dab () 18:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


Impersonating me. (The fifth letter of the username is a capital Eye, not a lowercase Ell.) This happened right after I reported the impersonation of Mel Etitis by MeI Etitis (same trick, third letter Eye instead of Ell). Changed my report on WP:RFC to say that I am impersonating him/her. (Hello? Check the user contribs to see who's been around longer). FreplySpang (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Defamation complaint[edit]

A complaint was made to the mailing list by an individual who felt he was unfairly called a kook in Alt.usenet.kooks and that this was affecting his reputation and business. The page was protected because an anon (probably him) kept deleting the name, so I've removed the name but left the page protected. [4] We're not supposed to use Usenet as a secondary source (especially not when using a person's real name), because it doesn't count as a reputable or credible publisher, and the posts are largely anonymous. It can be used as primary-source material for an article about Usenet, but that doesn't extend to naming people who have been criticized in Usenet posts. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:11, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

The article from which the material was removed is about a Usenet newsgroup, and said "awards" were in fact given to a person who posted to Usenet under that name for years and years. If the person making the complaint would like to claim that the aberrant Usenet poster is a different person, that's fine, but the information was correct and verifiable as it was presented. --iMb~Meow 20:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
The kook of the month award is a major part of that usernet group and Edmond Heinz Wollmann is aparently one of the more regular winners [5] (certianly far more regular than sollog) Since John Ennis claims that sollog is his real name by your logic we would have to remove any mention of him as wellGeni 20:25, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
They've even got a special page for him, full of things he's said online. Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
A complaint about libel has been made by someone who is not a public figure. If we keep the material, or keep reinserting it as Delirium is doing, we're on sticky ground legally. This is a question of commonsense and sticking to policy, and also making an effort to be fair to named individuals. Usenet isn't a credible source. We can write about the group and we can write about its awards using Usenet itself as primary-source material, but we shouldn't name the award winners, especially once they have told us the issue might affect their business. Legally, it starts to look like malice. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:54, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
It's not libel or anything remotely like it, because truth is an absolute defense against libel. We are simply reporting the verifiable fact that the newsgroup alt.usenet.kooks has called Mr. Wollmann the "kook of the year". --Delirium 21:08, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
So does this mean you would support listing the name of high school girls awarded the name "slut" by their male peers under the respective high school articles, since it would simply be reporting the verifiable fact that boys at high school xyz have called girl abc a "slut"? --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:56, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Good point. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Non notableGeni 05:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. That straw man won't fly. Besides, we tolerate mention of the 666 fantasies about Javier Solana, etc, so reporting things that are not positive is clearly something we allow, provided we are just reporting what other people are saying. Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm clearly outnumbered, so I won't go on about it, but I just want to add that media law isn't as simple as that, not even in the U.S. There are a number of avenues that could be pursued in a case like this. Anyway, the main point for me is that we shouldn't want to use Usenet posts as a source of criticism of private individuals. No newspaper would do it (unless there was some public-interest issue at stake e.g. if someone named kook of the year on Usenet had also been grooming young girls for sex) so we shouldn't either. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:14, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree with you on this one. Even in articles about controversial biographical public figures, people are sensitive about using derogatory terms to describe them. And at least when they *are* reported, both the critics POV as well as the response to critics addressing the details behind the negative term are given for balance. But this case is just plain defamation and very unencyclopedic. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 04:56, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
and one we get a respoce beyond threatened legal action we will put it in Geni 05:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Or instead, repeating the slander of a private citizen by a web group could be removed from the article since as you said above it is non notable. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 06:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
I removed it twice, but it was reinserted, and I don't want to get into a revert war over it. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
How is saying that someone is a kook "slander"? There's no objective test, so it's a matter of opinion, and opinions are protected. Slander is stuff like "you comitted a crime" (when it's not true). Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Your understanding of defamation is faulty. A statement doesn't have to be an allegation of criminal activity to be defamatory--most defamatory statements are nothing like that. In general if a person reading the statement would be likely to think less of the person about whom the statement is made, then it may be defamatory.
There is a secondary sting here. A person reading this nonsense on a Usenet newsgroup or a kook site may not tend to think much of it (the allegations aren't particularly credible or well supported) but if he reads it in Wikipedia (even though Wikipedia may only be reporting a fact) the fact that Wikipedia thought the fact worthy of reporting would tend to make the statement more credible and thus cause more damage to the victim than the original publication.
My opinion of Wollmann is well known, I nominated him for his first KOTM, but also in my opinion the publication of this outside Usenet, especially on a venue as prominent as Wikipedia, may cause damage to Wollmann. In my nomination and subsequent comments I referred solely to his antics on Usenet, whereas some of his fellow kooks since then have falsely accused Wollmann of all kinds of wrongdoing of which he is innocent. Wikipedia should not get involved in this fight. Wollmann is a private individual, his privacy should be respected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
No. Although the exact legal definition of defamation will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it generally includes the requirement that a statement be a factual assertion (i.e. provably true or false), and false. (E.g. an intentional false communication that injures another person’s good name or reputation [6]; A false statement that injures someone's reputation [7]) So, in this case, reporting that "so-and-so was voted Kook of the Year" is a factual, true, statement, and therefore by definition not defamatory. (There's legal axiom which I don't have time to look up that goes something like "truth is an absolute defense against charges of defamation".)
This person might have a case against the KotM site, but I doubt it. I don't know about all jusisdictions, but in the US, at least, statements of opinion which do not imply facts are protected (constitutional protection extends to statements of opinion .. that do not contain or imply a provable factual assertion [8]), and since there's no objective test for being a "kook" (it's a matter of opinion), they are almost certainly safe too.
Finally, I never said that only allegations of criminal activity counted as defamatory - I merely gave that as an example of a factual assertion which would be defamatory (if untrue). Noel (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Jurisdiction does make a difference. In the UK Wollmann would have to prove that you published something potentially defamatory (he does that by getting his lawyer to look at the site and download the defamatory statement). Now if you want to defend yourself by justification, the onus is on you to prove that the statement is true. How are you going to do that? There is no such entity as alt.usenet.kooks, it's just a bunch of people. Okay, so you try getting your lawyer to go to google groups and find a post where someone says "we voted and Wollmann is the winner." Well, that may work, or it may not. Perhaps Wollmann's lawyer goes to Google Groups and shows the judge some clear examples where false reports have been made on alt.usenet.kooks. There are many such--the group has at least once had kooks and trolls posing as alternative vote wranglers, and in any case we only have that person's word for it that the votes went the way they did (voting is traditionally by email). You could get me to testify that I made the first nomination of Wollmann for KOTM, but that doesn't prove that the votes tallied were actually cast. All you can prove is that I made a post on auk and a few weeks later some guy claimed that they did a count and Wollmann won.
In short, a good lawyer could have you for breakfast in the UK jurisdiction. In a jurisdiction that is less plaintiff-friendly, the result may be different. You'd better hope that the person you risk defaming doesn't have money or can't get standing to sue in the UK. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's a considerably more interesting point. My assumption would be (not being an author on the article) that the author(s) have some reason to believe the results posted here are accurate; for one, I would assume the members participants in A.U.K would have raised a ruckus if they felt that the results had been misrepresented. But, yes, to be truly safe we'd have to look in the Usenet archives and count the votes ourselves - but wouldn't that count as "original research"? :-) Noel (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. The article reports the fact that this usenet group gave him this "award". His beef is with the people in that group, not us. There is no malice involved in simply reporting the fact that this happened. Gamaliel 20:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I, too, see no reason to delete it. It's a fairly well-known award, and this user is a fairly well-known winner of said award. If there's an argument that the group is non-notable, the page should be nominated for VfD, but I don't believe that to be the case—I'd heard of this award before coming to Wikipedia. --Delirium 21:02, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. I'm not sure he was a winner when I visited the page some years back, but the award is reasonably well known in the Usenet community. Noel (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems to me we get to report that X believes Y about Z. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe I've won the award at least twice. Does that mean I get an article on Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:48, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nah. Not notable enough. When you get to be Kook of the Millennium, check back. JRM · Talk 22:01, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Tony:Please provide proof. If you're happy with winning that award, you could put it on your user page.-gadfium 22:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I campaigned for Kook of the Millennium, but the competition was too stiff. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


GuyFawkes (talk · contribs) is not an appropriate name, very famous historical UK character, --SqueakBox 23:07, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Well, it's not as if somebody's going to confuse the two. RickK 23:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Guy Fawkes might not be an appropriate name, but User:GuyFawkes isn't too bad. Perhaps we should ask an administrator like User:GeneralPatton? You could make equal cases against a lot of other user names. We have articles about Camembert, Cyan, Fantasy, Gamaliel, Hyacinth, Lord Emsworth, Minesweeper, Morven, Roadrunner, Proteus, Rama, Solipsist, and Trilobite, and all of these are also names of admins. Grutness|hello? Grutness.jpg 00:10, 6 May 2005 (UTC) (still waiting for an article on Grutness, Scotland)
  • How is a historical figure not an appropriate name? I think it's perfectly permissible, since it's not offensive to anybody and will cause no confusion whatsoever. — Dan | Talk 00:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing a big problem here. The only historical figures I think should be off limits are those who are fairly recent or who provoke particular animosity among a substantial number of people. Everyking 02:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • His effigy gets burnt throughout Britain every Nov 5th, --SqueakBox 02:31, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but it's a tradition. I don't think people still actively hate him or would get offended by a reference to him. Everyking 02:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Guy Fawkes is not a controversial figure in Britain, hasn't been for at least a century. The name is just fine. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I see what people think, which is fine; I was just commenting. No he is not actively hated, it just seemed wierd--SqueakBox 02:54, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

New dynamic proxy IP block[edit]

I got a message from a user on the block (Netscape, which is another AOL property). He had been affected by a block I made against, but says he didn't do the edit in question. If this can be verified, the range - should be added to the boilerplate at Special:Blockip as a range over which only brief blocks should be made. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If he is savvy enough to complain, he should be able to register. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
This is a bit beside the issue, because if this can hit one person, it can hit lots. I don't think promising to give a canned reply of "well, you should register anyway" to all who happen to be savvy enough is better than being careful with blocks on this range. JRM · Talk 13:00, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Sure. If he wants to. However it is our site policy to avoid long blocks on private shared proxy ranges. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that while this one user could easily register, others who are not so "savvy" may be left in the cold. This is why we're careful with range blocks in the first place. JRM · Talk 13:02, 2005 May 6 (UTC)


User:Silsor protected a page he was involved in an edit war on, and made a false accusation of vandalism (in the page protection header), despite a lack of talk page concensus. When addressed about this matter he suggested that he would take no action to remedy concerns.

Sam Spade 12:50, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jack. Here is some of the text in question, which you couldn't post here for obvious reasons.
With all their beliefs united Thule began funding construction of an inter-dimensional flight disc named the Jenseitsflugmaschine (Other World Flight Machine) in 1921. The disc was built through a series of psychic revelations of the medium Maria Orsic then translated by a Vril medium named Sigrun. Together, they provided the basic materials to be used in the construction of the machine and the first designs of the machine itself. This machine was then built in Munich in 1922 in secret under the leadership of Thulist Professor W.O. Schumann of the Technical University of Munich.
Thule and Vril experimented with the odd disc machine for two years and then dismantled it after Professor Schumann derived a levitator unit from the research. This was perfected over many years and aroused great interest by Hitler, Himmler, and Goering.
You heard it first here, folks: Hitler had interdimensional UFO flight capability. silsor 12:58, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

How else would he have found his dino mates? Apparently the hyperborean / atlantean / aryan gods were also lending a hand, so anti-grav time travel was no biggie. You should see their vril rods! Do a moments research before reverting, protecting, and making vandalism accusations against concensus, will ya? Sam Spade 13:05, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For more fascinating insights in this underappreciated section of history, see [9]. JRM · Talk 13:09, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Jack, I don't understand what you're arguing. You really believe that people from the far past living under the North Pole were behind the Nazis? Or that silsor should have allowed that information, unsubstantiated, into the article? RickK 17:40, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

he should have discussed the matter in talk, asked for cites, reviewed the cites, and respected concensus. In short, he should have taken part in the wiki process, rather than acting as a rogue admin. Sam Spade 18:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Just wondering... What consensus are you referring to? --Kbdank71 18:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I assume the anon agreed w me that his edits should be discussed rather than deleted as vandalism, eh? Sam Spade 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

In this week's episode of "As the Wiki Turns", Sam Spade pockets the word "consensus" and blasts off into space, taking the humble dictionary dweller into strange new territory. silsor 21:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me there must be a pretty solid consensus against including that stuff in the article as is? Everyking 22:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

The point is there wasn't concensus, and couldn't be, because Silsor wasn't taking part in the talk page. When he finially did, he requested citations, which are to be had, in plenty. I've been handing out links to them, and am perfectly willing to amass a mighty stack of them anywhere he'd like. How about here? Can we please get back to the point, his improper protection of a page he is edit warring on? Sam Spade 23:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't recall asking for citations. Also, I'm not aware of how citing instances of conspiracy theory is justification for presenting them as fact. Or are you just trolling again? Is this a big enough bite for you? silsor 11:22, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me this stuff would have to jump two hurdles to be worth including:

Be verified to exist as an actual and notable theory, with cites;
Be written in a NPOV manner.

So, if these two things are done, we shouldn't have any dispute, right? Everyking 12:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No. There's a third hurdle - that its length be in an appropriate proportion with the length of the article and with the amount that can be said about the topic. Which is a variation on writing in a NPOV manner, but is still very much important. You can create POV if you insert 32kb of NPOV material about your personal conspiracy theory into a 5kb article. Snowspinner 13:15, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
If we went by that logic, articles would hardly ever grow, unless a contributor was careful to expand every aspect of the article at once instead of just one portion he or she might know something about. Ridiculous. Everyking 13:18, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
That would be true only if the majority of contributors were prone to dumping huge amounts of text on specific points of view into articles and not adding to anything else. Mercifully, this is not the case, and so articles generally do grow. Note also that the issue is not adding to one portion - it's making one portion grotesquely overlong in comparison with the rest of the article. Snowspinner 13:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
The exact issue in this case is that a user repeatedly inserted their own personal conspiracy theory as fact. silsor 13:26, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I don't agree with you, Phil. The difference is, my opinions are just opinions. You talk about your opinions as if they're policy. Everyking 13:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

These are among the ugliest spots in the entire Wikipedia: Not only Nazi mysticism, but at Vril, and related pages, unverfiable nonsense keeps being added and User:Sam Spade trying to defend it against all attempts of cleanup. See Talk:Vril. --Pjacobi 13:11, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with protecting a page one is involved in an edit war on? Sam Spade 14:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they shouldn't have done that, but called in another admin. However, I think that even had that been done, we'd be exactly where we are now - discussing this content. Noel (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I see what Pjacobi means. I've just tried editing Nazi mysticism, among other things adding some qualifications to pretty unpleasant claims (e.g., "Another key belief is in the weakening of this Herrenrasse (master race) due to interbreeding with lesser races." changed to "Another key belief is in the supposed weakening of this Herrenrasse (master race) due to interbreeding with so-called lesser races.") SS swept in, declared my additions to be "weasel words", and deleted them. He's just reverted them again. It seems really to matter to him that we not dilute the reference to lessser races; I can't understand why. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Some key points:

  • It shouldn't matter if I think Dinosaurs ride in spaceships, but...
  • I don't think dinosaurs ride in spaceships
  • I think the text that was being added needed a clean up
  • I don't think the text being added was vandalism
  • I think moving the text to the talk page would have been better than simply deleting it
  • I definitely think protecting a page yourself, on your version, after reverting a page repeatedly, is a misuse of admin abilities

Sam Spade 11:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, admins protect pages that they have been reverting all the time. It's called being a janitor, and sometimes some of us catch flak from people personally involved in the material (which I am not). The difference between "ben is gay" and "nazis had UFOs" is pretty tenuous. Add the fact that this anonymous user was vandalizing my user page every time I removed his/her conspiracy theory (and continues to) and you have a pretty standard case of test message/protect page/block as needed. silsor 12:34, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

So far we have silsor reverting 4 times, than protecting the page. Now we have Mel Etitis editing the page in yet another vulger display of power. Apparently me making a complaint here is getting me nowhere. Does anyone care about policy? Even if the letter of the rule isn't to be obeyed, what about the spirit of the M:Foundation issues? Sam Spade 13:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As I've already explained elsewhere: "As the diff. illustrates, I made some uncontroversial edits to the English, and wikified the headers. The worry I have about the content (the etmyology of the term "Thule") I took to the Talk page." A "vulgar display of power"? Good grief. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you meant to violate policy, certainly, and the edits you made were wholly suitable changes to make, but Sam is right in that sysops are expressely forbidden from editing vandalism-protected pages. I've been frustrated by this several times, but it is the best way to keep the wiki process going (all participants have an equal chance to effect the changes they wish), and we should keep observing it.
James F. (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks — you're right, of course, and I've apologised on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:14, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis[edit]

"Admin" user Mel Etitis has been part of concerted vandalism campaign to erase the Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) topic following a failed attempt to Vote-For-Deletion.

"Admin" user Mel Etitis has also banned ElKabong (talk · contribs) under Three_revert_rule for FIXING this vandalism, despite vandalism falling out of the restrictions of said rule.

Abuse of Admin authority and Vandalism by an admin confirmed.

Reported by: 16:25, 6 May 2005 (UTC) ElKabong {wrongly banned by Admin who was himself involved in "discussion" and vandalism}


  • Looks legit to me. Thanks for letting us know about the dispute, --SqueakBox 16:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • This is the first day of this user (ElKabong) on Wikipedia. The article has been protected (not by me). Noel (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


I blocked ElKabong (talk · contribs) for violating the 3RR, and (talk · contribs) immdiately popped up making the same edits with similar edit summaries. I'm now not sure that I should have blocked ElKabong myself, as I had been involved in editing the page (at the time I thought that, given the 3RR issue isn't a subjective matter but an objective and mechanically verifiable fact, being an interested party shouldn't matter, but I should have checked the rules first). I'm therefore reluctant to do anything about the anon. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:58, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Blocking someone for 3RR seems to involve some subjective decision. I would recommend against blocking someone for 3RR in the future if you're involved with the article in question. Warn the anon, explain he's making the same edits as someone who was blocked and let someone else do the blocking should the need ever arise. Mgm|(talk) 19:50, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'll be much more circumspect in future (oddly, it was the first time I'd ever blocked for 3RR). The anon has been warned, but is clearly Elkabong, and has no self-control — swearing and shouting at other editors, calling anyone who disagrees with him an Islamist, a sockpuppet, etc. The page in question (Islamophobia) has now had to be protected because of him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
  • His latest sockpuppet is KaintheScion (talk · contribs). Someone else should evaluate and take action; I made the mistake, perhaps, of reverting one of his anonymous sockpuppet's changes to the loathesome Islamofascism article before throwing up my hands in annoyance and protecting the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
BULLSHIT, you lying POV pushing jerk jpgordon. Take that back, I am NOT a sockpuppet nor am I ElKabong. KaintheScion 02:21, 9 May 2005
I blocked User:KaintheScion for 12 hours for vandalism at Rachel Corrie, but he e-mailed to say he'd discuss the issue on talk (though I'm paraphrasing; it was nowhere near as polite as that), so I unblocked him after an hour or two. So far, he's behaving at Rachel Corrie. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:25, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


--SqueakBox 17:27, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

For those who are a unable to figure out what's going on from this incredibly abbreviated listing, the violation is on Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), by (talk · contribs). The article has now been protected; I suggest we ignore this entry, and also the previous one. Noel (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Appears to be a sockpuppet of blocked ElKabong (talk · contribs), using a new IP to get round his block and continue edit warring Islamofascism so that it had to be protected. If so this is unacceptable even for a very new user, --SqueakBox 18:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Strange content on Assurance games[edit]

Sorry to bother you folks, I just don't want to step out of line. The entry on Assurance games has had a copyright notice on it for some time. I think it wasn't listed on the notice page, but it also contains a notice that the page will be deleted. I think this tag was added in error, since its been there for a while. But, I don't want to act out of turn. All I want is to redirect this page to the Stag hunt entry, which is more or less the same thing. Thanks! --Kzollman 06:19, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's {{pending deletion}} (the block compress bug). Simply do as the notice says and ask an administrator to move the page away, and then recreate as the redirect. --cesarb 23:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Done-Duk 23:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


The Spymac community seems to have found their article in Wikipedia and are trying to convert it into a chat forum. I just deleted a completely unencyclopedic list of members. Apparently they're all coming over and letting us know they are and leaving little witty comments about themselves. RickK 07:11, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Added to watchlist for now. Inter\Echo 09:53, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
If they can't behave themselves, protect the page - much easier than trying to chase a whole flock of twerps. Noel (talk) 14:43, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to make them see that having lists of users on their forum is a bad idea, but they won't listen. I have reverted them a few times but that hasn't stopped anything, but I won't protect a page I've reverted. Can somebody take a look at it please. Inter\Echo 11:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Our friends at are having drama again. See [10] (request for help from me), [11] (Chadbryant rewriting TruthCrusader's comment on his talk page to make it sound like he called himself a "fat, stupid liar".) silsor 11:24, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've spent some time trying to protect Chadbryant from a string of vandalising sockpuppets, but it must be admitted that his own behaviour can often be just as childish as theirs. The only thing to be said in his defence, I think, is that he limits his silliness to his own User and Talk pages, whereas they extend their vandalism to articles and to his User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that vandalizing his page is childish and he has a right to not have to go through it, however it does NOT take away from the fact that he changed my comments on his user page when all I was trying to do (and quite politely I may add) was inform him that I am NOT one of the trolls he has his flamewar with AND to please stop accusing me of being as such. **NOTE** Ok I have JUST seen he has done it again, changing my comments once more. This time He has me linking myself to some geocities webpage of someone whom I assume is the person he keeps accusing me of being. Really now, perhaps someone needs to talk to him because obviously he thinks he is above the rules. TruthCrusader 08:19, 8 May 2005


DrippingInk (talk · contribs), editing from his account and from various IP addresses, has been persistently changing the titles of songs, albums, etc., and the use of numbers ("1st" for "first", # for "number", etc.) across a range of pop-music articles, from Wikipedia style to his own preference. He hasn't even claimed that his changes reflect the labels' versions of the titles; he simply, stubbornly, and with no other explanation that he thinks he's right, and doesn't care about Wikipedia style, insists on changing them. He has even twice made a copy-and-paste move of an article to its redirect and vice versa in order to pursue this agenda. He has also (again, with no explanation) moved short descriptions of singles from album articles in order to create stubs. He refuses to engage in discussion of most of these issues.

Although I have no interest in the subject matter of the articles concerned, I've now been defending them against this sort of semi-vandalism for long enough that I probably count as involved. Could someone else look at the situation, and deal with his IP-address sock-puppetry and his other behaviour? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

He's also now blanked my user page. Is it unacceptable for me to block a user for vandalism when it was aimed at my page? I assume so, if (as in this case) I've been in conflict with the person in question. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:30, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Blanking someone's userpage isn't acceptable and I won't have a problem with you blocking him for such a blatant vandalism act. Nevertheless, I'll look into the issue myself and block after checking his edits myself. Mgm|(talk) 17:36, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've blocked him for 6 hours for the blanking. Try to get him to discuss and come to an agreement after it expires (feel free to unblock yourself, if you think I'm too harsh). Please, be as specific as you can when quoting rules and policy. Mgm|(talk) 17:49, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I shall certainly try — but he's stated (on my Talk page) that he doesn't care what Wikipedia style is. Still, I suppose that anyone can change. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:48, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I am completely uncertain as to whether Mel is right about what he says is official Wikipedia style. For example, he wants the song "I'm With You" to be called "I'm with You" (lowercase "with"). And I just don't think that looks right, and I suspect the label would recognize the former. Everyking 19:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I kinda agree -- Wikipedia style should take back seat to the actual usage, in the case of titles. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • With in this case seems to fall into a bit of a gray area. Chicago suggests, "...Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length, except when they are stressed (through in A River Runs Through It), ..." In this case, I believe I would capitalize it, just as I capitalize without in U2's "With or Without You". — Knowledge Seeker 19:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
      • The Chicago Manual quote from above, I should point out, says more fully, "3) Lowercase prepositions, regardless of length, except when they are stressed (through in A River Runs Through It), are used adverbially or adjectivially (up in Look Up, down in Turn Down, on in The On Button, or [Latin section omitted]. (Section 8.167, page 367 of the 15th Edition). So something like "Spice Up Your Life" (DrippingInk's version) is preferred to "Spice up Your Life" (Mel's version). It's not vandalism per se as Mel Etitis makes it out to be, though DrippingInk could certainly use some work on his social skills. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • You really think you can block me for long? I have a problem with all your blocks. I dont give a **** about all your styles. Drippinglnk 19:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I blocked the above account for 24 hours for user page vandalism and block evasion (note that this user name has a lowercase L in place of the uppercase I). — Knowledge Seeker 20:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The case of "with" is just one of many, though; he's capitalised "to", "the", etc. in various other titles, as well as insisting on phrases such as "the 1st single reached #2". He also reverted my wikifying of headings which were all-capitalised. (Incidentally, I found a number of sources (including Amazon) that used the "I'm with You" version; Lavigne's own site has no relevant information, astonishingly. No-one has offered the obvious evidence — an album cover with the title in the form insisted upon by DrippingInk.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just blocked him for 24 hours, this time as User: (same edits as before), for block evasion and for leaving an abusive message on Mel's talk page. If anyone feels this is too harsh, feel free to unblock. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
He's still at it, from various IP addresses. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

As a songwriter, musician, recording artist, studio and label owner, I think track titles should be case handled using initial caps. But that's just my uninformed opinion, right, Mel? Adraeus 12:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia[edit]

Three-revert rule violation on Skin Yard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike Garcia (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Chameleon 17:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


  • User keeps on reverting, and refuses to enter into discussion on the matter. Chameleon 17:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 23:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


Cantus, who is limited to one revert per 24 hours (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies), reverted 3 times on Template:Europe.

Reported by: NoPuzzleStranger 01:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 01:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Cantus' tactics or attitude WRT this project, but the ArbCom ruling mentions that he may not revert "articles" more than once a day, and this Template is not an article. If we're willing to interpret the ArbCom ruling to mean that he can't revert "pages", I have quite a few more examples of him recently breaking that ruling. -- Netoholic @ 11:14, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

The template appears in articles therefor to revert it is to revert those articles. The articles/pages isssues can be delt with when the problem appears.Geni 15:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Wal-Mart. User:

Reported by: bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 09:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)



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

Reported by: Geni 16:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


  • straightforward 3RR violationGeni 16:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Geni, I've warned him on his talk page as I feel people should be warned before being blocked. I then went to the page to revert his 4th revert, but since then someone has put forward a compromise version, so I left it. If he reverts again, I'll block him. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This block is an abuse of the policy: the reverts in question are of images (graphs), which can not be reworded (duh). Geni knows this full well, and is trying to silence me because he disagrees with my contributions. Jtdirl has an axe to grind, because he and I have disagreed on unrelated matters. IMHO, Geni and Jtdirl should lose admin privileges, but I'll settle for an immediate unblocking. --Leifern 01:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, User:Jtdirl blocked Leifern even though he'd made no further edits since the warning. I have therefore unblocked him. Leifern, please, no more reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Sure, but how do you deal with deletions of images? As I said, it's not as if I can reword them? --Leifern 01:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:KEITH and associated IPs[edit]

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

Reported by: Worldtraveller 17:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


  • User:SqueakBox and I both warned him about the 3RR on his talk page, but he and various IPs which are clearly him not logged in have repeatedly re-inserted their badly written biased material. Worldtraveller 17:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • He is claiming to be 2 people, one from Canada, one from California, though is obviously a native Spanish speaker. My IP locator locates all anon IP's in Mexico City. I may have inadvertently crossed the 3RR myself by getting muddled up timewise yesterday, and have not touched the page after realising this (if I have I can only apologise), though I believe KEITH has reverted many more times as he has been up against me and worldtraveller. besides the spamming and almost certainly untrue statements combined with the terrible English makes his repeatedly putting in what he does arguably on the verge of vandalism,--SqueakBox 17:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I've warned him on his talk page. I'm not sure there's any point in blocking him right now, as the edits have stopped and he seems to have access to several IP addresses anyway; and Squeakbox, if you also violated it, I'd have to block you too. I can protect it if you like, so let me know if that would help. If he does it again, he'll be blocked. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Greater Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mir Harven (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Dejvid 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


Background: This is part of a long running edit war in which we have been on completely different wavelengths. A 3rd opinion has been requested.Dejvid 19:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Dejvid, judging by a glance at the history, you've violated 3RR too. I think protection would make more sense in this case so you can sort it out on talk. I've put a warning on Mir Harven's talk page, and I'll shortly be doing the same on yours. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:10, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Arcturus 20:31, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


See edit comments and Talk:Jesus

  • In view of Slrubenstein's previous block for 3RR on this page, I have blocked him for 24 hours. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't Slrubenstein's first edit simply count as an edit, and the next three as reverts? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:06, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't see. That last diff makes no sense. El_C 22:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I think he just gave the wrong diff. Here's the final one. [12] SlimVirgin (talk) 22:31, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein's talk page shows he wasn't warned, which he probably should have been. Would anyone mind if, in light of this, I reduced the length of the block? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Fine by me, FWIW. James F. (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. El_C 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
If this was a first offense, I'd agree with reducing the length of the block. Since this is Slrubenstein's 3rd block for violating the 3RR [13], I'm not sure a warning is necessary. Carbonite | Talk 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing he didn't realize he'd violated it. If he'd been warned, he'd have had a chance to revert himself and avoid the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Well perhaps he will learn to be more careful in future past experiance suggests he wont but that isn't my problemGeni 23:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this is yet another bad-faith 3RR report that was not properly investigated. After reading the talk page, it appears that Slrubenstein was reverting based on talk-page consensus, while Arcturus, who reported this "violation," kept inserting the unsupported version. The dispute is, in fact, currently listed on WP:RFC. Given that, I think it's a terribly bad idea for any of the participants to be blocked. There can't be discussion if Slrubenstein is sitting out a 3RR block. Mackensen (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclined to significantly reduce the block. Does anyone explicitly object to this? El_C 23:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd unblock him altogether, but then I only support 3RR blocks in the case of pointless POV revert-warring (when both sides are composed of POV-pushers). In this case, Slrubenstein appears to have the support of talk page consensus, and frankly makes a good case. Academics are moving towards using only CE/BCE, although no body, to my knowledge, has mandated such a change. It wouldn't surprise me if Common Era notation became the standard within a generation. Mackensen (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly, though strictly speaking admins are not supposed to look at content issues regarding 3RR, but I think a warning on SLR's talk page would have helped, particularly as he was upholding the consensus. Brief page proection would have made more sense in this instance. I'm going to unblock him early unless anyone explicitly objects, but I'll leave it a few more hours, as I take on board the points made above that he's been blocked before. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:57, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein's block must last for the full 24 hours. If any of his little friends unblocks him before that time, I shall complain about that abuse of admin powers. Chameleon 00:09, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I've reduced the block to three hours from now, which means he'll have been blocked for six. This is twice the length of the last block he got from Geni. I'm doing this on the grounds that he's a good editor who was upholding the consensus of the talk page; he probably didn't realize he'd made a fourth revert, and because he wasn't warned, he wasn't given a chance to revert himself. If anyone strongly disagrees with me, feel free to reblock. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Very childish of you to reduce the block because you were told not to. Chameleon 00:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
This is silly. I'm going to remove the block, because it is evidently being used to punish actions rather than to prevent them re-occurring, which is vastly against the spirit of the 3RR policy, and it is obvious that prevention of further problems are best furthered at this point by encouraging the participants to discuss things.
Chameleon: Please, complain away, do. If I'm one of SLR's "little friends", I'd hate to meet one of his less favourable aquaintances. If my actions turn out to have been "abuse", I'm more than happy to apologise for and change them, but let's see, rather than just have idle threats poised above our heads, Sword of Damocles-like? James F. (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly why we need an effective de-adminning process. There was nothing idle about my firm warning. Chameleon 00:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Mackensen's point, and I support James F.'s unblocking of SlR. I see no point in (and I actually find it counter-productive to) always follow the letter of that rule; I maintain that James F.'s actions followed its spirit. El_C 01:56, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello all - I was participating in the talk page with this user and his reversions WERE a problem. I made a polite but firm suggestion to him on the talk page that he was violating the 3RR rule. I found his behavior unnecessarily combative and generally dismissive of any opinions that did not coincide with his own. Rangerdude 00:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Rangerdude. Can you please point me to your "a polite but firm suggestion to him on the talk page that he was violating the 3RR rule" ? Thanks. El_C 02:20, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
[14] Grace Note 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
First, that warning from Rangerdude is timed at 20:01 and Slrubenstein made no edits to Jesus after that, so far I can see. Also, the diff for Rangerdude's comment doesn't include the warning, unless I'm missing something. [15] SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Rangerdude inserted that warning into his 20:01 comment at 20:34, after Arcturus had reported Slrubenstein for 3RR. [16] SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please point to the part of the policy that suggests it's okay to revert-war if you are "upholding consensus"? Slrubinstein has a history of revert-warring. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but suggesting he doesn't know what he's doing is a bit silly, frankly. And the point, El C, is that admins are evenhanded. They shouldn't give a pass to their friends. Doing so encourages some editors to feel they are "protected" and can revert to their heart's content. Surely you don't want to encourage that notion? Grace Note 03:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The point? The point of what, Grance Note? If you think favouratism was a factor in my position, then I think you're wrong. if you think I face the risk of leaving that impression, then so be it. While I would, in that case, attempt to answer such charges, what I refuse, however, to do is uninvolve myself administratively with people whom I have a positive collegial relationship with. Unironically, I feel that extends to you as well (that is, we have a positive collegial relationship). And for that matter, people whom I have a poor one with. As for what actually comes to my attention (I can only act on what I'm privy to), in this case, a direct request for assistance from SR, that might seem like an important factor (it is on the perception end of it), but I'm confident that it has no bearing on my objectivity here. If you disagree with that, if you think I wasn't being evenhanded, I welcome your input on any 'specific' item. Corruption is something that I oppose very strongly, but I could not give a flying seaturtle about political-correctness (which is, irnoically, one factor listed in the AD/CE debate; there, as well, I don't think it should be one – the basis should be the critical scholarship of that specific field/s). El_C 07:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, the thing is, Slrubenstein has a history of revert-warring against POV-pushers. This isn't necessarily a good thing, but I for one look favorably on users who try to uphold consensus and who push for academic integrity (in this, I refer to the long struggle against CheeseDreams). Wikipedia isn't just an exercise in democracy, anarchy, or even (sadly) aristocracy, but an attempt to make an encyclopedia. If we fetishize policy we risk losing sight that policy was made to protect the encyclopedia, not the other way round. Mackensen (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I'm not asking you to "fetishise" policy, just to point out where "revert-warring against POV-pushers" (which in itself is pushing a POV, of course, we all have POVs!) is encouraged. I looked at the page. I don't actually see a "consensus". I see a majority and some dissenters. Unless you are defining "POV pusher" as someone who does not accord with the majority view -- and I sincerely hope you are not -- I don't see how Slrubenstein is excluded from the rule on reverting, professorship or otherwise. If he is pushing the majority view, he has even less reason to revert more than three times because he can be sure other editors will back him up. I'm sure Slrubenstein is a good editor, who does try to insert POVs that are supported by research, but he's inclined to get carried away. A block is a gentle reminder not to do that. Unblocking him, and the defence of his behaviour here, supports behaviour that I think should be discouraged as detrimental to making the encyclopaedia. Grace Note 04:41, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, I read through the talk page, and my impression was that the majority had actual reasons for their position–reasons that made sense–while the dissenters were just that--dissenters. They had no justification that I could discern, they just didn't want the CE/BCE. Now, I personally don't care either way; I've used both in papers depending on how I was feeling. I mean, when the point of change is still the purported birth of Jesus a simple renaming doesn't reduce the Judeo-Christian centric nature of the calendar. That said, if a majority makes a good case for one or the other in the absence of actual policy it should be supported. Repeatedly changing the article and acting as though there's no consensus is disruptive. There's a reason the other editors would back him up. I don't find a 24-hour block, or even a 6-hour block, a gentle reminder. Rather, it moves an important participant from the debate. I'd rather see the page protected. Mackensen (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
It remains the case that a majority, however well they argue their case, does not represent a "consensus". I don't believe that either side made a particularly good case. I personally don't like CE but I wouldn't change it if I saw it. You are right that repeatedly changing the article is disruptive. It's disruptive whether you are in the majority or not, and whether you argue your case well or not. The rule against revert-warring is valuable and should be supported, not just in cases where those we don't agree with breach it. Grace Note 05:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Rules apparently mean nothing at Wikipedia. It's who you know and who knows you. Don't call it a clique or cabal because that might violate the rule against personal attacks - unless of course you are one of the "in-crowd". Then you can violate any rules you wish because your friends will always be there to help make excuses for you, revert for you, unblock you, vote for your adminship, and generally cover for you. This isn't an encyclopedia project, it's a conspiracy of dunces. --MD2020 03:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello there and welcome to Wikipedia. I see this is your second edit, thus I'll safely assume you're either a very new user or a sockpuppet. I'll be kind and assume the former. I've never been invited to join the cabal, despite being an administrator for over half a year and an editor for close to two years. It was only a few months ago that we made the 3RR enforceable by blocking, and even then it was only an option. No administrator is required to block anyone, and I know some do not on principle. In this case, several administrators looked at the matter and decided there was no point in blocking Slrubinstein (who, incidentally, has PhD and is generally not looked upon as a dunce). Wikipedia is emphatically not an experiment in anarchy; we reward those who contribute to the project. If administrators are granted more leeway than new users, and they are, it is because they have demonstrated in the eyes of the community that they can actually make themselves useful. I'm sorry if you find this system unfair, but it is what it is. If you really think the system is hopelessly corrupt, within thirty minutes of creating an account, I'd encourage you to go elsewhere, because you're obviously too pure to help us dunces write our cabal-opedia. If, on the other hand, you think we can be saved, I'd suggest that you write some articles or add to existing ones, and show by example how to be a good wikipedian. Best of luck, Mackensen (talk) 04:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't realize that a PhD (woopdie doo) gave editors the right to violate the rules of Wikipedia. Oink Oink. What next? An MD gives you the right to vandalize pages? --MD2020 04:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who has principles. Or, at least, the ability to conduct a civil conversation. Anyway, a PhD doesn't grant one the right to break the rules, no, but it does generally entitle someone to the benefit of the doubt when facts are involved. Seeing as Steve Rubinstein is an associate professor, we assume he isn't a mere dunce like some undergraduates I know. That being said, you've overlooked the point of my post. Given your newness here, I'm rather surprised that you've such a chip on your shoulder. Mackensen (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Your unpunished personal attacks on me are duly noted as are your excuses for Wikipedia's cliquish bias. The two are no doubt related. --MD2020 04:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I feel compelled to comment here as that was hardly any sort of attack: Mackensen's reply is a perfectly reasonable reply to your unreasonable provocation. We ask people on wikipedia to be polite but we don't ask them to be robots. If you wish to avoid harsh words you are going to have to avoid dishing them out. As far as following rules goes, at wikipedia we have come together to make an encyclopedia. Rules can help facilitate that goal, but they can also distract from that goal. As a community we have the good judgment to decide how to apply the rules, as we wrote the rules in the first place. Ideally we'd like those who edit in good faith to never need to be aware of any of our rules. There are certainly flaws in our procedures here, but you've picked a particularly poor example. --Gmaxwell 04:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I think I can be forgiven for calling your previous post uncivil. In any event, if you really find my conduct so abominable, then by all means open a RfC against me. I make no apologies for my remarks or for my "excuses for Wikipedia's cliquish bias." And I doubt very much they're related, given the torrent of abuse I've endured from angry revert-warriors who disliked being reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Never mind, I thought I was corresponding with someone possessing half a brain. --MD2020 04:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I can't imagine what gave you that impression. Moving right along, I'd like to remind you that this page is meant for discussing the three-revert rule, not speculating on the relative mental capacities (or lack thereof) of various wikipedians. If you have a beef with me I suggest you open an RfC. That's really the best place for it. Otherwise, I'd have to ask that you return to a discussion of the dispute on Jesus, which you, thus far, have singularly failed to mention. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I was right the first time when I noted the conspiracy of dunces, which by the way was not a personal attack, it was an indictment of Wikipedia as a whole. You, on the other hand, engaged in a very personal attack on me and my integrity. "I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who has principles." So you are the violator. I am not interested in the Jesus article, I am interested in the bias that has turned this egalitarian enyclopedia project into a sordid game of inequality, bias, cliquishness, hypocrisy, and abuse of power. It's like watching a large turd circling the bowl just before the final flush.--MD2020 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
So, you aren't interested in contributing to articles? That strikes me as an odd position if you're joining a project whose express purpose is to create an encyclopedia. I suggest you travel over to the Village Pump if you wish to propose policy. If you trul think I've been engaging in personal attacks, I again recommend you to the RfC page. Perhaps questioning your principles went a bit far, but I was unsure of what to make of a user who complains about cliques and then mocks the person who tries to answer. This seemed to me an odd way to respond, and I could only conclude your principles were in abeyance. I apologize if this conclusion did not please you. More to the point, if your remark about a conspiracy of dunces was meant for Wikipedia is a whole then you actually just attacked several thousand users, not just a dozen or so. Either way, I'm somewhat offended, but I'd be happy to ignore it if it would help us deal with the matter at hand, which I believe is the Jesus article. Best, Mackensen (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
You're jumping to that conclusion without all the facts. I've unblocked or reduced the blocks of a few editors in the last day or so, either because they weren't warned properly or because they e-mailed me to say they'd stop the reverting or vandalism, and they were mostly editors I didn't know, not friends. You shouldn't judge people based on one isolated case. Slrubenstein almost certainly made a mistake here. He wasn't warned and therefore didn't realize, and was blocked before he had a chance to revert himself. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Your bias against some editors and in favor of others is quite apparent from your block log [17] and this doesn't even include the blocks authorized by your pals on your behalf. Either the rules of Wikipedia should be applied equally to all or we just accept a slippery slope where some editors are "more equal" than others. --MD2020 04:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

MD2020, I think I speak for everyone when I say that you should quit while you still can. If you keep this up, you'll end up being blocked... and no, I am NOT an administrator, just somebody who happens to know about the rule against personal attacks upon other users. --Chanting Fox 04:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you feel compelled to warn Mackensen for his personal attack against me, "I'm sorry, I thought I was speaking with someone who has principles."? I was just repeating his own attacks back to him in the same vein. --MD2020 04:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. Those who profess to edit war to uphold consensus, and those who excuse them, drag the rest of us into the mud. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, as evidenced by the way I voted during my tenure on the Arbitration Committee, but we are dealing here with consequences of edit warring and our principles as regards to how to deal with it, rather than our principles as to whether ideally we'd like to be in this situation at all. In that regard, the point is to discuss what is happening and fix it. We don't do punishment here, even for 3RR, whatever some elements seem to think.
For the 'record', I strongly disagree with the POV that SLR was pushing which he seemed to believe was consensus - I find "CE/BCE" quite a vile thinly-disguised attempt at hiding cultural imperialism, rather than recognising it, but never mind. *sighs* Evidently I'm just another evil sysop, intent on laying waste to Wikipedia society and our social norms.
James F. (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I reported User:Slrubenstein in the first place. I haven't yet read all of the above but personally I'm happy for him to be unblocked immediately. Arcturus 17:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. RickK 17:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As the original blocking admin, I feel I should add my thoughts to this. When I first saw this, I was inclined to just warn. I actually got as far as SLR's talk page to do that, when I saw Dante's comment further up about a previous 3RR block. On further investigation, finding that he had previously been blocked twice for the same offence (3RR), I thought a 24 hour block was in order and appropriate. I would not have done so otherwise. Whether or not it was by community consensus, 3RR is what it says on the tin, to coin a phrase: a rule. SLR broke the rule, whether deliberately or not. I, too, obeyed the rule, which is there for a purpose. On the other hand, I have no problem with his unblocking: I would have done it myself, had SLR contacted me (which he didn't). I certainly think the RFAr is ridiculous and totally OTT. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 19:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade[edit]

Sam Spade is biting newbies: [18] 22:23, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Jack bites everybody. You just have to ignore him. RickK 04:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Anyone who is engaged in edit disputes, and knows the phrase "bite the newbies" is not a newbie, if you ask me. Certainly not after 3 months. Gotta love Sam's "So in summary, if my edits arn't constructive, God help the project" though :o) dab () 10:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Amerinese/BlueSunRed/ sockpuppetry again[edit]

In the Instantnood case before the arb com, there's been a fair bit of sockpuppetry on the polls relating to the case in evidence. The same person running User:Amerinese was running User:BlueSunRed and coming from IP (a dorm IP at CUNY) claiming to be yet another different person. I've blocked all of these with a note to email me concerning which is the real account. (If any - I strongly suspect Amerinese was created as a sockpuppet by someone else.) Please don't unblock either of these or the IP - I want to see what they have to say for themselves - David Gerard 22:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC) (talk · contribs) is in the same subnet and made his/her first edit today on China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where (talk · contribs) had been very active before. --MarkSweep 03:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Blocked the /24 - David Gerard 07:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Have you got any proof that they are sockpuppets and not just several people sharing a computer? Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The congruent editing style and point of view is why we bothered looking. Please don't unblock until I hear one of them actually email me making a plausible claim of such - so far I've had none - David Gerard 17:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (talk · contribs) seems to have taken over. --MarkSweep 02:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
HisOwnMom (talk · contribs) shows an unusual interest in controversial topics in his first couple of edits. --MarkSweep 22:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
That's actually User:DINGBAT et al (possibly a separate sockpuppet set) - David Gerard 14:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, that actually suggests that the DINGBAT socks and the Amerinese socks may be related. On List of national flags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we see User:50Stars (a DINGBAT sock) revert warring for a week in April, then after 50Star gets blocked User: (aka Amerinese) takes over for a bit, and after that subnet gets blocked User:HisOwnMom (another DINGBAT sock) takes the baton. --MarkSweep 01:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Attention needed[edit]

Could someone sort out all the other requests on the 3RR page? Normaly I would but I'm a bit busy and one of them I can't do anyway.Geni 00:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Yuber(talk) 02:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Has reverted 4 times, he is also the new username of banned user El Kabong [23]

BULLSHIT. I am not ElKabong. Stop lying, whoever introduced that edit.
---Ah. jpgordon, the Power-Abusing Admin. Go figure. KaintheScion 02:25, 9 May 2005
User:Yuber has reverted the article four times as well, was already reported on Vandalism reports for trying to introduce nonfactual information into the article repeatedly. User:KaintheScion 02:20, 9 May 2005

These two have been at it for three to four days according to the edit history of the article. Most of the edits during that time period are by either Yuber or Kain, responding to edits by the other to the article. I may not have been around as long as Yuber has, but I believe this is why they have the arbitration process. As stated above, the most recent development has been a vandalism report by Kain... a clear sign that things are getting out of hand IMHO. --Chanting Fox 02:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Chanting Fox, I specifically warned Yuber that I would report him as well as noting in my edits when I was removing his vandalism from the page. Introducing false and inaccurate information into Wikipedia IS vandalism, and Yuber is guilty, REPEATELY both in his re-edits and in his Reversions. KaintheScion 02:28, 9 May 2005
Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I doubt Yuber thinks he info is "false and inaccurate", and if not, his edits are not vandalism as we define it. Noel (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Please provide proof of my four reverts, thanksYuber(talk) 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

KaintheScion 02:25, 9 May 2005
THERE YOU GO, YUBER. KaintheScion 02:26, 9 May 2005
Yuber, the links you provided don't show the exact diffs of the reverts. However, looking at the history, it seems there's been reverting on both sides. I've warned KaintheScion, and if he reverts again, he'll be blocked. In the meantime, please thrash out the issues on the talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I've actually taken steps to compromise and have included almost all of his information. He has just reverted plain and simple, not to mention engaging in many personal attacks.Yuber(talk) 02:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked KaintheScion for 24 hours and protected the page. I have also referred the dispute to RfC.--nixie 02:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Peta, can I ask why you blocked KaintheScion? He made no further edits after the warning, you protected the page so he can't revert it again now anyway, and Yuber also looks as though he violated 3RR. Shouldn't we either protect or block? I don't see the point in both, as blocking for 3RR is meant to prevent revert wars and not be a punishment. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
Given the abusive nature of KaintheScions contributions on talk pages and via email, I thought it woulld be better block him for 24 hours in addition to protecting the page so that he could cool off and come back and act like a civil editor tomorrow. --nixie 02:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
But I see you have unblocked him, have fun --nixie 02:48, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree about the abuse. I blocked him myself yesterday and was on the receiving end of it. I'm hoping that showing some good faith might get some back. Watch this space. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
This is the second time in the same day that SlimVirgin has unblocked someone blocked by a fellow admin for a 3RR. Perhaps SlimVirgin should better try to respect the opinions of his fellow admins. Just a thought.Yuber(talk) 03:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
It's good practice to warn editors before blocking them for 3RR, especially if they're relatively new. If he does it again, he'll be blocked, don't worry. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:11, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
He knows his way around a little too well for me to believe that he is a new editor--nixie 03:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Funny, I warned Yuber about his vandalism before reporting him, not that it mattered to Petaholmes. Ban first, ask questions later, the motto of the admin drunk on his own power. KaintheScion 03:26, 9 May 2005
Petaholmes was right to block you, but possibly didn't notice that I'd only just warned you, which is the reason I unblocked you. Try to settle into a more constructive editing style. No one's out to get you. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:24, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
If the admins here were as "drunk on .. power" as you claim they are, you'd have been banned permanently long ago. Noel (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Give it time! I have the feeling his next permanent ban won't be his first. Grace Note 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

User:[edit] (talk · contribs) is on a rampage to delete all Star Wars articles. RickK 06:43, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


  • 18:49, 8 May 2005 AndyL blocked "User:AndyL" with an expiry time of 6 weeks (need to focus on work)

From WP:BAN "Sysops should not block themselves (to enforce a "vacation" on themselves, for instance) because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users.". Sjakkalle 11:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Who writes this stuff? It should read "unless they know what they're doing". silsor 13:34, May 9, 2005 (UTC)


I'd like to call attention to this posting in the voting section. This has gone over and beyond defamatory, and is causing me great pains in both my business and professional life. User "Pacian" continues to post unfounded information about my character and business. Lewd comments at that.... I've also been advised that user "Pacian" is "Easter Bradford". May I call attention to posts archived in Google which reveal the Mr. Bradford has tried to sue Wikipedia, because someone put something in his posts that he didn't like...

This user is trying to use my fame for his own motives, and is making up lies and trying to do his best to cause me problems. I'm not exactly sure who he is, but he has reached Celebrity Stalker levels.

Our only issue is with his posting and comments. The Wikipedia community seems to be behaving on the posting at large and actually editing the article to it's truthful state.TrailerParkRep 14:09, 9 May 2005

Your complaints might have more support if you didn't continue to vandalize VfD pages. RickK 16:04, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I've said before we had posted the first message, then got banned. We awaited unbanning to post our rebuttal, which we have and an apology as advised by one of your ops that we contacted. I have many fans all over the world that I can't be responsible for. User:trailerparkfan (posting as 19:12, 9 May 2005)

We're supposed to believe that all of those anons are just overzealous fans? Uhhuh. RickK 23:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Unjustified VFD's[edit]

There are two (in my opinion) unjustified VFD's I would like to call to the group's attention:

RickK has accused me of being Iasson and put my articles up for VFD. Some explanation is in order. Since wiki policy forbids blocking except for vandalism and similar offenses, sometimes I must provoke blocks in order to enforce a wiki-vacation. However, it is easily provable that I am the same user as Rad Racer, SonicSynergy, the creator of these two articles, et al. I am in fact leaving the wiki within the next two weeks.

Significant edits to provide both points of view have been made to the latter, and the title of the former is the actual official title of the treaty, which played an important role in the development of the global drug control regime. Ultimately, I think both meet the minimum standards for Wikipedia articles to be kept. I request users (primarily sysops) who voted in these decisions to re-vote.

Time for another wiki-vacation. 16:35, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

what silly article titles! dab () 17:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

::I agree, but might as well keep the articles, on second thought. At the most, a move and redirect would be in order. I just got a little hasty in putting them up for VFD. It won't happen again. RicK K 17:36, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I did NOT write that. RickK 17:40, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
It's okay, I forgive you. What matters is that you've had a change of heart. You're still my favorite sysop. 17:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I accused this user of being Iasson was because of this edit and this one. RickK 17:58, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Good snag, but I think it's an imposter. The language is a little too obvious, and the real Iasson knows perfectly well that his List of Active Vfd Voters was deleted quite some time ago. Displaying the same behaviour as a banned user, even if one isn't that user, might be grounds for blocking, though. --Deathphoenix 18:33, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Impersonating other users is a blocking offense, regardless of who they are impersonating. Acting in the same way as a banned is user is likely to get them banned, as someone said on here about one of the last-but-one wave of Iasson sockpuppets - If someone complains that they get blocked for behaving like someone who is blocked/banned then the apropriate response is "Well don't do that then". Thryduulf 20:57, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
But what if they behave like a banned user in a good way? Banned users are not one-dimensional. Are you saying we should discourage good contributions if they are similar to good contributions made by a banned user? Everyking 21:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
As I said when this came up last time, if they are making good contributions to the encylopaedia who cares if they do it in the style of you, me, Jimbo or whoever. If they are getting greif because of a similar username, then we can politely suggest a different may be apropriate. Thryduulf 22:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
The problem with that is that the "well don't do that then" logic doesn't apply in cases where a person is banned on account of being a previously banned user but had only been making good edits. Certainly people fall into this category; Wik/Gzorn...(I've forgotten already) springs to mind. So while we might ban someone for being a previously banned user, we can't necessarily discourage them from making whatever specific kinds of edits they were making. Everyking 23:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

RickK, why would you insist on editing logged out?? This is like a a Venetian masquerade. Of course we can still tell which anon is you, but this would be so much more straightforward if you'd just log in(?) dab () 22:32, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I can't log in from the computer I use during the day. RickK 23:46, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User:RicK K[edit]

Will somebody please block this user as an imposter? RickK 17:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. Meelar (talk) 17:47, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

User: and User:[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Dewet 22:28, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


  • This user has been pushing his POV over a period of days now.

Formal statement of User: / User:[edit]

NOTICE: I am delivering this statement on behalf of the user User: / User:, who is currently blocked/autoblocked on both of his IPs.

Greetings. It is my intent here to explain my recent activity, which may shed some light on what is happening right now atWikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Assumption_by_Russia_of_the_Soviet_Union's_seat_in_the_United_Nations and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Protocol_Amending_the_Agreements, thus providing some useful information to those who are investigating the matter.
Many times, I have performed vandalism on the Wiki (typically user page vandalism) for the purpose of provoking a block to enforce a wiki-vacation. The vandalism was intentionally designed to be easily detected and reversible. While frowned on (and indeed, in violation of policy), this is not a particularly uncommon practice.
At example was the inclusionist rant under the pen name "Colonel Gazpacho" (not to be confused with User:Gazpacho) which I posted at various user pages. In addition to fulfilling its purpose of provoking a block, it also stimulated speculation as to whether I am Iasson. Noting the speculation, the next time I decided to take a block-enforced wiki-vacation, I impersonated Iasson at the VFD.
While this did indeed provoke a block from RickK, I failed to account for the possibility that he would put my articles up for VFD, ostensibly in accordance with the policy that banned users' contributions may be reverted. His doing so made it necessary to take measures to disprove my association with Iasson, in order to preserve the articles; however, users were understandably skeptical. Due to another block, I have not been able to fully communicate that explanation to you until now.
I recommend that users evaluate the articles based on their own merits, and not on my supposed connection to Iasson. I see little purpose in deviating from the normal VFD policy, unless it is out of spite. Judge me on my actions, but judge the articles on their merits.
On the matter of User:Tparker393: He is a friend and infrequent Wikipedia contributor who I sometimes call on for help when I need an ally here. He occasionally forgets to login or sign his posts, which has caused some confusion at VFD. However, we are two separate people and do not share accounts.
In the future, I will, no doubt, avoid impersonation in favor of simple vandalism when a block-enforced wiki-vacation is desired. This should avoid the unintended problem of legitimate articles being VFD'ed due to an incorrect association with hard-banned users. That is all.

NOTICE: This communication has been delivered on behalf of User: / User: and I am not responsible for its contents. 01:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I hereby certify the authenticity of this statement. 09:20, 10 May 2005 (UTC) 12:55, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Seriously? I mean, are you saying it is "not uncommon" that we are kept on our toes by people who simply wish an "enforced wiki-vacation"? If this is the case, we'll have to offer the service of "blocking on demand", this will cause so much less collateral damage. dab () 01:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, see Wikipedia:Block on demand. 23:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I may be able to cast a little light on this. It should be seen in the context of the contribs of the signing IP 216, whose most recent (and 3rd) contrib is the one on this page that we're discussing. The second, 4 hours earlier, was the vandalism of my ... user page(!) (such vnd'sm being an activity attrib'ed above to "205/24"). (Now, i didn't say i'd make sense of the thing, but the common theme must have some sort of significance.) That vnd'sm by the mere truth-and-light-supporting messenger 216 came 8 minutes after my edit on one of the VfD's mentioned, which i summarized "Document hiding of IPannotation & whodunit info", and where i added the info that two items, one of which (a keep vote) bore Tparker393's purported sig, were from edits by User: (not mentioned above), and 11 minutes before Tparker393's acct reverted my edit, hiding the evidence of the entry's origin but implicitly claiming that Parker and 159 are one, in contrast to 216's rage at its revelation and Parker's effort to hide it. Also interestingly, the attribution of the vote to Parker was made by the above messenger IP, 216, a few hours earlier the same evening, before i blocked Parker for 12 hours, and thus when Parker didn't need 216 to make the claim on his behalf. Someone else might want to explore why the 159/Parker connection is worth all this fuss.
    • Tommy's edit was not to hide the accusation of linkage but rather to put his signature there which he forgot (or restore a deleted message or signature of his; I don't remember). However, he botched it by also eliminating your comment, in reverting back to the previous history entirely. We have been emailing extensively about these matters so I know what's going on here. Remember Hanlon's Razor. There has been no forgery going on at the VFD that I know of (other than the RicK K thing) and neither Tommy nor I use sockpuppets (although we both have a tendency to not login). He and I both have a few different locations we go to and from during the day, which explains the different IP addresses. You can get a developer to confirm all this if you want. Tommy and I are several hours' drive apart, which can be confirmed by an IP lookup (whois, as it were). 09:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
In any case, if there is any truth to what 216 has posted, it is like Richard Nixon's "modified limited [letting it all] hang out"; let me know if you take it at anything like face value, and we can talk bridge investments.
--Jerzy~t 05:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if this person feels the need to commit vandalism in order to get blocked for a mini-vacation, we could accomodate him by blocking him permanently. RickK 19:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Might as well. It's the only way to bring a stop to this atrocious behaviour. 23:45, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

During his ArbCom case it was Iasson's MO to play his aliases against each other to produce the illusion that they were not him, despite their characteristic disruptive edits. This is just more of the same. I was one of the first users to admonish Iasson about his VfD trolling and presented evidence against him to ArbCom, so it's plausible that he would hold a grudge and try to sow confusion as to whether I'm one of his aliases. I regret having made it easier for him by posting a joke vote in VfD when he reappeared. Iasson's bans should be reset and recognizable aliases should be reverted/deleted on sight in accordance with Wikipedia:Banning policy. Gazpacho 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was just a coincidence. I chose the name "Colonel Gazpacho" because I like to eat gazpacho and, more importantly, "Gazpacho" sounded like the name of a South American warlord. In fact, when I saw your user name cropping up, I thought that you had borrowed the idea from me. As for the alias thing, I have had various aliases (User:Rad Racer, User:SonicSynergy, etc) but never used more than one at a time, that I can recall. I typically scramble the password and move on to another one. 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
One other thing, what's the standard for what is a "recognizable alias"? It's been documented that most requests for confirmation of sockpuppets submitted to developers turned out to be mistaken, and that would be the result if you referred the Iasson/me or me/tparker393 matters to them as well. So, watch out that you don't hit innocent bystanders in your attempt to liquidate the enemy. 01:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This is almost definitely Iasson; check out [28] and [29]. Reverted on sight, thank Gd. Nickptar 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt it. This guy can actually write coherent sentences, and doesn't employ (near as I can tell) any of Iasson's obvious rhetorical quirks nor display Iasson's specific grammatical weak points. This is quite apart from whether he should be granted his wish to be blocked permanently ("Stop me before I edit again!"). --Calton | Talk 01:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is the reason for why I have requested input on my proposed policy change at Wikipedia:Block on demand. I am attempting to change the policy through an orderly process, although that is not to say I will not also seek temporary blocks. Sysops are, of course, permitted to block for a month, and I would not object, but do what you want. I will continue to coach my friend Tommy and teach him the ways of the wiki by email, as long as the VFD he is working on, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jeffrey W. Parker, is in progress. But that's another matter. 01:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I do kind of see what you mean - his sentence structure kind of reminds me of Iasson, but sometimes doesn't (the VfD posts I cited would be an example of "doesn't"). It's just hard to imagine why anybody else would want to dictate VfD policy in an eerily-similar way. Nickptar 02:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, sure, I'll pretend that I don't believe this user is Iasson for the time being. Gazpacho 06:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Levzur has returned[edit]

For those who may not know, Levzur was an editor who had a case before the ArbCom 6-8 months ago, where he was facing a one-year ban for, abusive behavior to other contributors about articles related to the Republic of Georgia. Apparently he assumed that he would, indeed, be placed under a ban & announced that he was leaving Wikipedia for good, & the ArbCom closed the case, deciding the matter was now moot.

About a week ago, I stumbled upon the fact that he had returned; concerned, I would take a periodic glance at his contributions, but he had not done anything worth mentioning ... until a week ago, when he added the following here [30]. I left a note on his talk page about his behavior [31] -- which he did not answer, but he did appear a little more subdued for a while (& was productively working on getting one of his articles accepted as a Featured Article). However, tonight I found this exchange [32], where he behaves quite inexcusably to another contributor.

So, should he just suffer a ban for personal attacks, or should we just cut to the chase & ask the ArbCom to re-open his old case? -- llywrch 03:49, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the subject, but he's done a pretty good job on Democratic Republic of Georgia. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while, I'd say give him a second chance and let it slide. He seems to be capable of quality work, if the above example is any guide. Everyking 09:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think the note left on his talk page was unnecessarily threatening. Everyking 09:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
For once I agree with Everyking about the note on the talk page. For the moment I'd subject him to normal penalties for personal attacks, but make it clear that if he continues (say if he receives 3 separate blocks) then the ArbCom will be asked to reopen his case. Thryduulf 11:59, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
How would you have phrased it, then? I'm not being snide: I'm just asking for a hint or two to use the next time I'm faced with a situation like this. (And I was trying to dial down my tone.) -- llywrch 17:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

How about some perspective on the incident where he behaves quite inexcusably to another contributor? Two people are arguing over a point of Georgian demography. One of them, Levzur, is a "Georgian historian and politologist" with a "PhD in History", the other,