Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive2

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: January 6, 2005 - January 14, 2005


Fvw[edit]

User:Fvw is reverting the insertion of a CBC News documentary about Dick Cheney without discussion because it reflects negatively on Cheney. Block this user for violating the three revert rule. GWB 15:48, 6 Jan 2005.

I've reverted it just as I've reverted the rest of your vandalism spree. The link is an ad for a TV show, and is entirely not useful for the article. If you're going to contend it's a serious edit though, as opposed to your other edits, I'll leave it for someone else to revert the fourth time. --fvw* 15:52, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
I did not go on a vandalism spree. Okay, maybe on Ashcroft. But the Bush pic was real. President George W. Bush 15:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Another admin blocked them for a 3RR violation - I documented their 3RR violation on their talk page. Noel (talk) 18:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Noel's comment is about User:George W. Bush. I'm still at large and causing trouble wherever I go. ;-) --fvw* 23:56, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)


Request for User Name Review[edit]

I believe that it is unlikely that President George W. Bush is in fact the President George W. Bush we all know and love.

I am no expert but I believe the user name is in violation of the name policy. Could someone please review this.

Libertas 16:32, 6 Jan 2005

there is an RFC section for name disputes. Michael Ward 19:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This requires no such thing. Names which mimic famous living persons are not permitted, see Wikipedia:Username. I've asked him on his user talk page to change his name. If he doesn't I'll block him. Fred Bauder 20:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I believe there is a lot of opinions on both sides of that. I'm not sure that the clause on Wikipedia:Username really was debated. At best, that page says this user's name is "Inappropriate", but does not fit the criteria for "on the spot" blocking per the Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Usernames. This is afterall, the reason we have an RFC process for usernames. We have several long-standing editors which choose names based on real people, so each case should be handled via community discussion. -- Netoholic @ 20:25, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
I believe it's within Fred's discretion as an admin to block the user if he believes him to be violating the policy in question. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As it is mine to point out that it may be better discretion to review the policy pages. Sure, this particular user seems to have some bad intent, but what if someone makes good edits as User:CharlesManson, and gets blocked because some admin remembers this thread. Go after behavior and intent, not just some arbitrary, knee-jerk response to the username. -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
I concur. on-the-spot blocking is for users who disrupt Wikipedia. People with funny Usernames can be discussed case-by-case on RFC. dab () 09:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also concur with these opinions. Filiocht 09:26, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, in the context of him labeling the Attorney-General a Nazi, the President, Vice-President and Secretary of Defense "asses of evil", I agree his behavior and intent warrant him changing his user name or in the alternate being obliged to do so. Libertas
if he disrupts, block him for disruption, not for his username. He may change his name and still call people asses, there is no direct connection. Really, file an rfc about his username, and come back here when he breaks the 3RR or something. dab () 10:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the policy involved, from Wikipedia:Username, is "No deliberately confusing usernames: usernames designed to cause confusion with other contributors, famous figures (living or recently deceased), or features of the software." Yet Netoholic says this policy was not really debated, and thus not enforceable policy except through a cumbersome RFC procedure. So the interesting question is: how would any administrator know what to do? Fred Bauder 11:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

according to what I know, on one hand we have rfc-able policies, like npov, civility, usernames etc., which eventually (arbcom) may lead to blocks. on the other hand, we have offences that are blockable on the spot: vandalism, 3RR, disruption. You cannot block someone because you don't like his/her username any more than you can block someone for a pov edit. This is no endorsement of this username, of course. I do believe s/he will be forced to pick a new name pretty quickly, if someone lists the case on rfc. dab () 11:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the section Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Usernames was cited. It seems to contemplate, but not require a RfC (the discussion could take place on the User talk page of the user). At User_talk:President_George_W._Bush there is some discussion but no response by the user. This discussion here would serve, I suppose, if the name itself had been the subject of discussion, but we talked about procedure. I guess the short answer is that User:Libertas, who brought this matter to our attention, should have started a RfC rather than coming here or, having brought up the matter here, advised to do a RfC. So would User Libertas or any other interested party please do an RfC? If no one else is available, you may notify me following completion of the RfC and we will go from there. Fred Bauder 12:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

I apologize, I was once again lecturing without proper knowledge of blocking policy. It appears that you may indeed block offensive usernames without much decorum. However, I suppose this is intended for crudely obscene, racist, anti-semitic, or similar, slurs. GWB's name may be regarded as an obscenity in itself by some people, but it is not a clear case, and it does not disrupt WP. Note that Libertas also objected to User:Che y Marijuana's name, which I find neither confusing nor inflammatory, and both can easily spend a day or two in the rfc loop. dab () 12:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
A very offensive name which simultaneously slurs Marxists by association with dope and Marijuana users by association with totalitarianian ideology. Fred Bauder 12:33, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
well, as I point out on his talk page, che is Argentinian slang for "mate" (or a letter of the russian alphabet), and Mary-Jane may be the name of his girlfriend :o] but I agree of course that it serves nobody if people annoy their fellow-editors with their username. Libertas ans Che y Marijuana will have a difficult enough time to work together in the best of circumstances, it would seem :P dab () 12:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
questions for Fred: (a) is User:Jerryseinfeld actually the famous comedian? If not, can he be blocked without an RFC based on the username policy that prohibits names which mimic famous living persons. (b) do you think there is any real possibility that someone will think user GW Bush is actually the president? (c) I interpreted this near-even vote Wikipedia_talk:Username#Sysop blocks of inappropriate usernames as requiring at least an RFC since policy proposals generally require a fairly clear consensus, am I mistaken? Michael Ward 17:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And don't forget wikipedia administrator User:Dante Alighieri, who is not, unfortunately, Dante Alighieri. I myself must make the disclaimer that I am not, in fact, the dead philosopher Gorgias as well... Sorry for any confusion I have caused. I think that as long as a user does not actually claim to be the person in question, their user names can't stand alone as bannable offenses. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:13, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at re-wording the "famous figures" notation on Wikipedia:Username. I think this discussion, and the history of the Talk page shows that using names of famous figures is not inherently bad, but that it may become inappropriate based on the user's actions. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)


Hoax attack[edit]

It would appear someone has planted some hoax articles which have gone undiscovered for some time. I've listed the articles in question on VfD, but all other contributions by those IPs will have to be gone over with a fine toothpick. Any help would be appreciated. (Keep in mind just reverting those marked (top) isn't enough as incorrected facts inserted are often incorrectly accepted by those doing subsequent edits, so each change will have to be removed from the current version of the article). The IP's:

--fvw* 19:59, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

I've cleaned up some of the stuff Special:contributions/216.79.41.36 did; if Wikipedia weren't glacially slow I could do more. Jayjg | (Talk) 01:41, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'll second that comment. Doing housekeeping is painful enough when it takes time away from creating content - doing it when the 'Pedia is crawling, so you get even less time to create content is even moreso... (sigh). A barnstar to all of you out there who are persevering in the circumstances... Noel (talk) 14:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, it looks like we've got it all cleaned up. Thanks all around! --fvw* 23:04, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)


User:Sam999[edit]

I have blocked User:Sam999 for 24 hours for making legal threats. He has also reverted Preview (software) 4 times in 24 hours, and was warned. RickK 22:54, 6 Jan 2005

He seems to have created the sock puppet User:Paivand in order to avoid the ban and circumvent the 3RR rule. -- Curps 03:16, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Paivand has been blocked by Jpgordon. SWAdair | Talk 03:56, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Cheese Dreams/possible sock puppet[edit]

Although there is an injunction against CD editing articles concerning Jesus, she made the following edit to the talk page of an article, dated January 7: [1]

Ah, the injunction says "banned from editing all articles which relate to Christianity" (emphasis mine). So the talk page stuff was OK to do. Noel (talk) 23:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you click on her name, you will be sent to her user page. However, if at her user page you click on the link for her contributions, you will discover that she has made no contributions since December 20: [2]. How is it possible for her to make edits today, without them being recorded on her user contribution page? Can this be fixed? Slrubenstein 19:53, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is how it's possible: if you let your mouse hover over the sig on the talkpage, you'll see that the real username is "Cheesedreams", not the same user as "CheeseDreams" (though presumably the same person). When you clicked on the sig before, Cheesedreams' userpage was a redirect to CheeseDreams' userpage, see History, but it isn't any more (Netoholic changed it).--Bishonen | Talk 20:36, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein 22:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Radicalsubversiv RFC[edit]

Have little idea what's going wrong, but I have tried to create this page several times and while I'm a newbie I think I'm doing everything right. Can someone who knows what they're doing take a look at this for me. Thank you Libertas 05:15, 8 Jan 2005

does anybody else think that the purpose of this page is defeated since it seems people are just dragging their disputes here because they hope to get more attention? WP:AN should be a place to succintly exchange information on how admins are supposed to deal with particlular issues. It's now becoming a bazaar. Libertas, if you want to know how a proper rfc is supposed to look, you might consider studying this one first. dab () 15:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find the page productive. It keeps you in touch with the questions people have. A less noisy village pump. Fred Bauder 16:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

that's what I mean. We'll end up just moving traffic from VP to here. We need to be clear what belongs on VP, and what belongs here (the above, needless to say, belongs on VP, if anywhere). dab () 19:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I assume things needing admin attention should be here, primarily 3RR violations, or issues admins need to hash out. Jayjg | (Talk) 02:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This RFC has gone past 48 hours without having a second person certify it. Does anyone have any really good reason for not killing it? - David Gerard 07:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Possibly inappropriate block of VeryVerily[edit]

Apparently Neutrality blocked VeryVerily, and some IP accounts. VeryVerily has emailed me to complain. I'm not comfortable unilaterally reversing another admin's block, but here's what VV has to say:

Could you please unblock my account and any IP autoblocks? I was blocked by Neutrality on the grounds that I reverted Collectivisation in the USSR. But I contend that I did not revert the article at all; I only fished a couple of paragraphs from an old version, leaving the vast majority unaltered. I appealed to Neutrality directly, but considering I've had conflicts with him in the past (which may be why he is adopting this liberal definition of "revert"), I thought it best to contact a third-party admin.
The IP block is particularly annoying since dozens of people share this IP.
Thanks,
VV

-- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

VV has been emailing around. Neutrality based the block on the fact that VV had been making the same reverts earlier; if you look back two pages of history on Collectivisation in the USSR you can see it. The arbcom decision against VV gives any sysop the ability to ban (not block) VV for 24 hours if he reverts a page without discussing it on the revelant talk page. silsor 06:06, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
If that's what it's over, I still don't get it. VV hadn't touched this article since October 24, 2004. I happen to think his edit is crap, especially some of what he deleted, but plenty of people make a bad edit, that is certainly not the point. It is not, as far as I can tell, a reversion of the article to an earlier state; I'm guessing that it is a reversion of certain paragraphs; I don't have the patience to sort it out: it's a much-edited article, and not one I've worked on. I'm not a connosieur of the issue of what counts as a "reversion", and I haven't been following this arbitration, so I'm not jumping in. Does someone want to take an independent look and see if VV may be right here? And is there any reason for blocking IPs in this case? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not clear to me that it's a "revert", i.e. a technical violation of the order. I do think it is, at some level, a violation of the spirit of the order, and I wish the working of the order had been a little clearer (e.g "all edits must be discussed on the talk: page first"). I advised VV as follows:
Probably the right move is to do it one paragraph at a time (things go down easier in small bites :-), by first posting your proposed new version for each para on the talk page, and once people have commented and gotten it to a state where people are OK with it, then swapping it into the article.
We'll see if they follow that suggestion. It would certainly qualify as a "safe harbour", I think! Noel (talk) 14:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further communication from VV, which seems entirely reasonable:

I saw the discussion on WP:AN. Thanks for taking a look. I absolutely did not revert, and as I explained to others the overwriting of some of those paragraphs was a mistake which I corrected in my second edit.
If nothing else, could you at least undo that stupid IP autoblock? It's not like I'm trying to edit anonymously, and it will affect others on the same local net.
VV

I don't know how to track down the relevant IPs, but I believe someone should do this. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:47, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily[edit]

Just a quick note to all Admins that all four of the users in this case have returned as of today—Kevin Baas returned awhile ago, Shorne has stated that he will never come back, and Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily came back today/yesterday. According of the terms of the unanimous Arbitration decision, Gzornenplatz and VeryVerily may not revert a page more than once per day, nor may they revert a page without discussing it on the relevant talk page. If any of the users do so, they may be blocked by any admin for 24 hours. I have already had to block one user for 24 hours for immediately returning to past articles of contention, reviving past edit wars. Please keep an eye on the situation. Thanks and warmest regards --Neutralitytalk 08:05, 8 Jan 2005

The block done today was based on a flawed evaluation of the situation. VV made two edits today, well, one edit, and one revert back to that version. Neutrality (though not having explained either to VV or on this page), has suggested on IRC that the first edit today was itself a revert from back on October 25th. In actuality, the Oct. 25 edit modified the paragraph in question, while today's removed it entirely. This is not "reverting to a previous version". Neutrality also made no effort to either warn or explain this block to VeryVerily. It seems to have been a poor interpretation of the ArbCom directions, and an overly aggressive action unsupported by the evidence. -- Netoholic @ 08:17, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct. Neutrality says he "had to block" a user (me), when in fact he chose to make a very questionable blocking decision based on an unexpected interpretation of "revert". And why would I not "return" to my area of interest? And if "reviving past edit wars" is what he calls me fixing an article which had been mangled in my absence, well, nothing wrong with that. What a phony. Thanks Netoholic for pointing this out (and warmest regards). (Oh and as an arb Neutrality is not supposed to enforce rulings.) VeryVerily 18:09, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Reverting to a previous version of an article" is a very small subset of "reverting changes to an article". Undoing any kind of change is a revert. If somebody deletes a sentence, and you put it back, then that's a revert, regardless of what other changes were made by the same person who originally deleted the sentence, regardless of what other changes are also made by you when you put the sentence back, and regardless of what other changes are made by other people during the intervening time period. VeryVerily's first edit mentioned above certainly was a revert by my definition. —AlanBarrett 09:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
FWIW, VV emailed me and indicated that in their first edit of Collectivisation in the USSR they had accidentally deleted several paras:
I did mistakenly erase a couple of paragraphs towards the end
which, given the content of several of the paras (which support VV's side, e.g. the Maksudov numbers and the Kruschev quote), seemed plausible to me. Yes, yes, I know, they should have been exremely careful in editing this article, etc. Still, just wanted to put that on the record. I went to put them back on their behalf, but someone had already reverted the edit completely. Noel (talk) 14:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Neutrality shouldn't be blocking anyone anyway. Current guidance is that Arbitrators do not enforce decisions themselves, that is for other admins. Seems like a sensible rule too - it would have avoided this pitfall for one, jguk 15:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


3RR violation at 2004[edit]

User:Astrotrain has reverted 2004 at least 6 times in less than 24 hours. Several of his reverts do not include edit summaries. Where is the correct place to report this? —AlanBarrett 16:21, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is the correct place, and I've blocked him for 24 hours after reviewing the case. Details available at talk:2004. violet/riga (t) 16:36, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a note to Wikipedia:Three-revert rule suggesting that violations be reported here. —AlanBarrett 17:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is a discussion above at #Where to report three revert rule violations about whether this is the right place. If the volume gets too high, we may want to create a separate page, lest people tune out on this page too. Noel (talk) 13:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


User:Kazvorpal at Bajoran[edit]

User:Kazvorpal has inserted almost identical text into Bajoran article at least 7 times in the past 24 hours. Keeps making minor changes to the text to "game" the 3RR. Was warned more than once. Jayjg | (Talk) 04:31, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with. Noel (talk) 14:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Duplicate subcategories[edit]

Category:Cities in Kagawa Prefecture is another example of the problem reported at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(assistance)#Duplicate Sub-Categories (shows up in Category:Cities in Japan 9 times). Can someone delete and recreate this category for me? Someone feeling particularly ambitious should probably report this as a bug as well (I tried fixing it by removing the sub-category from the super-category and readding it, which I'd think would fix this, but it doesn't). Thanks. -- Rick Block 17:19, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Category:Cities in Hyogo Prefecture. -- Rick Block 17:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting. -- Rick Block 03:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted and restored Category:Cities in Kagawa Prefecture and Category:Cities in Hyogo Prefecture, seems to have fixed the problem.-gadfium 04:41, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it was like this before I deleted and restored them, but these two categories appear to contain themselves, yet I can see no reason why they should. It doesn't seem to be a problem with my browser cache, and I tried purging the page. Anyone able to explain what's going on?-gadfium 04:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks equally odd to me. -- Rick Block 05:44, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another duplicate[edit]

In Category:Cycleways, West Orange Trail is showing up twice. --SPUI 07:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fixed.-gadfium 19:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Cantus sockpuppets[edit]

Cantus violated his arbcom ruling (no more than one revert in 24 hours) and broke it grossly, with 20 violations in his long-running edit war with Gzornenplatz. I gave him a week timeout for gross violation of a ruling, and he came back with a pile of sockpuppets. See Special:Ipblocklist.

The names we have so far are Xsysl, TimComm, Tumti and Lazyfair. IP range 200.83.0.0/16 has also been blocked; whois gives this as VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A., Reyes Lavalle, 3340, 4th floor, 6760335 - Santiago - Chile ... so it should probably be unblocked in a while. Update: Apparently, Cantus is the only source of edits on en: from this ISP.

Please keep an eye out for further sockpuppetry. The behaviour pattern is somewhat obsessive and obvious - David Gerard 19:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: The TimComm sock was first used on 30 Dec 2004, suggesting it had been created, given an edit history and kept in reserve. (The other three are new today.) I would be unsurprised at others being out there. - David Gerard 20:02, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I count eight sockpuppets so far. In addition to the four named above, there was Ground0, Adalis, Piernodoyuna, and the impersonation "Gznorneplatz". Since his IP range is blocked, he's using open proxies. Gzornenplatz 13:07, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
The ones I listed above are the confirmed ones; I'll ask about those ones too - David Gerard 08:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Gzornenplatz blocked[edit]

Gzornenplatz has been blocked for 56 days for repeatedly reverting without discussing on the relevant talk pages. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Admin enforcement requested#Gzornenplatz. -- Netoholic @ 07:24, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Additionally, User:172 has already performed one unblock after Gzornenplatz contacted him as 209.237.231.200 (evading the block), and is threatening to unblock again. -- Netoholic @ 07:28, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate block not based on a common sense interpretation of the Arbom ruling. Furthermore, Gz was blocked by an admin with whom he was involved in a revert war on a silly technicality. Gz has already explained his reasoning in favor of scrapping Cantus' clumsy country infobox templates; it would just be redundant for him to post the same comments over and over again in over 200 country article talk pages... Indeed, I am considering unblocking him right now. 172 07:35, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Talk about trying to get out on a technicality. Admin User:PZFUN was not even aware of the extent of Gz's actions, nor of the Arbitration ruling until I contacted him about it. Gzornenplatz's reversions (whatever good intentions he may have), were done without consensus or discussion. I am sure we are all sorry that the arbitration ruling may inconvenience him, and probably prevent him from editing at his normal rate, but that is the point. If it means that he has to discuss before reverting a change on 200 pages, then that is what he must do. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Where was the discussion? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries or a subpage thereof seems the likely place for it, but the only chatter regarding this issue [3] is from last August, and Gzornenplatz did not take part in it. The discussion was all on the village pump; I moved it to that talk page. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's because Gzornenplatz was not a user in that August (neither was I, but that's besides the point I'm about to make). Gzornenplatz is a sockpuppet for Wik, who was permanently banned from contributing to Wikipedia. So to this end, the person who is both Gzornenplatz and Wik is violating his Arbitration Committee decision by continuing to write under an assumed name. Páll 07:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You detective work is noted. However, the Arbcom rulings do not confirm a connection between these two editors. So, this assumption is nothing on which to base administrative action. 172 07:57, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Both Fred Bauder and Raul (both ArbCom members) have confirmed that Gzornenplatz is Wik and that there is evidence supporting this, but the evidence itself has not been documented. In particular, Fred wrote (under the heading "Gzornenplatz"):
While it is not self-evident, we eventually came to the conclusion, with the help of Tim Sterling, that Gzornenplatz is a reincarnation of Wik. These matters are difficult to spot right off, but over time the personality of a Wikipedia editor will fall into a recognizable pattern which can be recognized if they attract enough attention. Proof, as in this case, comes from determining whether both users are editing from the same ip. Fred Bauder 22:42, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Raul wrote (as an edit summary reverting an edit that deleted a reference to Wik returning as Gzornenplatz):
"(rv Blankfaze - long story short, no it's not documented, but yes, it's true.)" [4]
jguk 13:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz has been editing since March 2004; see [5] for example. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do not unblock him. This has already been announce to other admins for further discussion, and I will consider reducing the block based on that discussion. Páll 07:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You should not have blocked him to begin with (for one day-- not to say this attempt to get rid of him for six months), having been equally involved in the revert war as he was. 172 07:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
172 - that is just insulting and wrong. PZFUN is only involved in that after I contacted him today. Yes, he helped revert the problem edits from today, but don't go spouting that as a conflict of interest. -- Netoholic @ 08:02, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
That doesn't matter. It's still against protocol. 172 08:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
172 is right here, although not about the boxes, which are much better than the vile tables in article source. And indeed sysops have the right and the obligation to enforce ArbCom rulings. But, although he's being unreasonable and the whole stupid edit war is cluttering my watchlist, this ban and especially its justification is going too far. The ruling says "wait for 24 hours", which he did and "discuss on the relevant talk page", which he apparently didn't. So all you can do is ban him for up to 24 hours (where does it say you can add ban periods per edit?).
As per other issues, I'm sure that if the ArbCom meant "discuss on the edited page's talk page" and "wait for substantially more than 24", they would have said so. If you think that the ruling is unclear, I suggest you ask the ArbCom to ammend it. If you want to enforce rules, you must stick to them 100% even if you think they're stupid and even if they are stupid. Zocky 08:51, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, if he's reverted 2/3/4 times on dozens of pages, only a 24 hour block is justified? No, the ruling says if he should revert (a singular action), he gets up to 24 hours. This is intentionally restrictive, to prevent the edit warring that he is being punished for. That may seem restrictive or harsh to you or me, but it is the ruling. If anyone from ArbCom wants to clarify that enforcement for multiple violations is supposed to be applied concurrently, then they can speak up. -- Netoholic @ 09:04, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
If you were meant to be allowed to block him for months at a time, why would ArbCom reserve the right to such severe punishment for itself in Article 8? Clearly, once you can show that Gz has repeatedly breached the terms of the ruling, ArbCom will ban him for the remainder of the 3 months. Just don't take it onto yourself to decide. Zocky 10:15, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic, I suggest you're overinterpreting the ruling. Blocks of this sort are very rarely applied consecutively rather than concurrently. For Cantus' gross and knowing violation of his revert parole, he got a week - because the ruling said "up to a week". Never mind it was actually 20 edits, it was treated as one gross violation (which is why I blocked him for an entire week). Your howling for blood and attempting to justify such with wikilawyering strikes me as unbecoming at the very least. 56 days really isn't justifiable from the ruling IMO (as an admin, not an arbitrator, as that ruling was made before I was on the arbcom) - David Gerard 11:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Everyone knows Netoholic is a troll, but that aside let's get the facts quite clear here:
Neoholic a troll? Well, if so, he's a most unusual one - he does more janitor work than almost any "real" user (assuming, only for the sake of not disputing it with you, that he's not one). Put it another way, if he's a troll, can I have a few more, please? Noel (talk) 14:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Both Cantus and I were under a one-revert-per-24-hours ruling. Cantus clearly violated this on 20 different articles, and was correctly blocked for a week. Yet he did not accept this, and came up with one sockpuppet after another, and so his block was correctly extended. I, on the other hand, did not violate the rules at all. To reiterate the point Zocky made, the arbcom didn't say I can not revert at all. It said I can not revert an article more than once in a 24-hour period. That clearly means I can revert twice if there's 24 hours and one minute in between. If the arbcom didn't want me to do that, it would have set the limit higher and said, for example, I can revert only once in 48 hours or whatever. So let's not come up with this nonsense about "violating the spirit of the rule". The limit has to be somewhere, and if you're within it it's ok, and if you're not it's not, no matter how small the difference may be. Otherwise it's as if you were saying if, say, the voting age is 18, and someone votes when he's just 18 and a day, that he's "gaming the system". That's obviously nonsense. I didn't revert any article twice within 24 hours, so I was completely within the rules on this point.
  • The other claim is that I didn't discuss the reverts. Even Silsor, who himself blocked me in a similar case, said then: "I am not saying you need to repeat the same point on 28 talk pages." [6] So I don't need to repeat the same point on the 200 or so talk pages involved in this case either. That would be absurd anyway, and I don't really know if anyone other than Netoholic would seriously make this case. The arbcom ruling means only that I have to discuss reverts with the other side on whatever appropriate page. This I have always done anyway, and did in this case too, on various talk pages, including my own. The case is simple enough anyway, with the issue having previously been discussed on the Village Pump, where various people have already expressed my views so that I didn't have to add another "ditto" there. The simple fact is there is no consensus for changing the long-established practice of having the infoboxes directly in the article, and not in templates, which are not supposed to hold any encyclopedic information at all.
  • PZFUN should be desysopped for abusing his adminship to win an edit war. The nonsense about him having not been involved until Netoholic notified him is bizarre obfuscation. So what if Netoholic notified him - then PZFUN became involved, took sides in the edit war by reverting my edits which were in no way vandalism or otherwise automatically revertable, and then later he blocked me and continued to revert all of my previous edits to those articles, thus further proving his partiality in the dispute. Gzornenplatz 13:34, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
This person clearly Just Doesn't Get It ("I can revert twice if there's 24 hours and one minute in between"). Here's a free clue: try reading Wikipedia:Wikiquette. In case you still don't get it, try this one: the Wikipedia community just absolutely doesn't need editors with the mindset you just displayed. The rest of us have better things to do than be kindergarten teachers keeping an eye on you.
I formally request the Arbcomm modify their ruling so that it prohibits any reversions, any infraction whatsoever to garner an immediate lengthy (i.e. none of this namby-pamby 24-hour wrist-slapping) block. I'd suggest two months (of peace and quiet), but that's just me. Noel (talk) 14:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, that's just you. Request whatever you want, but for now the existing arbcom ruling is exactly as I described and I didn't violate it. If you think all reverts are a bad thing, then why don't you propose this is as a general rule? I'd be fine with that, as long as it applies to everyone, and is enforced equally. That you want to force me to automatically have to yield in every dispute proves nothing but your partisanship here. Gzornenplatz 15:12, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for providing a little amusement to my morning. If you offered me $1,000,000 to name one article you were involved in an edit war on (without looking, of course :-), I couldn't do it. So much for "partisanship".
As for reverts, yeah, I have no sympathy at all for persistent repeat offendors. Sure, everyone does it a bit when they get wound up, but that's different from making a career of it. As far as I'm concerned, people who cannot grow up and get past reverting just don't belong here. People who cannot work co-operatively to create content get in our way, they don't help. We just don't need them.
As for fairness, this is not a government legal system, where everyone is forced into it whether they like it or not. You don't have to be here. The whole point of this project is to create an open, first-rate encyclopaedia, and I think we need to examine all policy in light of that goal. (See preceeding point for an example of this analysis at work.) So if our processes aren't maximally fair, bending over backwards (at a high cost in time and energy to the volunteers who are Wikipedia) to reach the ultimate perfection, TOUGH. Noel (talk) 15:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: As for fairness, this is not a government legal system, where everyone is forced into it whether they like it or not. True. On the same token, fair-minded admins, such as Danny, Mav (who is rejecting that bogus new arbitration request against Gz), and myself, have just as much of a right to resist this brand of vigilantism. 172 21:53, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, at what point does disagreement with your views turn into being an un-"fair-minded admin"? Perhaps you didn't mean it the way it came out sounding, but the wording you picked is, ah, interesting.
Also, I had no comment about the handling of this particular incident and 56-day ban, etc (I never even went to look at the article history). My comments were purely in reaction to the (paraphrasing) comment "I can revert as much as I like as long as I stay one micron outside the rules" comment, and follow-ups thereto. So I'll assume that your comment above, about "this kind of vigilantism", applies to the 56-day ban, etc. If not, and there was something in my comments you meant to disagree with, please indicate where you think my thinking was faulty. Noel (talk) 23:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Tough indeed. Maybe someone should ban you just to see how much you would suddenly care about fairness. What is quite amusing is that you think you're qualified to comment at all when you admit you haven't done the slightest investigation and don't know about any edit war I was involved in! Amazing. And yet you claim to know that I'm "making a career of" reverting. You know, it's interesting how you say "We just don't need them" and "You don't have to be here". As if you were somehow in charge. Tell you what, you don't have to be here either. And I don't need you either.
I'm not in charge (and I never said I was). "We" are. Noel (talk) 17:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The point here is indeed to create a first-rate encyclopedia - and sometimes, that requires reverting bad edits. You, on the other hand, seem to think a first-rate encyclopedia comes from "peace and quiet" (which would mean giving in to any POV pusher, lest you have to REVERT!). You don't seem to realize that it takes two sides to "work cooperatively". I work perfectly cooperatively with other people who work cooperatively. I can't work cooperatively with POV pushers or people who want to force their style preferences without discussion (as in this case). I might mention that the arbcom ruling called for working towards "mutually acceptable compromises". You know what "mutually" means? It has to be acceptable to both sides. Now sometimes that's just not possible, as two sides have strictly irreconcilable views. That's what naturally causes edit wars. It's a systemic problem. I can hardly be blamed for the lack of a system of content arbitration. Gzornenplatz 16:39, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
A better way to create high-quality content in contentious areas is indeed a very serious problem, one of the most serious ones that Wikipedia faces at the moment; and we really need a solution. However, revert wars aren't it. Noel (talk) 17:10, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Gzornenplatz, you make some excellent points about "compromise" and "discussion", points that I don't disagree with. Can you please provide us some links to where you personally have engaged in discussion about this country template issue? And no, I don't mean from your own talk page. -- Netoholic @ 17:17, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

For Gzornenplatz: Look, even if you are 100% right and the other side is just being stupidly stubborn, that doesn't give you the right to be stupidly stubborn. Leave country infoboxes in whatever state they are and go to Wikiproject Countries and discuss it there. How they look in the source has no bearing on how the article looks, so the whole thing is of secondary importance, and definitely not urgent. Even if somebody is just bold or even stubborn and goes and changes the infoboxes, no purpose is served by you going and reverting them before a consensus on how to handle the things is reached. To put it shortly, the actions of others are no excuse for actions of yours. Zocky 08:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why is there any discussion about this? If Gzornenplatz is Wik, he should not be editing here, period. Wik made MAJOR vandalism to Wikipedia which required frantic work by many, many sysops to revert. This ... person should have no rights here, and should be gone permanently. If someone would give us a yea or nay on this assertion, then that's good enough for me, and he should be banned under this name permanently, as well. RickK 08:34, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea, appart that they're apparently both from the same largish city. But as I understand the concept of justice, we presume nay until somebody provides proof otherwise. Zocky 08:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Cantus & Gzornenplatz[edit]

Cantus & Gzornenplatz have both been really annoying on this, back and forth over an issue of content structure, fighting it out as an edit war instead of starting a good discussion someplace and trying to get a broader consensus, but I'd suggest we unblock both if they will pledge to leave all of these articles in whichever state they happen to be in right now and work instead on putting together a poll on policy, then abiding by it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:06, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's an excellent idea. Are there any objections? —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I object because there are more people involved than just Cantus and Gzornenplatz and I seriously doubt that they will pledge to that and follow through with it. Páll 08:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also object because Cantus violated the rules and I didn't. Gzornenplatz 13:34, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
There are others involved but those two are the most troublesome—so far, they're the only ones who have been blocked for the way they've handled the issue. The others should be encouraged to join in the discussion as well; if they're reasonable people, they will. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I've only been blocked by PZFUN abusing his adminship. There are two different admins who have unblocked me. Gzornenplatz 13:34, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Some context, please. The issue is contry infoboxes, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. It seems to be Gzornenplatz against everybody else. So gzp was unblocked? he is happily going about his reverting work, at the moment. now, gzp is obviously a good editor doing important work, but this issue is simply ridiculous. It is a question of format, not content, and there is no pressing need for a change without prior discussion. The ultimate solution will be yet different, as is hinted at on the talk page I linked above. dab () 08:47, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

YES! There is no need for change without discussion - but that's what Cantus, PZFUN, and some others are trying to do! I'm merely reverting to the format that has been undisputed for months if not years. It is they who need to establish consensus for a controversial change, not me for keeping things as they are. Gzornenplatz 13:34, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would be reluctant to have Cantus unblocked at this stage - his week block for gross violation of his revert parole has a few days to go, and he promptly tried to get around it with sockpuppets, at least one of which appears to have been prepared beforehand. These circumstances make it hard for me to assume good faith as yet - David Gerard 11:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I regret not having unblocked

Mav pointed out in his rejection of the request to have Gzornenplatz arbitrated that using a template for one and only one article is a misuse of the template system and should be removed. Gzornenplatz is just one of several people removing these templates from articles. He is not acting any differently from everybody who is involved in this conflict, especially the admin who was actually the one breaking policy on two accounts-- addding these stupid templates and abusing his adminship by blocking a user with whom he is in a conflict. 172 18:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this (using a template this way) is an unclear matter in terms of policy. I happen not to like it, but I can see arguments on both sides. Again, I wish people would spend the time laying out the arguments on each side and holding a poll, rather than fighting back and forth by brute force. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
use Template:Infobox Country, everybody. It's the only solution with a future. dab () 10:33, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A vote is now going on at Wikipedia:Country infobox vote. It looks, offhand, like a consensus is rapidly forming. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


Jugoslaven redux[edit]

On the incident discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1#Copyvio_problem involving User:Jugoslaven. It's not over. I can't get word either way from the site from which he is taking content, but he claims he's got their permission. See history of Spanish Civil War, see Talk:Spanish Civil War, and see his talk page and mine. I have a stake in that article (Spanish Civil War); I don't think there is any ill intent on Jugoslaven's part, but I think he is adding material without appropriate permissions; I think he just doesn't get it; I am really hesitant to block over that (I don't do a lot of that sort of stuff). I'd really appreciate it if someone else tries communicating with him. And, having reverted his massive "contribution" once I don't feel comfortable doing so again. In short, could someone else take this situation on? As some of you may remember, I was just about dragged kicking and screaming into becoming an admin in the first place, and I don't feel comfortable acting further in an admin capacity on this case. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Update: Jugoslaven pasted the following on my user talk page:

I have contacted Cucaracha webmaster.This copy of his respond:Hello,
>My wikipedia administrator had tried to contact u but u didnt anwser.
sorry, I did not receive his mail. Maybe it got stuck somewhere, the spam filter system of my mail provider does mean it too good sometimes.
If he could please try to contact me again under <webmaster@lacucaracha.info>. If you pass me his email address I will contact him also immediately.
Salud, and all the best,
Tomas Capdevila
webmaster@lacucaracha.info

I have sent again to webmaster@lacucaracha.info, but that may not suffice; I guess I will email Jugoslaven my email address and hope this sorts itself out. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know little about copyright stuff, so I'm not sure how I can help. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tomas Capdevila finally got back to me. He treats his site as public domain, no problem at all. No idea why he doesn't put up a notice to that effect, but I assume I'm trusted enough on Wikipedia that if I post a permission notice this will all be acceptable. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Solved, whoever is archiving can archive this. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


User:OneGuy at Israeli violence against Palestinian children[edit]

User:OneGuy has reverted Israeli violence against Palestinian children four times in 24 hours. [7] [8] [9] [10] User was warned prior to making fourth revert by Humus sapiens. User has also been warned by myself. User continues to claim in edit summary and on my talk page that his edits are not reverts even when the diffs clearly show them as such. --Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

sigh. I am afraid he has violated the 3RR unilaterally. I hate to block him, because he was just outnumbered, the by-now standard practice of using the 3RR to bully minorities out of editing. User:Humus sapiens reverted 4 times in 27 hours, making it obvious that he is just a '3RR conscious' edit-warrior. This article should of course not exist at all, under this title. It is disingenious to pick inherently biased article titles, and then dismiss all attempts at presenting other povs as off-topic. dab () 10:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I realize the case is more complicated than that. It appears OneGuy's '4th revert' was part of a compromise proposed by his earlier reverting-opponent. Technically, the edit still contains a revert, but Talk page shows it to be a consensus version between the parties involved to that moment. At this moment, Viriditas stepped in and claims 3RR was broken. It would seem that this would constitute a new dispute. Since the present version is Viriditas' anyway, I will warn OneGuy not to revert for another 24h and leave it at that. dab () 11:01, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The present version is not mine; I reverted to Humus sapien's ver, Also, Humus sapien did not violate 3RR, so why do you claim that he did? The only user who violated 3RR in this case is OneGuy, and he still insists that his revert is not a revert when it clearly is:[11] [12] [13] [14]. --Viriditas | Talk 11:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
However, I hope you can understand how this closely resembles entrapment - David Gerard 11:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't see that at all. OneGuy claimed his third revert wasn't a revert before he reverted for a fourth time. Also, Humus never explicitly invited him to revert in any case -- that comment was made after the third revert. It's not that big of a deal, but OneGuy insists its not a revert, and that's what bothers me. --Viriditas | Talk 11:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did not claim Humus reverted the 3RR. I understand OneGuy is aware of the 3RR and argues he did not break it. He would clearly have broken it, were it not for the exchange on the Talk page where Humus, as far as I understand (correct me) invited him to 'revert' as part of a compromise solution. dab () 11:37, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I apologize. You did not claim Humus broke the 3RR, but you said he made four reverts in 27 hours. I just took a look at the edit history and I don't see those edits as reverts -- they appear to be just edits. Also, Humus did not make an explicit invitation for OneGuy to revert, in fact just the opposite. In the article edit summary, Humus wrote: Both of us have reverted 3 times in 24hr. Anymore reverts and either of us will be reported. Later, he wrote: I'm offering a compromise: I'll leave B'Tselem alone, you please leave alone the doctors' responses. At no time did Humus invite him to revert. Like I said above, this is not a big deal, but I am concerned about OneGuy's understanding about the 3RR. And, I see no entrapment of any kind.--Viriditas | Talk 12:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems I have misunderstood. OneGuy seems to argue his 4th revert was mixed with other content addition, not that he was invited to revert. This will obviously not protect him from breaking the 3RR, and it may be I misjudged the affair. I ask another admin to look into it. dab () 12:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not a big deal to me. Even though I don't agree with OneGuy, I'm not particularly interested in seeing him blocked for violating the policy. Perhaps he merely misunderstood the comments made by Humus, and if so, he should be given the benefit of the doubt as David Gerard implies. Although I never saw the situation as "entrapment", I'm willing to consider that alternate POV. --Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is not the first (nor will be the last) time OneGuy has violated the 3RR. He once did over 20 reverts in 7 hours! See the history of Jihad, Aisha and Muhammad for more examples of his violations. He has caused at least 5 revert wars, several of which had to be page protected to get him to stop. I think a ban, even if only for 24 hours, would do him some good so that he would know that rules apply to evereyone, even him. 168.209.97.34 08:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How can you say it's not a big deal? You came here and pointed out that he had reverted four times. Presumably you are looking for action to be taken. I agree with Dbachmann. The end product of this rule looks very much like we still have revert wars, but now they are a tool of POV pushers that they use to silence minorities. It takes two (sides) to tango. Perhaps both could be encouraged to discuss it, not revert it?Dr Zen 09:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the 3RR was never touted as a tool to end disputes. Nor were short 24h blocks. The aim is to facilitate the move from senseless rolling-back to actual discussion. This has been acheived, in this case, and there is now a poll on the article's talk page. Minorities will not be silenced by the 3RR. Dr Zen, I do not think you have understood why Wikipedia exists. The rules are not a big deal, as long as it works. They only become important when it stops working, and until it is working again. dab () 09:47, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why you are being rude about me. I agreed with this statement of yours: "I hate to block him, because he was just outnumbered, the by-now standard practice of using the 3RR to bully minorities out of editing." You seem to have changed your mind in the last hour or so and now you're having a pop at me from the opposite POV. You can stick it, frankly. FWIW, I believe Wikipedia exists to be a great encyclopaedia. The 3RR is a joke because POV pushers game it one way or another and the people who are interested in discussion don't offend against it anyway.Dr Zen 10:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replied on your talk page. No offense intended. I agree there are problems with the 3RR, but none that would not be worse without the 3RR. dab () 10:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And, I have replied to Dr Zen's question on your talk page, in the context of his comments. I have moved my reply to Dr Zen's talk page. --Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I too am unsatisfied with the 3RR, because I too feel that POV-pushers are not really harnessed by it. Alas, I don't (at this moment) have any good ideas on how to fix it. Not too surprising, really - if there was an easy solution, we'd have found it by now. Do you have any suggestions?
I mean, if we try and better define what counts as unreasonable behaviour (q.v. the current discussion about 'what's a revert'), that's almost bound to make the rules more complex, which just increases the scope for revert-warriors to "game it one way or another".
On the other hand, if we give admins more discretion, so they can step in when they 'clearly' see the intent to revert-war, that's bound to lead to different admins treating vaguely similar situations somwhat differently, and then we get into unfairness issues.
Getting rid of the 3RR is no solution either, because then (much as you might wish otherwise), people will not eventually sit down and try and come to a compromise: it just turns into a contest of 'who has the most stamina'. People will just revert endlessly until one side gives up; and if neither will, it's just an endless revert war.
It might take really radical measures to significantly improve the situation on what we have now, e.g. being much more willing to hand down really long bans (e.g. year or even more) to edit-warriors (to give them time to mature some). And then you get people coming back under new identities, and the fix to that is even more painful (require real-world ID's). Noel (talk) 13:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I believe the 3RR to be a mess at the moment and share the concern that it is a tool to exclude minority POVs on some articles. I have suggested (elsewhere on this page, I think) that when a breach of the rule takes place, the page concerned be protected for, say, 24 hours to allow a cooling off. If the rule is then broken again, a block may be in order, but the person in breach should be given a further 24 hours to explain their actions. This may seem cumbersome, but it is a way to stop people who feel under siege from groups of like-minded users to at least say what they want and why. Filiocht 13:26, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
In my experience minority views get heard and included if they express themselves clearly on Talk: pages. The views that tend to get automatically excluded are from editors who are highly POV, unilateral, abusive, or simply "don't get it", which tends to shut down the possibility of collaborative work. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough[edit]

This one is getting ugly and personal so I could probably use some advice or a pair of fresh eyes here. It started as a civil dispute about whether or not some information should be included until someone claiming to be the real Joe Scarborough showed up and started slinging mud. (I say claiming because "Joe" misspelled his own name in his user name.) It didn't help matters that at the same time I discovered that some of the article was plagiarized and so I'm now accused of trying to cover up certain facts by deleting the copyvio material - despite the fact that I replaced much of the same info with a fresh rewrite of those paragraphs. I think the assistance of a neutral admin or two would help clear this up, or at least depersonalize the dispute. Gamaliel 20:55, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked by Gamaliel at about 21:05, 10 Jan 2005. (Noel (talk) 14:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC))


Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radicalsubversiv[edit]

I've delisted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radicalsubversiv from the RFC page as it has passed its 48 hours without being certified. I think it's supposed to be deleted now, right? It's not technically a CSD so I haven't stuck a CSD tag on it, but if an admin could delete it that'd be useful. --fvw* 09:48, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

RadicalSubversiv indicated on the talk page that they are "okay with the article not being deleted in the interests of keeping a record", so I'd suggest we hang onto it. (I'd prefer to keep all RfC's, whether certified or not, for this purpose, but I gather there is no agreement on this.) Noel (talk) 13:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah yes, it would appear WP:RFC allows for that, I'd missed that. I can imagine RS would want to keep it… Thanks. --fvw* 13:51, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)


Cantus anons[edit]

I've reached the end of my patience and my three reverts on all of the country pages that Cantus is vandalizing under many, many anonymous id's. I've protected the User:Gzorneplatz and its Talk pages which he repeatedly is attempting to redirect to other places, but we can't protect every country article. RickK 09:58, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

what's wrong with this guy? And I thought I was dealing with weird people... dab () 10:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hardly vandalism if you take the time to look at his edits. So, what is wrong with you would be more appropriate. (213.21.136.4's first edit, Cantus proxy)
hey, I don't even know how to assess his edits, what with the army of his IPs. Other sock-warriors at least have an agenda, not some lame layout dispute. dab () 10:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Isn't it sad considering that a lame layout dispute got him blocked but not Wik (Gzornenplatz). This whole Wikipedia bureaucracy seems like a huge waste of time for everybody. Sad sad world.
man, we wouldn't have to waste our time with bureaucracy, if you were able to sort out your differences like grown-ups. dab () 11:01, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantus has been logging on with a new IP almost every ten minutes. The only option I see remaining for dealing with him is to protect every single country page while we contact his ISP and get him kicked off-line for good. 172 11:34, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A short vandal protection may well be in order. I just looked at Special:Ipblocklist. He really is going batshit - David Gerard 12:27, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
How do we get the wheels in motion for this? He has already wasted too much of our time forcing admins to block him every ten minutes for around a six hour period. 172 22:12, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
why not let him have his way with the bloody infoboxes, for now, until we come up with a consensus. It's not like it makes a difference for the reader, and we can still change them all back in case we decide on another solution. dab () 13:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it sets a bad precedent if you let an editor "have his way" simply because they relentlessly push their POV using sockpuppers and anonymous IPs. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:56, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
however automaticly do the oposite of what these people wan't isn't a great idea eitherGeni 18:04, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
True, however this isn't about doing the opposite, this is about undoing what banned users do, which is quite appropriate in my opinion. Now if only we had a proxy-scanner built in to mediawiki… --fvw* 19:02, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

This is Cantus in exile: I promise that if you unblock me now, I won't revert any more country articles until a and that I will accept the consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Country infobox vote. If I violate this promise, you can ban me forever from Wikipedia, and I won't come back even as anonymous. I admit this has gone too far and it has to be stopped. I hope you all understand and unblock me so we can all move on to more interesting things. You can reply here or send me an email via userpage. I'm sorry I caused all this trouble. Thanks. Cantus

Oh hey guys, I made zillions of sockpuppets today and evaded lots of blocks, but I changed my mind, let me back in OK? OK. silsor 05:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
You say you're sorry, you admit you were wrong, you make a promise not to do it again, and this is what you get from the community, a big nice and heartwarming fuck you. Cantus
I, for one, would unblock him (after verifying he's the real Cantus), and reblock at the first sign of uncooperativeness. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 05:35, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, first you will obey your block , then we can reconsider RickK's indefinite block on your account. We will not respond to your proposition above, in which you are implicitly making a threat to continue logging on with one new anonymous proxy after another. You had no business posting comments on this page to begin with because you are a indefinitely blocked user, and this only puts you in a deeper hole. Your promises are meaningless, as you have exhausted absolutely all of your credibility by now. So, we will need to see a sign of good faith based on actions. 172 05:36, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns have been addressed in my statement above. Cantus

Hey, I'm all for giving people another chance if they are serious about changing their behaviour. Well, Cantus, nobody said fuck you but I think you will have to be prepared to stomach some name-calling after all this. But the namecalling will cease once you have proven your goodwill. If Cantus has learned to behave like a decent editor from this, the effort will not have been all in vain. So I for one am all for unblocking him on parole, of course with the understood implication that he will be slapped with an indefinite block at the first sign of aggressive reverting. Really, people, look at this case. This will go down in WP history as the lamest 'socks of mass reversion' war ever. dab () 09:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We must see evidence first that he'll stop coming back with sockpuppets and anon IP proxies before we even can consider unblocking his account. We can't be naïve. 172 16:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
We can't assume goodwill, though, since clearly Cantus has shown none until now. I think a significant period of time in which Cantus displays willingness to abide by entirely reasonable blocking, and in which he does not create any more sockpuppets or use anon IPs to edit, is required before an indefinite block could be re-considered. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Open proxies[edit]

Could someone please block User:217.56.66.14? It's an open http proxy (running on port 3128). --fvw* 10:00, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

And User:80.191.154.80 (on port 8080). --fvw* 10:10, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
Both are done. Noel (talk) 13:24, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


botched rfd of Kenneth O'Keefe[edit]

This is a Vanity page for a non-notable, apparently added by the individual himself, see rant on talk page. HOWEVER, I think I botched putting it up for deletion. I must have done the steps in the wrong order or something. Please assist me in fixing it and share any insight regarding where I went wrong. thanx, --Silverback 11:23, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done. Jnc 14:04, 11 Jan 2005


Problematic image uploads[edit]

GeneralPatton (a fellow admin, by the way) has the annoying/disturbing habit of uploading images without providing sources, and sometimes w/o license tag. Especially troubling is his use of {{fairuse}} without providing image sources. He has so far not responded to numerous requests to supply this information. (See User talk:GeneralPatton, there are currently four requests for image sources and/or tags, and there are more in his archives.) Does anybody have an idea how to get GP to supply this info short of opening an RfC? I can't believe it's that difficult to get him to properly cite his sources (or provide proper attribution for images), given that he self-identifies as a member of Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards... :-( Lupo 14:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lupo, I've replied to you a number of times. If you notice, those un-taged images were uploaded in April of last year. GeneralPatton 13:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
But you have, as far as I can see, never provided a single source for an image, even when explicitly asked to do so. Image sources are just as important as tags, as I have tried to explain on your talk page. Lupo 13:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, for instance, here I have, [15], the overall majority of photos I upload are of World War II or earlier, and the overwhelming majority of it comes from public domain archives, i.e. US National Archives, Archives of the Imperial War Museum and the Bundesarchiv. Who precisely took the photo is in most cases lost to history. GeneralPatton 19:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is obvious. But then you just state where you got them from. With URL (of the page showing the image, not just a top-level URL for these archives), please. Or ISBN and page number, if scanned from a book. Otherwise, these images risk ending up on WP:PUI sooner or later because nobody can verify the license claims. That would be a shame: you do upload useful images. Besides, your argument doesn't apply to the Shuttle Buran images. And I was not talking about images on the Commons—I have no idea what you do over there. I was talking about images uploaded to this (the English) Wikipedia. Posting the link above (which is for an image on the commons) is thus a bit besides the point. Lupo 19:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shuttle Buran images are from the former Soviet Union, obviously official photographs, the question of intellectual property was in large unregulated in SU. The whole issue of copyright in today’s Russia is still in a mess, there you have streets filled with CD’s DVD’s, books are published and translated without any fees. Just who owns those photos is really debatable since the legal infrastructure is lacking. Same can be said of the WW2 photos, German propaganda ministry had hundreds of photographers taking pictures on all fronts, publishing them in a variety of magazines and even on postcards and calendars without providing the photographer. Of course, situation was different for someone like Heinrich Hoffman and even Hitler who got massive royalties for use of their “material” and in Hitler’s case, even his likeness was deemed as his “copyright”. As far as I know most of the Hoffman material is now in PD since he was tried as a war profiteer and his assets i believ siezed. GeneralPatton 00:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Dear GeneralPatton, I am not disputing the license of these images. We've talked about that before, and you know that I even think that the German WWII images are mostly PD (if published before 1954), and I am aware of the issue of copyrights in Russia. I'm just asking you for the umpteenth time to supply the sources (where you got these images from) in the interest of verifiability, and to comply with international copyright law. Lupo 07:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, can somebody else pipe in here, I don't know how else to express myself—I don't seem to get the point across. Lupo 07:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

GeneralPatton, it is very simple: we like to know as much as possible about the sources of all images, not only for licencing reasons, but also for reasons of encyclopedicity. An image without a reference to a source is unencyclopedic, and should be removed on this ground, never mind the copyright laws. So please at least state where you found the image, if you don't have any additional information. dab () 19:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand, I'll try from now on. However, is "scanned from a period postcard" a legitimate source? GeneralPatton 03:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, if you have access to the actual postcard, there will be some iformation on the back, such as photographer, printer and year. Would be nice to include that. dab () 08:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Country infobox vote[edit]

Hello, as a resolution to the ongoing debate surrounding the Country Infoboxes, I have created a forum for voting on which solution the wikipedia community would prefer. The vote can be found here. Thank you! Páll 19:37, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Irismeister is back[edit]

Editing from Wanadoo (.fr) dialups (82.124.x.x) on Romanian Orthodox Church and its talk page. He even signed his edits [16]. I've blocked two /24 IP ranges for 24 hours, though they're dialups so if you block them be prepared to unblock them for collateral damage. Though I don't expect a huge number of editors on en: from those addresses - David Gerard 20:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)


User:RJII[edit]

This user keeps inserting a content-free POV paragraph in natural monopoly. He is incapable of discussing this matter with User:Rd232, User:Mydogategodshat. So far he has not responded to the objections of Rd232, a solid contributor and main author of the article, leaving the three of us in the position of only having the option to revert him. Block this user for five reverts in the past 24 hours on Natural monopoly ([17], [18], [19], [20], [21]). I'd do it if I weren't tangled in this dispute. 172 00:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Done.-gadfium 00:27, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You know I agree with you on the paragraph, but did you have to call RJII a "Randroid"? Rhobite 05:53, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't call RJII a Randroid; I called the paragraph "Randroid." 172 05:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's a cop-out. Can I say "RV Jew POV-Pushing"? Obviously I'm not calling the paragraph names, I'm attacking the person who wrote the paragraph. Try it with any other noun and see if it isn't a personal attack. It's silly to say it's OK because you were just talking to the paragraph. Rhobite 07:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)


More inappropriate image-loading[edit]

User:Sud-Pol is once again adding images of little girls in diapers to inappropriate articles; his latest was an addition to Cat, which I rolled back. His pictures still stand at Dress Up (as they do pertain to the article), but I still find them a little disturbing, given his history of posting and vandalizing. Surely someone has a picture of a more fully clothed kid playing dress-up. Joyous 12:04, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I've speedied the image he uploaded: having an image named "Archiefucker.JPG" showing a young (3-4 years old) girl in diapers is just not tolerable. Period. Now, if someone can point me to the applicable Blocking policy, I'll block him for a month. But I'm not sure what section would be applicable. Is this covered by "vandalism"? Or is it "disruption"? Or does our policy have a hole? Lupo 12:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Note: this is a repeat offender, see IncidentArchive1#User:Sud-Pol. Has a diaper fetish. Lupo 12:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He was previously warned, too, and has apparently ignored that warning, so I'd say a short block, to try and get his attention, is warranted. As to the grounds, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption says disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, so I looked for applicable policy on these pictures, but all I could find was in Wikipedia:Profanity, where it says do not upload any images that could be considered illegal either for you to upload, or for Wikipedia to store, or for Wikipedia readers to download, which I think sort of covers it. Noel (talk) 13:24, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep, I guess that'd be it. However, he is aware of his actions being disruptive, has been warned before, and still keeps doing it. I think a block significantly longer than the usual 24-hour vandal "tsk-tsk" block is in order — the next time he uploads such an image or vandalizes again. Lupo 13:31, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but if he hasn't been blocked before, I think it's reasonable to make the first one short. (I generally go for 12 hours for non-vandalism "warning" blocks, and his images individually would only be odd, it's only en masse that they are unpalatable, so he's somewhat in a grey zone.) If he continues after that, then go for a week or so. Noel (talk) 13:45, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The number is a factor, true, but so is
  • his insisting on placing these images in articles where they are not relevant,
  • his choice of file names , especially the one mentioned above, which I zapped,
  • his repeatedly using that filename (twice, so far),
  • the nature of at least some of these images (did you see Image:Angiedp 006.jpg, which has been deleted after having gone through WP:IFD? This Lolita-style image definitely was not from a family album!),
  • his ignoring warnings (well, he said something about a "misunderstanding" to dab, but I don't believe it),
  • the fact that these images show minors who cannot legally give consent to their images being published,
  • the fact that Wikipedia just might get into trouble if it harbored these images.
You seem to have more patience with such people than I do. Anyway, I'm not trigger-happy, so I'll go with your advice: one short block before handing out a long one. Lupo 14:09, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd say you're more patient than me - I'd have already handed out a short block! But I do try and start gentle - but also escalate on a pretty steep ramp if there's no behaviour modification. I can get pretty Draconian (see e.g. my comments here.)
I didn't see all the images, but the ones I did see were only odd. But I completely agree that the overall pattern is absolutely unacceptable. Noel (talk) 14:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
:-) Well, I didn't block him yet because he's been inactive since 13:03 UTC and judging from his edit pattern, he won't come back until tomorrow, hence he wouldn't even notice a short-term block. If he does it again and if I'm around, he will be blocked. Lupo 15:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And have redirected Dress Up to Dress-Up, which he had created on January 3 and which (originally) showcased the same image collage. Lupo 12:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the policy does not have a hole. warn him that his uploads are considered disruptive, and block if he proceeds. We don't even have to invoke pedophilia here. If I uploaded my entire photo albums, relevant or not, I would be disrupting, even if the content of the images is not offensive. 3 year olds in diapers are not encyclopedic, period. dab () 12:46, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
[Jnc, it appears you have accidentally removed your own comment] (That was Lupo's, actually - sigh, trying to cheat while archiving and didn't do a page reload, since it's so slow. Noel (talk) 14:52, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC))
as far as I gather (having seen none of those images, they are deleted so quickly), none of them qualifies as kiddie-porn by any standard (otherwise, we wouldn't bother to even warn the guy before blocking, obviously). But I agree that we have been patient enough. One more diaper, and he's blocked (one week?). dab () 14:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
With the exception of "Archiefucker.JPG", all these images spent their week on WP:IFD. Lupo 14:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An excerpt from the block log:

  • 15:20, 12 Jan 2005, Neutrality blocked Sud-Pol (expires 15:20, 12 Jul 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (Uploading dozens of pedophilic images and inserting them in inappropriate articles. Unresponsive to warnings.)

Apparently, he has even less patience than we with guys like this one... :-) Lupo 16:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think this block is inappropriate. His last edit is from four minutes before I warned him. After that, he pledged understanding on my talk page. How does that reflect on our system, if one admin warns you, and then another blocks you (for a 6 months), anyway? The images were not clearly pedophile, they would be appropriate in any family album. It's the pattern that struck us as pedophile, as discussed above. In any case, Neutrality had no call to block him for half a year: disruption blocks should be one day, and then up to one week. I don't like this user's behaviour any better than anyone else here, but we should stick to protocol regardless. Will people agree with me, therefore, if I unblock him? dab () 16:26, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. I find his 'pattern' repugnant, but he is entitled to the same consideration as anyone else. And a quiet word with Neutrality on sticking to protocol might not go astray. Filiocht 16:38, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but replace it with a 12-hour block (as discussed above). I think 12-hours/1-week/6-months is a reasonable progression, but I think we ought to take the steps one at a time. Noel (talk) 16:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
why? his next diaper-related edit will result in a 24 block. but he hasn't made another edit, yet. dab () 17:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah. I was under the impression that he had previously received a number of fairly tough warnings about this kind of content, and had continued to upload them anyway. However, looking at his talk page and his contributions, I see that his warning (from Lupo, at 13:29, 3 Jan 2005) was fairly mild, and that since then he's only uploaded one image (at 06:19, 9 Jan 2005) - at least, only one that still shows in the history. So, OK, give him a really explicit warning, and hold the block until he violates that. Noel (talk) 00:16, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry 'bout that. Didn't see the discussion. Carry on. :) Neutralitytalk 21:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
This user also vandalised Hadal's user page with diaper photos. silsor 00:27, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
That is straight vanderlism. The warning recived on the 9th should cover that so they have had a fair warning. A block of some form is definately in order (IMO). I'm temped to do it myself but I'm not sure on how long it should be forGeni 00:46, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for a day. silsor 00:51, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, didn't you guys notice his outright defacement vandalism at After the Gold Rush [22] and 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake [23] back on January 2? -- Curps 01:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As already mentioned, I warned Sud-Pol on the 9th. He was first warned by Infrogmation on January 2nd after the defacements noted by Curps. He was then warned by Lupo on the 3rd; with Dbachmann's and Fvw's warning on the 12th, that brings the total to five unheeded warnings. As for policies, Wikipedia:Blocking policy used to (until November 24) explicitly state that "Sysops may also permanently block user accounts that do essentially nothing but vandalism." (See Nov 9 copy of Wikipedia:Blocking policy#vandalism.) The wording is now much less clear; it seems to indicate that a username must be blocked initially for 24 hours, and then a maximum of one month following a repeat offence. Presumably some sort of "higher ruling" would then be required for a permanent block.
However, this is not what is done in practice: If a username is known for nothing but vandalism (granted, this depends on whether you think his pictures of toddlers in diapers are vandalism [which I do, given the context], or his Hans Van Der Hoek hoax is vandalism), the username is unceremoniously blocked indefinitely. There's no need for RfCs or the ArbCom in these cases, if you ask me; we shouldn't waste more time than necessary dealing with such obvious disruptors. -- Hadal 03:57, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
well, the block is fine with me, I suppose. I was concerned that my warning may appear disingenious, because it was not 'unheeded'. We'll probably not find out now whether user was serious about stopping the diapers. I suppose it was my fault to give him an additional warning in the first place. dab () 09:18, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172+Gzornenplatz contribution to the Polish-Soviet War[edit]

A series of incidents have occured recently with the Polish-Soviet War article. First, on 20:52, 12 Jan 2005 CET User:172 rewrote the lead, significantly changing the meaning of the article (see below for my summary explanation how the 172's changes twist the article meaning, for details and likely further discussion see Talk:Polish-Soviet_War#NPOV_dispute). I (incidentally, having written most of the article myself) reverted some of those changes (and went for dinner :>). In the space of next 2h 172 did 3 rv, helped by Gzornenplatz (wasn't he supposed to keep away from any articles about Poland?) and anon user 131.247.153.22, each with 1 revert, against my mentioned partial change and rv in the favour of my version by Emax (3) and Space Cadet (1). On 00:33, 13 Jan 2005 User:Everyking put the article on protection (in the anon/172 version) without any explanation for his actions. Since then several minor changes (grammar, etc. I have no objections to them) were done by 172 an User:Fred Bauder. For the moment, I am awaiting user 172 replies on the article talk pages. Since admin (accusing Poles of nationalism and mythological hero-worship at Talk:Polish-Soviet_War#Polish_nationalist_POV) is involved, I'd like to ask for some kind of observation and perhaps arbitration so the side represented atm by me (and assuming from comments and rv Emax and Space Cadet) can get a fair hearing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
About 172's changes I disagree with: 1) 172 is removing any mention that the Bolshevik offensive (Target Vistula) started in December 1918 well before any organised Polish push to the West 2) 172 is removing any mentions that that Bolsheviks' main goal was to spread the communist revolution West and link up with communist sympathisers in the German Revolution 3) 172 is adding sentences that grossly overstate the extent of Allied help to Poland, calling the 600 French (only) military advisors high-powered Allied intervention and suggesting that they were responsible for a dramatic reversal of military fortunes 4) 172 is rephrasing the part about the Miedzymorze confederation to look like Poland was intent on occupying Ukraine (when in fact Poland was helping the independece movement of Ukrainian People's Republic) and thus provoked the Bolshevik self-defensive counter-offensive. In summary, the changes are comparable to saying that the IIWW was provoked by UK and France who helped Poland invade Germany. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this got to Requests for comment?Geni 01:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is just an attempt to silence me because I have raised a neutrality dispute, which every user has the right to do on any article. Twice I was reverted without explanation by one editor, who marked his edits as minor. The other time I was reverted with the edit summary reading "revert vandalism." At no time did they bother to leave up the POV heading. Those two editors have since said nothing of substance on talk... There is no such thing as the 'accepted version.' Both versions are disputed... One could call placing this little one-sided account here where it does not belong trolling. 172 15:30, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, dear 172, this was not an attempt to silence you. This was an attempt to tone you down, which is a completely different matter. You reworded the article completely without any explanation on the talk page, without any consultation with those of us who have been working on it for some 3 months now and with the only comment being "NPOV", "POV" and "toning down Polish nationalist POV". So, whoever opposes your vision of history must of course be a nationalist, right? Then you started a revert war, and when reverted, instead of asking on the talk page what's wrong with your version or trying to find some compromise, you simply asked your friends to "take a look at the article" prepared by "Polish nationalists". This is not what we expected of you.
To make it easily readable: I have nothing against you, your rights to edit the article or your vision of reality. However, I strongly oppose the way you edited the article and the fact that you started insulting others before you ever posted on the talk page of the respective article. Halibutt 19:22, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
If anyone is insulting others here, it's your pal Space Cadet using the edit summary "rv vandalism" against a serious editor. That you're nationalists is just an obvious fact. Gzornenplatz 17:57, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Just because I don't quarrel with Space Cadet night and day doesn't mean we're both nationalists. Also, if there is a larger group of us nationalists here - please be so kind as to provide me with more info on myself and my friends. First read the wikipedia article on nationalism and then please be so kind as to list all similarities on my talk page. With diffs and links.
Also, Gzornenplatz, you should first decide what type of a nationalist I am. It's that some two months ago you called me a German nationalist. Now I'm a Polish nationalist for you. I can't be both, you know..? Halibutt 18:21, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
You better provide some diffs and links of where I called you a German nationalist. You merely were in an unholy alliance with German nationalists on the Polish city-name issue, pushing the same version based on quite different motives (here's a telling diff where Emax betrays his real preference: [24]). That you, Emax, and Space Cadet are Polish nationalists is more than obvious from your entire edit history. Your present attempt to tell a POV tale of brave and heroic Poles single-handedly saving European civilization from the barbarous hordes of Bolshevism is a case in point. Gzornenplatz 19:12, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please take this to your talk pages (or RFC of medation or arbcom depending on how far things have got). This noticeboard is not here for this type of dissagrementGeni 19:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Rhobite's Misuse of Administrator Blocking[edit]

Thanks to those who helped drafting of the Request for Comment on Rhobite [25].

It makes a sad story. Ollieplatt 08:21, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it seems Rhobite himself is the only person who has 'helped' you drafting it(?) I suppose you are welcome. dab () 09:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is an important test of whether Rhobite can continue to deem contributions he doesn't like to be "misinformation". He uses this as a basis for blocking users he doesn't like. Ollieplatt 10:06, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another user has revealed that 60 seconds passed between one of Rhobite's so-called warnings and his blocking of me. Ollieplatt 11:23, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

yeah, but it was not your first warning, and I recommended you recognize the block was warranted, and concentrate on becoming an acceptable editor. dab () 11:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ollieplatt does not appear to have engaged in vandalism - although he certainly needs a Wikiquette lesson (and fast). To be honest, I'm not sure Rhobite's block was in line with any policy, though given the circumstances, I can understand why Rhobite wanted Ollieplatt blocked. jguk 12:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
sigh. user is now spamming talk pages on Rhobite's contribs [26]. get a life. dab () 13:56, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite has apologised for the block (bottom of RFC) and suggested Ollieplatt edit in a less obnoxious fashion. I concur - David Gerard 16:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This User is obviously the sock puppet of somebody who knows his/her way around Wikipedia. They come in making attack edits and don't expect repercussions? RickK 21:30, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)


Unusual username[edit]

Not sure what this is, but an editor with an unusual username is making edits, at least one of which was outright vandalism: [27]. I can't seem to get a user contributions page to check other edits. olderwiser 17:48, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this, it's being fixed right now. silsor 18:09, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Kate said this was a bug due to the load balancing being implemented. I wondered if it it was abuse too, but it's not. Rhobite 18:15, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
The user's contribution page is accessible to me, at least, at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=User: (copy and paste -- if I trust Mediawiki to convert it into a hyperlink, it omits the colon) although I admit that this link is not the one you're aimed at when you click on "contribs" in the diff Bkonrad supplied. I have the same problem with a user named Special:Contributions whose work is available here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Special:Contributions (never mind, I thought that worked....well, then we can't see his contribs -- I hope the fix occurs very soon!) Jwrosenzweig 19:02, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seriously a bug produced "assparts of Alaska were occupied by Japanese troops."?--Jirate 19:07, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)


NetBot unblock request[edit]

NetBot was blocked today by RickK. This is a standard pywikipedia bot which has been helping greatly with handling with the backlog of work on WP:CFD and WP:TFD. It occassionally also helps with disambiguation, simple text replacements, and other tasks like that. It's been running very well for months without a bot flag, to allay some early concerns over its owner (me).

Recent "controversy" erupted because it handled the removal of a template created by User:Brockert, and he and RickK have been feeding off of it in a frenzy, without truly looking at the benefits that this bot brings to some very backlogged maintenance areas. Since the admin that blocked it is known to have a "grudge" against me personally, I ask for someone objective to review its contributions, and see that its use has been of a great benefit. WP:CFD especially is tremendously backlogged, and I would really like to continue helping in that area. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

I have no idea what the bot has been doing. I don't care what the bot has been doing. Netoholic is running an unauthorized bot. I told him that I would block it if he didn't get approval to run it, and he ran it anyway, so I blocked it. I have no opinion as to what it is doing. RickK 21:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid the merits of your bot do not matter here; we have rules concerning and governing bots, and if yours does not comply, it should be blocked until which time it does. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See that's the problem... there is a lot of talk about the procedure, yet noone is looking at the request on it's face to just say "Yeah, having an extra hand to help with the mountain of tedious work is a good thing". The only disapprovals have been to re-hash the argument about whether it does or does not yet have approval. Goddammit people, I am on my (virtual) hands and knees begging "PLEASE let me help with maintenance!". Admins are said to have a "mop and bucket", and if I can't be an admin, then dammit let me help where I can. -- Netoholic @ 21:42, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

Before anybody looks any further into this I suggest looking at Wikipedia talk:Bots#NetBot where this is discussed. From what I can tell of that I am not convinced that the bot should be unblocked. violet/riga (t) 21:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This discussion confuses me. Netoholic (with whom I have no argument) suggests that an admin keep an eye on his bot's contributions. The purpose of bot approval is to avoid having to watch all bots' contributions at all times, which is an enormous waste of effort. I don't see how this policy could be misunderstood. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 00:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion to review the contributions is to assure everyone that this bot account is performing a very useful service, without causing harm to articles and without being a server hog. Those are the criteria on Wikipedia:Bots. There are also two de facto "levels" of approval - one that says a bot may perform its work, and another, to allow the bot to run flagged so that its edits are not shown in Recentchanges. I would be happy with either level of "approval", and if admins or anyone else here needs to check the contributions, I invite them to at any time. Barring any objections to the stated purpose, though, I ask that the account be unblocked so I can continue assisting in these much-needed areas. -- Netoholic @ 01:50, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I support that people do not reject this bot on technicalities, but look into its merits and demerits, and when rejecting it, give their reasons, and suggestions for improvement (sort of like on FAC). 'keeping an eye' on the bot may be worth the trouble if it does a really useful job. dab () 09:00, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That bot does a really useful job. I think I saw an admin ask Netoholic for him to modify it to help with some grunt work a while ago. I think that in itself is a stunning endorsement of the bot itself. I can't understand why people aren't allowing him to use it! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This was probably when I was asked to help out after the recent MediaWiki upgrade, which changed how the signatures of some people were being rendered. I designed a text replacement string to fix them and ran it on a few pages by request, plus a few other of the more heavily populated talk pages like this one. -- Netoholic @ 15:30, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

Reading this whole thing has left me feeling like I've stepped into Alice's Looking Glass. When I took at look at WP:CfD on 7 January, it was up to well over 200KB long. After a fair amount of work (I spent a good part of two days on it), it was down to about 170KB. Unfortunately, all the easy entries had been done. Basically all of the remaining ones need have have category entries in article deleted and/or changed, and doing that by hand is really painful. I did some (e.g. Category:Government of North Carolina) by hand, and it was a real drag (literally - with the Wikipedia being so slow).

Unfortunately, now both bots that were lending a hand with doing the grunt-work are now offline - the Pearle bot because it was doing things inefficiently, and this one because people don't want Netoholic running a bot.

(Complaints of the form "he removed references to template {x} before there was consensus to get rid of it" are not really germane - that's not a problem with the correct operation of the bot, since it's an issue that would have happened anyway had he been doing the work by hand. Ironically, one of the ones people were complaining about he did do by hand.)

How about one of the objectors to Netoholic running this bot instead runs a bot themselves to do WP:CfD stuff, then? I note that despite a number of people's hard work, CfD is still a massive 150KB. I'm sure Netoholic would be happy to let someone else do the work on CfD. Noel (talk) 13:07, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule on Democratic Party (United States)[edit]

Although they're not reverts to the same version, User:Ollieplatt has reverted Democratic Party (United States) four times in a 24-hour period. Revert to "Jennypratt"'s version: [28], Reverting "signature issues" section: [29] [30], Replacing another list he added: [31]

User:12.217.127.27 also violated the rule: [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]

I'm not going to block them since I'm the subject of an RFC by Ollieplatt. Rhobite 03:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, nor should you, you are defending someone writing blatant POV material, you repeatedly abuse your admin powers both by ignoring policy and using these powers selectively. You should no longer be an admin. Ollieplatt 03:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I said the anon should be blocked too. Rhobite 03:08, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ollieplatt, messages like these are unnecessarily hostile. Rhobite is showing he can adhere to rules here, and saying something like this in return is only inflammatory. If he's indeed doing what you say, the RFC will succeed. There's no need to further attack his actions anywhere outside the RFC. (MacGyverMagic from anon connection) 131.211.210.132 07:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After considering the page history, I've blocked both User:Ollieplatt and User:12.217.127.27 for 24 hours. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Category:Proprietary games[edit]

This category was listed on Categories for deletion. However, I don't know any process to reverse the votes or change it from not being deleted. There is only one problem attempting to empty the category... the suggested move to Category:Computer and video games by company is an incorrect suggestion, and whether or not placing these articles Category:Computer and video games would be considered as disruptive. A few of the articles reference to companies which are now defunct. Although they can be placed into categories that appropriately fit their company, I am uncertain whether that should be the clear solution in this case. Some of the game articles listed in the category have existing companies which have categories, but a lot of them don't seem to. Would it be just best to remove the category from the articles if they already have categories? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the category can be safely removed from all articles. Most are already in a game related category. Jordi· 14:58, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have looked at the articles in this category several times over the past two days and at a crossroads as to how to deal with it. A lot of the games seemed to be developed by one company and distributed by another. I really don't think we need to be adding a whole bunch of new subcats to Category:Computer and video games by company just for relatively minor companies. I'd prefer to just remove the category from all the articles and be done with it. Most of the games are categorized upside down and inside out it seems enough already. Categorization overkill seems to be rampant in some areas. Categorization is great but only to a certain point. RedWolf 23:57, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I opposed deleting this category for all of the above reasons. I did NOT propose making new categories in Category:Computer and video games by company, but to move articles into subcategories of that category where appropriate and remove them from Category:Proprietary games. Actually, I found that with many articles, this had already been done, leaving proprietary largely redundant. While doing this, I found that many companies have software by X categories, but the company's article is not linked to it! This is a mess. (but I digress) I have removed the proprietary tag from all articles that already have a name-brand or series related category. The rest (~30) need to be examined by a gaming expert and adjusted as appropriate. --ssd 06:02, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)


User:Irismeister at Romanian Orthodox Church[edit]

Banned user Irismeister has been editing the Romanian Orthodox Church article under a number of IPs, mostly in the 82.124.xxx.xxx range, but apparently most recently in the 82.77.xxx.xxx range. I'm not sure how to deal with this. Jayjg | (Talk) 16:56, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See above ;-) He's under an arbcom hard ban. Block on sight, revert as needed. They're wanadoo.fr dialup IPs, so will be dynamic, but I think the collateral damage on en: will be minimal - I've been blocking by the /24 - David Gerard 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've just blocked a pile of these, and I've also placed a note on Talk:Romanian Orthodox Church - David Gerard 20:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


3RR violation at Pieces of Me[edit]

Everyking has reverted Pieces of Me either entirely or in sections seven times in the past 24 hours: [37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. Note that "restore" seems to be a shorthand for "revert this section, but wait on the rest of the article to avoid a technical violation of the 3RR". --Carnildo 20:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Carnildo has certainly violated the 3RR, and I've blocked him for 24 hours: [44] [45] [46] [47]. Everyking appears only to have two recent reverts, [48] and [49]. He has, in fact, reverted pieces of various paragraphs, and has used "restore" when he clearly means "revert," but as far as I can see he has not explicitly violated the 3RR. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 21:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I submit that Everyking has also violated the 3RR: [50], [51], and [52] are full reverts, and the combined effect of [53], [54], and [55] is to revert the article, and would have done so if Reene hadn't reverted the first two.
I agree and have blocked Everyking for 24 hours. Is the IP the above was posted from (User:65.101.119.25) User:Carnildo though? Could a devel check? I assume there's some policy against evading blocks, though I can only find policy on evading bans. --fvw* 22:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
There were definitely three reverts, all to Reene's version from this morning. As for the fourth, I don't know if those edits all add up to a revert. Rhobite 22:27, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
Everyking appears only to have 2-3 recent reverts. Although there were more than two edits, he changed around pieces of various paragraphs, perhaps seeking compromise, so this does not count. 172 22:30, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While [56] could with a lot of effort be construed as seeking compromise, this is sheer reversion; just because it happened to not to cover the entire previous revert doesn't mean it's not a reversion; If reversion has to be the entire edit the 3RR becomes incapable of stopping revert wars as anyone can just avoid reverting a single word. --fvw* 22:36, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
Partial revert = attempt at compromise. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 22:49, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Multiple reverts (partial or otherwise) without attempting discussion on talk page = complete ignorance of how to appropriately reach a compromise. See Talk:Pieces of Me (not that there's anything to see there). --Michael Snow 00:13, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that discussing in talk is vital, and that I know nothing of the particulars in this case. i was just making a point about partial reverts. I'll leave now :) Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 00:46, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile, 172 has unblocked Everyking and one of his autoblocked IPs, and a developer check confirms that the anon who posted the above comment shares an IP with User:Carnildo. I have blocked the IP, also for 24 hours. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 23:53, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What a tempest in a teapot... -- Jmabel | Talk 00:28, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I figure if I'm restoring a paragraph or a sentence here or there, that's probably a good way to figure out what the other person is willing to accept. If he or she makes a massive edit, and I revert it fully, then we're not really sure where we stand on the individual details. But if I restore one sentence, and the other person leaves it alone, well, maybe that means the other person is willing to accept it. And also, a lot of these restorations of content included revisions that were attempts to abbreviate the content a bit as attempts at compromise. I would love to engage in a point by point discussion about these things, but unfortunately there has not been very much of that happening. To characterize my partial restorations of content as a violation of the 3RR is a total misinterpretation of the rule, in my opinion. If what I was doing is forbidden by the 3RR, then it seems to me people would have no incentive to make edits geared towards finding an acceptable compromise, since they'd just be "reverting" anyway. Everyking 08:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not that I'm intimately involved in this, but, just to point something out, that's what Talk pages are for. Talk:Pieces of Me has a whopping total of one entry, and that's a link to the article's VfD debate. Without Talk pages, there would be similar seesaw editing occuring on any number of contentious articles. --Slowking Man 08:30, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
That's true, but this is a dispute that's carried over from other articles; basically, some people believe I've added too much information to the articles and are deleting a lot of it. I don't absolutely object to deletion of some things, but I do object to the kind of massive deletions being attempted by Carnildo. The talk page is right there for him if he wants to explain why he removed something and try to defend it without just revert warring. Everyking 08:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note Everyking is already the subject of an RfC with massive support relating almost entirely merely to his exploits on Autobiography (album) (where he at one point committed five reverts within two hours). I don't believe the 3RR covers partial reverts, but Everyking has definitely been constantly violating the spirit of the 3 revert rule on disputed articles related to Ashlee Simpson. That alone is cause enough to worry. I submit no opinion as to this particular dispute, but just letting everyone know Everyking has a history of massive reverting and/or sneaking around the 3RR where Ashlee Simpson is involved. Johnleemk | Talk 09:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)