Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive25

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: May 25, 2005 - May 28, 2005


Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/White Dawg[edit]

Er... exactly what should I make out of that VfD? It appears to be someone trying to reopen a VfD debate, and rapping off a whole load of swear words in the process. Sjakkalle 07:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Fixed now. It's a renomination of something that survived VfD about a year ago. The nomination was somewhat... shall we say... strange. WP:RPA has been applied, and it now looks sensible. Radiant_* 09:00, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


Javascript-based vandalism[edit]

I suppose the notice on Wikipedia:Recentchanges refers to User:Vandal high school!. Indeed he used the old trick of having a monobook.js that filled-in the content in the edit box and submitted the form upon the "onload" event. That does indeed speed up a vandal a bit, because any red link or other edit-link clicked or otherwise submitted fills or overwrites the target page automatically: no need to actually visit these pages and click the "Save page" button. Such JavaScript-assisted vandal attacks have occurred several times in the past few months, and they invariable used this scheme. How about doing something against this? I have experimented with an approach that disables all calls to the critical submit-function, but only if that function is called from within an "onload" handler. The code is here. I have tested this on Mozilla only, but if other JavaScript-savvy people could test it (and take a look at it and maybe improve it), we could add this code to our site-wide JavaScript file. If I got it right, that would effectively counter this vandal attack scheme. Lupo 11:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering what you were up to. I'm not sure we should be adding complexity for this though, as if we disable this method there are a million similar (and probably faster) methods to be used. Also, the vandals could just use greasemonkey if they really wanted to use javascript. See also wikitech-l discussion on this. --W(t) 11:42, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
I only just discovred how to use the .js (by copying and testing the vandals' scripts). I think they could be useful for non-vandals (monotonous tasks) and I'd be sad to see them blocked just as I discovered them. BrokenSegue 11:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Lupo's proposal is merely to disable hitting submit on page load. I don't think you want to do that without a bot flag anyway. Anything else would still be fine. By the way, Lupo: how would you handle things like timers that hit submit 1ms after page load and such? --W(t) 12:14, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Dunno, haven't looked into it. I am well aware that starting to counteract common vandal tactics might lead to an arms race. My little experiment was designed only to put an end to this particular scheme. Let's deal with other tactics if and when they appear. Lupo 12:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


User:William M. Connolley (I)[edit]

Temporary injunction violation on Greenhouse effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Cortonin | Talk 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:William M. Connolley violated the terms of the temporary injunction with the above revert labelled "Rv, as ever". According to the terms of the injunction, a revert should be backed up with reliable sources such as peer reviewed works, yet William M. Connolley's comment on the talk page did not provide any sources (and in particular no peer reviewed sources) for any component of his revert. The arbcom has requested that administrators treat a violation of this injunction as a violation of the 3RR. Cortonin | Talk 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 16:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) This is transparently vindictive nonsense. The revert was backed up on the talk page [1], the sources are those reverted back in.
  • (William M. Connolley 22:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) Also, please see this: [2]


User:William M. Connolley (II)[edit]

Temporary injunction violation on Greenhouse effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Cortonin | Talk 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User:William M. Connolley violated the terms of the temporary injunction with the above revert labelled "Rv, as ever". According to the terms of the injunction, a revert should be backed up with reliable sources such as peer reviewed works, yet William M. Connolley's comment on the talk page did not provide any sources (and in particular no peer reviewed sources) for any component of his revert. The arbcom has requested that administrators treat a violation of this injunction as a violation of the 3RR. Cortonin | Talk 16:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm actually not sure if such a thing should be reported here or over at 3RR. So perhaps after dealing with this, an administrator could let me know where the appropriate place to report an injunction violation of this sort would be. Thanks. Cortonin | Talk 20:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not an administrator, but to me here (WP:AN/I seems the best place, rather than 3RR. I have reported similar things here in the past and action has been taken. Thryduulf 21:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 22:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) Your attention is directed to this [3].


Oceanographer and Kils[edit]

User:Oceanographer is a new account whose only work has been to create a lengthy article on Uwe Kils (in other words, User:Kils from Wikipedia history). Whether or not Oceanographer is in fact Kils, I consider the article effectively a vanity page because it seems to be created entirely from the links to CV and biographical information Kils left on his user page. Accordingly, I moved the article to Oceanographer's user space, a solution I consider appropriate for vanity pages. Oceanographer reverted this.

Given the circumstances (brand new account, Kils' history), I think this also could fall under the blocking policy as a new account that may be blocked for disruption. I haven't blocked yet, but will consider it if problems continue. Feedback and assistance in dealing with this situation is welcome, particularly from old hands familiar with Kils. --Michael Snow 16:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Did User:Kils have a history of writing vanity articles? I cursory glance suggests he's important to his field. The links needs to be fixed to point to internal stuff though... Mgm|(talk) 19:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • BTW, I don't support blocking unless you we can get undeniable proof it's Kils himself. Have you explained why you think the article doesn't belong here? Mgm|(talk) 19:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Writing a vanity page is not a blockable offense. That said, the current page on Uwe Kils is a vanity page. However, as Mgm has pointed out, it seems that he is noteable enough to be covered in this encyclopedia. But not in this way. This needs a massive rewrite (wikification, de-hype, general tone-down, removal of some images, removal of his activities on Wikipedia). As to whether User:Oceanographer is a sockpuppet: I have no proof, but I would think he's either Kils himself or someone close to him. User:Kils has made only sporadic edits in 2005 so far. Then on May 23, 2005, he becomes suddenly very active, putting together User:Kils/evaluation1, User:Kils/cv, and User:Kils/testimony. The latter can be found verbatim in the article Uwe Kils. Kils is done with this work at 12:55, 24 March 2005 (UTC), and a mere three hours later, User:Oceanographer appears and puts together the article at User:Oceanographer/Uwe Kils, with the very first version already including all of User:Kils/testimony. That shows two things: (1) Oceanographer knows quite well how the Wikipedia works. Too well to be a newbie. (2) He was fully aware of what Kils was doing on Wikipedia on May 23/24, 2005. I don't believe in coincidences. But all that is of no great importance, I'd say. All that is needed is a nice big edit over at the article Uwe Kils, unless we discover that here someone was bolstering up his achievements. But somehow I doubt that is the case. Lupo 19:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If it is Kils, as Lupo seems to suggest, then I'm less inclined to consider this disruption for blocking purposes (someone impersonating Kils is much more disruptive). But as for the article, the content is not just vanity, it's unverifiable. Basically, all the external links in the article that mention Kils come from his personal pages. That stuff can't be considered verifiable without finding confirmation for it elsewhere. The only verifiable fact I can trace to a reliable outside source is that Kils is an Associate Professor in planktology at the IMCS at Rutgers University. --Michael Snow 19:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Michael Snow asked me to weigh in on this and provide historical perspective, so here I am. First, I'd encourage everyone to remember that the policy on vanity pages is relatively new and has been adopted since Kils left (or sharply curtailed his editing, at least). Second, Kils had a number of sock puppets, and it was his abuse of socks that got him de-admined (combined with purporting to have additional authority by virtue of being an admin -- something that seems to pass without so much as a raised eyebrow today). It would not take a large stretch of the imagination to believe that he might be editing with a sock today. I would think that blocking him would be premature; better to VfD the article and leave it at that. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I do not like these tones - I am not user:oceanographer - I made them and tried to get them into wikipedia - and I was not user:viking - I made them - It's not much fun these days with coworkers like you - I have so many students I could ask to program for me, but I did not - I had enough publicity in my life Uwe Kils 00:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
Image:Studentskils.jpg [image de-inlined by Lupo. El_C 09:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)]
Note that Kils placed an identical comment on his RFA page, including the image, which I immediately de-inlined. El_C 09:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Zen-master[edit]

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

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • After the 4th revert was warned about not violating the 3RR, but has reverted twice since then. Jayjg (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Jayjg fails to note that removing disputed template headers counts as simple vandalism, so these edits are about correcting simple vandalism. zen master T 18:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • the case you are about to to make for that claim is going to be remarkably good.Geni 18:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • are you saying I should report jayjg and the other user for vandalism? zen master T 18:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • No I'm saying I cant't see any way under the rules that removeing a disputed template counts as simple vandalism.Geni 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What Zen-master fails to note is that removing spurious disputed template headers is nowhere to be found under the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism, and that people can't make up their own definitions for vandalism. If they could, I could make a much stronger argument that adding spurious disputed template headers to articles is vandalism. Geni, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for 24h. -- Viajero | Talk 18:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


VfD archives[edit]

I'm looking for an old VfD for the stuff that has re-appeared at Fortress Blakeley. I know an article with this text has already been on VfD and got deleted, but can't find the old discussion because I don't remember neither the approximate time nor the page title. Related suspicious articles are at Blakeley Fortress and Hacienda Toscana. Also see Special:Undelete/Fort Blakeley. Can anyone find that old VfD discussion? Does anyone else remember this? Lupo 20:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Forget it, found it: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fort Bleakeley. Lupo 20:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Oceanographer[edit]

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

Reported by: Anilocra 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • A "pseudo-vanity" article (I assume on the author's PhD supervisor) which was copied to user space (User:Oceanographer/Uwe Kils) by Michael Snow (talk · contribs), who created a redirect to this page. The user has been warned that the content of the article may not be suitable for wikipedia, but makes reference to a discussion on notablity criteria where one user suggests that "tenured faculty at four year colleges and graduate schools" are sufficiently notable for inclusion as justification for their reverts. To be fair to them, they are new to wikipedia. Anilocra 21:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


User:ElKabong[edit]

Are there any circumstances in which we're allowed to block for personal attacks? ElKabong (talk · contribs) has been leaving abusive messages for several editors on talk pages and by e-mail, but today left this [4] on Talk:Islamofascism for a Muslim editor, which I feel crosses a line. Do the rules allow us to block for such an attack, say for 24 hours? He has used sockpuppets, engaged in revert wars, and has been blocked three times for 3RR, and while he's made some normal edits, most of his time here is spent fighting. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

We are not supposed to block for personal attacks, and if ElKabong were blocked for that reason, I'd probably unblock him—as annoying as he is, the limits on sysop authority ought to be respected. That said, unless he shapes up soon, I see an open-and-shut arbitration case in his immediate future. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
we can block for personaly attacks if they are dissrupting wikipedia. It is probably not a good idea to do this very often though.Geni 23:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I'd say he's doing it deliberately to disrupt, because he's having no other effect. He's had several admins and editors running around trying to sort out the various sockpuppet issues, revert the abuse, protect pages, block him for 3RR, deal with his abusive e-mailed denials etc. Before we can go to the arbcom, we'd have to do an RfC; it seems absurd to go through all that with a user as disruptive as this. I won't take it upon myself, however, to block him for this unless others support it.SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I did not see SlimVrigin's Talk:Islamofascism diff she cites above prior to commenting on this user's talk page. I would say, this (again) is clearly a breach of conduct and the user should be facing the Arbitration Committee for it. El_C 23:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
This is not the first personal attack he has made against me. He and his sockpuppets have made too many personal attacks to count, please see his RFC page for more information.Yuber(talk) 23:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Elkabong's editing now as Enviroknot (talk · contribs). This was a name he used when he e-mailed me. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:04, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
He has been more gentle in his editing with that sockpuppet. I fear, however, that he will be angered again as his edits were quickly reverted after being found false.Yuber(talk) 00:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Enviroknot is the least abusive of the three so far, and the only one not to address me as a POV-pushing fascist in his e-mails, in which he called himself Cranston Snord (Enviroknot being the name in the e-mail address itself). They're like the id, ego, and superego. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:53, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the user could be convinced to apologize and make amends? There is not always a need for punitive resolution. Everyking 15:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Elkabong is the new Alberuni, but by all means, give it a go. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:48, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


User:Lupo and the VfD[edit]

Lupo (talk · contribs) deleted Fortress Blakeley on the premises that it was a hoax. I beleive this, but then, he proceeded to delete my article Hacienda Toscana which was about roughly the same topic but more accurate and based on fact, not fiction. The information in my aricle came from a book called "The Future of the Past" with ISBN 0-330-37534-2. He then said that the ISBN didnt exist because he didnt find it on Amazon.com, and gave me two other ISBNs without even checking my ISBN. Then he said that I wrote Fortress Blakeley and that I was responsible for it, and that I should be "pulling someone elses' legs". Then he deleted the articles on the presumption that it was a recreation of a former fake article. My article is real, however. Please help. Kaschner 22:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Hoaxer. Ignore. RickK 23:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know about this case, but I will say that RickK tends to dismiss a lot of verifiable articles as "probable hoaxes." Consider, for instance, Daniel L. Lurker. Even a cursory examination of the references would disprove any accusation that it's a hoax. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Daniel L. Lurker No doubt it's true 21:01, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
      • How do you know what I "tend to do", if you've only been here two days? RickK 23:51, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ad hominem attacks, gotta love 'em. Pravoka 00:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
He then said that the ISBN didnt exist because he didnt find it on Amazon.com, and gave me two other ISBNs without even checking my ISBN. It not being on amazon means he checked it and found the book didn't exist. Mgm|(talk) 04:40, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
That ISBN (0-330-37534-2) is indeed a valid ISBN for The Future of the Past, so if Amazon doesn't have it, it's a bad way to check for valid ISBNs! - or perhaps someone mistyped something. (This of course, doesn't mean the information actually is in there....) - Nunh-huh 04:46, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Cool! I have my own entry here! May I just point out that I didn't delete the article. And I didn't mistype the ISBN; I only checked amazon.com. amazon.co.uk does know the ISBN. But it was a hoax all the same. If you're interested, check Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fortress Blakeley, where all the pertinent links to the old VfD and the archive of this very page are given. Lupo 06:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but that proves that what Wellman (talk · contribs) wrote was a hoax. It doesn't prove that the short article taht I wrote was a hoax especially because I based it on fact. Prove to me that Hacienda Tosana was a hoax. Kaschner 12:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
As has been pointed out several times, the burden of proof is on you to show us verfiable sources, not for us to prove otherwise. --khaosworks 16:16, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I gave you proof! Up there! What do you mean "The burden of proof is on you"? It's on you! I gave you the proof and you prov e to me that what I wrote is fake because I have proof! Buy the book if you dont believe. Stupid idiots. Kaschner 17:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
First of all, please read WP:NPA. The problem with a book is, as you say, you have to have it to know if the information giving it as a reference is valid and accurate. So it's verifiable, but not *readily* so. Master Thief GarrettTalk 18:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, so it's verifiable, but why these guys delete my article along with the hoax? Kaschner 18:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Which chapter of "The Future of the Past" is your information taken from? Thanks, -Willmcw 20:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's 11. Wait I'll go check. Kaschner 20:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Please give us the page numbers too, while you're at it. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Still waiting...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmcw (talkcontribs) 20:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Based on the inability of the editor to find his source, I think that the earlier judgement on the verifiability of Hacienda Toscana was correct. If the editor still believes that the article was incorrectly deleted, there are still other avenues available. -Willmcw 02:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Considering that Future of the Past by Alexander Stiles under that ISBN is about historical preservation, I'm very skeptical that there will be a reference forthcoming. --khaosworks 21:26, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

There's something here? I thought it was deelted. Pp. 299-310. Kaschner 12:14, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The entire chapter of eleven pages is on the Hacienda? Was that book listed as a source in the article? I don't have the book in hand but I see that the author's name and the title, Stille+"hacienda toscana", bring up zero Google hits, which is never easy. -Willmcw 01:06, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Also, at amazon [5] you can do a full-text search of the book's contents. Neither "hacienda" nor "toscana" are found. --Tabor 01:32, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


User:Yuber[edit]

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

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Note: He keeps reverting the phrase
    • The imposition of a jizya upon non-Muslims is mandated by to
    • The word jizyah is taken from the root jaza, which means compensation. It is unclear if the word refers to monetary compensation, although literally it does not. The word is found in
  • at the beginning of the article, and using complex reverts (e.g. 1st revert, 3rd revert) to mask this. Here is an example of an earlier revert to this wording: [6] He was blocked for doing this very thing 3 days ago, and at that time had complex reverts explained to him clearly, but he persists in doing this. Jayjg (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I think it was maybe the wrong diff, but I checked in the history and it's clear there. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
It's definitely a violation. I'd prefer if someone else could look at this and do the block, as I've blocked Yuber twice already for 3RR, and he'll start to think it's personal; however, if no one has within the next hour or two, I'll come back and do it. He's been warned a lot, on top of the previous blocks: I've warned him on his talk page and several times by e-mail. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:41, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
I blocked hiem for 24 hours. --nixie 02:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Nixie. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:09, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


User:Pibohmark@aol.com[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Put-in-Bay,_Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Pibohmark%40aol.com (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User appears to continue to make anonymous reverts. Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • User claims "we would greatly appreciate not have to revert our page back on a daily basis" [7] Norvy 07:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
User warned. Rama 07:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit war is continuing; anon 63.238.18.169 (talk · contribs) is using the exact same revert message as Pibohmark, so it's probably the same person. Noel (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected the page. Noel (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


User:NoPuzzleStranger[edit]

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

NoPuzzleStranger (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Halibutt 13:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • thre reverts is allowed under the rules.Geni 20:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


Waffle hoax[edit]

I suspect this anon is hoaxing us. But I feel generous today. Can anyone provide sources to prove this stuff, or should he be reverted? Mgm|(talk) 15:19, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


User:151.188.16.14[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Vandalists Rule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 151.188.16.14 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Alphax τεχ 17:49, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Those diffs have been deleted. El_C 23:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
That's because the entire page has been deleted. Noel (talk) 03:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Zivinbudas[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Grand Duchy of Lithuania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Halibutt 18:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Same good old Zivinbudas, frequently listed here on AN:3RR and subject to current RfC, also frequently blocked in the past for violation of the 3RR... Nothing new, sadly. Halibutt 18:59, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


Anonymous editor at Apartheid[edit]

An anonymous editor at Apartheid is using dialup IPs and sockuppets to continually revert the Apartheid article. Jayjg (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • As a point of interest, he's reverted 7 times using 2 IP addresses and 4 sockuppets. Jayjg (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggest listing this at WP:RFPP and asking for temporary page protection as I don't think an IP block would work in this situation. Thryduulf 20:09, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Protected. If alternative solutions would be more effective, feel free to unprotect. --Michael Snow 20:48, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Cantus (I)[edit]

Again, Cantus uses a sockpuppet (200.83.186.180) on Template:Europe to get around his one-revert limit. Note his previous use of 200.83.* IPs which were already determined by David Gerard to be Cantus. [8] NoPuzzleStranger 23:20, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Moreover, he now uses the obvious sockpuppet User:Pages, which he used previously when he was blocked as Cantus. Note the monobook.css identical to Cantus's. NoPuzzleStranger 02:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


User:William M. Connolley (III)[edit]

Temporary injunction violation on Medieval Warm Period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs)

Reported by: -- JonGwynne 00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

WMC is subject to a temporary injunction barring him from more than one revert in a 24 hour period. Furthermore, it requires each revert to be backed up on the relevant talk page. WMC has failed to do so - the whole of his supporting documentation is "I've reverted, of course." In addition, I'd like to point out that WMC has engaged in grotesque incivility - referring to another users edits as "foolishness". According to the terms of the injunction, Administrators are requested to consider these as violations of the 3RR. As they will also note, there are other examples of his refusal to abide by wikipedia rules in this area. Please ban him accordingly. --JonGwynne 00:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Your diffs are 26 hours apart. How does that amount to violation of the injunction? Guettarda 04:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
He did fail to back up his reverts as required in the injunction (the incivility and the repitious nature of the act could be seen to compound the violation). But if you don't want to ban him for this one, how about the one above? --JonGwynne 05:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little amused that JonGwynne should think that calling another editor's work "foolishness" is "grotesque incivility". How, then (especially in light of the injunction relating to his own behaviour), would he describe this: "I mean it sounds as though you're talking through your hat but if you are actually an editor of a publication similar to Nature, then you might be in a position to make these sort of comments. If not, then they're a joke." ([11]). I must admit that when he addressed this comment to me I didn't think of it as "grotesque incivility", but perhaps I should reevaluate it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:32, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I'll explain the difference Mel, when I was speaking to you I made it clear that I was expressing my personal opinion (i.e. it sounds as though) and I made it clear that if you actually had experience as an editor it would be a different matter entirely. WMC on the other hand, denounces things as "foolishness", "pointless" or "nonsense" as though these were unequivocal fact when they are simply his opinions and worth no more or less than those than those opinions he rudely dismisses. He behaves more like a cult member than a scientists - furiously denouncing and belittling those who question his version of the truth or the version he has accepted as the "revealed word". — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonGwynne (talkcontribs) 07:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)) This is vindictive nonsense from JG. As you've noticed, they are 26h apart. They are also backed up, as required, on the talk page.

Ah, more incivility from WMC. As for his unsupported claim that his revert is backed up... the reality is here [12], he offers nothing but a rude remark and some equally irrelevant personal speculation. The fact is that, his bluster notwithstanding, he has failed to abide by the injunction against him and should be blocked. --JonGwynne 07:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Cantus (II)[edit]

Again, Cantus uses IPs (200.83.186.180, 200.83.185.117) on Template:Europe and Developed country to get around his one-revert limit. Note his previous use of 200.83.* IPs which were already determined by David Gerard to be Cantus. [13] Moreover, he now uses the obvious sockpuppet User:Pages, which he used previously when he was blocked as Cantus. Note the monobook.css identical to Cantus's. NoPuzzleStranger 02:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

and we are going to use our disscression not to care.Geni 13:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, why is that? And how can you speak for everyone else? Would some other sysops please weigh in here. This was a clear violation of Cantus' arbcom parole, and what's more, it is a repeat offense, which should now result in the full one-week block provided by the ruling. Even without Cantus' special restrictions, the first IP reverted four times so it would have been a 3RR anyway. NoPuzzleStranger 13:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
I zapped the IP range for a further 24 hours (this may need unblocking if there's collateral damage, but it's a /29, i.e. eight IPs total). And well spotted on Pages, who does indeed appear to be Cantus and who I have accordingly blocked as a sock - David Gerard 01:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Socks are not illegal per se, so you should watch out with that block. I'm obviously not admitting anything here, just giving you advice. —Cantus 03:12, May 31, 2005 (UTC)


Impersonation of User:JarlaxleArtemis[edit]

  • User:JarIaxIeArtemis
  • User:JarIaxleArtemis
  • User:JarlaxIeArtemis

Replaces one or both ells in the legit user's name with eyes. Please block. FreplySpang (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. User:CryptoDerk blocked two of them, I got the other. Noel (talk) 07:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like another attack by the "DoppeIganger" vandal who is listed on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Moosh88[edit]

Moosh88 (talk · contribs) has violated the 3RR rule at Template:Europe (edit | [[Talk:Template:Europe|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:Moosh88 is probably a sockpuppet of User:Rovoam. —Cantus 04:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


Illegal page protection[edit]

Admin (violet/riga), who is involved in a dispute over BC/AD, BCE/CE, has protected List of kings of Persia. This page protection is contrary to the Wikipedia:Protection policy, which clearly states in its instructions on how to protect pages: "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over."

Despite her protestations to the contrary, there can be little doubt of violet/riga's involvement in this dispute. For example, on the page in question, she reverted twice, both times to support a particular POV:

07:40, 2005 May 22 Violetriga (Reverted edits by Slrubenstein to last version by Violetriga)
07:25, 2005 May 22 Slrubenstein (Reverted edits by Violetriga to last version by SouthernComfort)
06:30, 2005 May 22 Violetriga (Reverted edits by SouthernComfort to last version by Jguk 

Violet/riga's POV is evident in this statement on the talk page: "This article originally used BC/AD and not BCE/CE. We do not have a policy to use BCE/CE and to change it from one to another is not really appropriate. I suggest people continue to discuss this rather than perpetuate a revert war. violet/riga (t) 14:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)."

These pages have relied extensively on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, which used BC/AD notation exclusively in that edition. (Interestingly, Britannica now uses BCE/CE in some of its articles). Use of BCE/CE is perfectly acceptable according to the Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras and there is ample precedent for this (e.g., the series of articles on Taoism). Many of the pages on Persia are in dire need of clean-up. Several editors are working on this. One of these editors, SouthernComfort began to make the change to BCE/CE. This prompted Jguk (not an editor of these pages) to begin the revert war.

Despite the continued reverts on this and other Persian pages, discussion was, and is, occurring. There is no need whatsoever for the page protection. In fact, it is arbitrary and capricious. The problem stems from one user ( Jguk) who was the first to revert and has continued a campaign of reverts, supported by two admins: RickK (who has since relented) and violet/riga. All but one of the current authors of the pages on Persia (i.e., five out of six who have spoken), have indicated their agreement that the pages should use BCE/CE notation since these are non-Christian topics relating to a non-Christian region of the world.

I have made repeated requests to violet/riga to unprotect the page (see Talk: List of kings of Persia#Protecting this page is out of line). I request that the page be unprotected. We are sorting it out. Sunray 09:04, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page, as the original protection was indeed made in violation of policy. I doubt that I'll be the only watchful eye, so any signs of edit-warring should be studiously avoided. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Incidentally, I did point this out to v/r on the 3RR notice board yesterday. El_C 09:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a violation of policy - my contributions have been to settle the dispute and to compromise. If I see more reversions I will once again protect it. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Further, I see the accusations of POV editting quite offensive considering the effort I've put in to resolve the issues and come up with an acceptable compromise. violet/riga (t) 09:42, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the page, it seems that a number of editors wanted to use the BCE/CE system, while one editor (an admin) wanted to retain BC/AD; suddenly other editors appeared, at least two of them also admins), reverting changes to BCE/CE (sometimes referring to the BCE/CE form as "improper"), and then one of them protected the page. All that might be entirely innocent and above board, and the people who were involved might well have been unaware of how their actions would look to others — but it appeared unfair and a violation at least of the spirit if not the letter of policy, and no-one seems to have tried to dispel that appearance.

One editor? You count jguk, myself and violet/riga as one person? Please note that none of this mass reversion from BC/AD to BCE/CE occurred until after Slrubenstein's attempt to force his own personal view as policy, and lost that vote. Then the mass changing began, directly in the face of a lack of consensus vote. RickK 23:26, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure, incidentally, to which attempted compromise violet/riga refers; I haven't looked at every edit in detail, but there's no sign of compromise in the Talk page — vioet/riga simply seems to have insisted that the dates not be changed, and that use of BCE/CE is PoV (though I'm not sure what PoV that would be; one other editor involved in the reverts seems to think that the system was the invention of Marxists & "minimalists" [14], and there were other conspiracy theories being offered in all seriousness). The simple fact is that violet/riga weighed in on one side of the debate, making reverts, and then protected the page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

As you say, you haven't looked in detail. My first talk page comment was "I suggest people continue to discuss this" and my reversions were to the original version of the dating scheme - which that was does not matter. Next you'll sayWikipedia:Eras is not an attempt (by me!) at sorting out a compromise. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

In other words you took sides. Of course, you took sides because you thought that you'd chosen the right side, in line with Wikipedia policy, but nothing that you did differed from any editor's becoming involved in a dispute. Suggesting that people discuss matters is fine, but doesn't count as significant "effort I've put in to resolve the issues and come up with an acceptable compromise". What you've done on Wikipedia:Eras doesn't affect the judgement as to what you did here; you can't build up credit for mediation on one page, and then spend it on another by revert-warring. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

One side wanted BC/AD, the other wanted BCE/CE. I don't mind either, and wanted the article back to a state before the edit war happened - one that was accepted by everyone there until people started to argue. Only then could the compromising begin and that was the only fair way. violet/riga (t) 11:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
But even if that was the side you took, it is still a side, is what I think what Mel is trying to get across. El_C 11:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I more see it as the middle. I dunno, you try and help out. :/ violet/riga (t) 12:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Me? Frankly, I think I've done more than my fair share of helping out with the BC/E dispute (and it isn't as if I stopped, like 5 minutes ago), but I have never reverted anything to either AD/BC or BCE/CE. And, moreover, you still failed to explain (yesterday) why protecting was so urgent. We've been through this, but I recall not being entirely satisfied with your answers. El_C 12:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I can see why you misunderstood my meaning there. I didn't mean "you try and and help out", it was to be read as me getting aggrevated at being blasted for trying to help. To answer your question, the article was undergoing a major edit war - it had been reverted five times just in the 12 hours prior to me protecting it and it'd been going back and forth for five days. To me that is ridiculous, especially considering there was supposed to be ongoing discussions on the talk page and WP:Eras. Revert wars should not be allowed and are a waste of time - they were distracting from the discussions and were just annoying those involved. I protected it just before going to bed as I didn't want to wake up in the morning and see that it had gone on through the night. I'm quite happy with the present situation as the revert war seems to have ceased, at least for now:
The "revert war" on the Persian pages is now over and clearly the evidence from those pages is that there is no need for a change.
— Sunray, WP:Eras
I hope this at least partly explains it. violet/riga (t) 17:25, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Just to make sure the context is clear, the change referred to was a change in policy.
The revert war did not cease because of the page protection, IMO. Quite simply the casualties of this war became too high. A very thoughtful new contributor (SouthernComfort) was driven off and other regular editors of the pages on Persia were sorely taxed by the incessent reverts. It became absurd and everyone stopped, allowing Jguk to have his way in most of the articles. And that's the truth! Sunray 17:56, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Sorry but I totally believe that the reverts would've continued had the page not been protected. "Everyone stopped" because they simply couldn't revert any more. I truly hope that SouthernComfort hasn't been "driven off", and that he will come back and continue his positive contributions. violet/riga (t) 09:46, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Sam Spade (I)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Neofascism and religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Sam Spade (talk · contribs):

Reported by: AndyL 10:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Blocked for 24 hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Unblocked after discussion on wikien-l [15] [16]: "I've unblocked, though to keep the peace I would suggest you not be the one to make it back that way again for now, but make your case on the talk page. You'll know you've made your case when someone else makes the change. (One of the points of 3RR is that not everything in the article has to be correct right now :-)" - David Gerard 11:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Could the reason for unblocking be revealed to the rest of us? No reason is given in the "discussion" (which amounts to "please unblock me", "yes"). I take it that there's no claim that he didn't revert four times, nor that he's a new user who didn't know any better. His claim, in an e-mail to me, that one of the reverts doesn't count because he meant it as a compromise seems to be the only possible reason, and I can't see that that makes any difference, especially as we're in no position to judge claims of that sort. I only know that he's been unblocked because of his crowing e-mail to me, incidentally (though his attempt to rub my nose in his Houdini-skills ([17]) would have alerted me anyway).
Until a reason is provided, I've reinstated the block. I don't want to get into a blocking war, and I shall of course desist as soon as some ground for David Gerard's action is provided. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I can see no reason for removing the block, which seems perfectly reasonable, unlike User:Sam Spade' behaviour. If Mel Etitis hadn'r reinstated it, I would have. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
the third one isn't a revet. there is no version in the page history that is the same.Geni 11:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The same text was removed four times in a row; that's reverting. As has been repeated many times above, and is made clear elsewhere, the reverts don't have to be identical (otherwise anyone could revert as many times as they wanted, just my making a different extra change each time). New users often make that mistake, and that's fair enough — but seasoned campaigners can't be allowed to get away with it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically, I thought Sam would cool it if I unblocked saying the above, and he says in his next wikien-l message [18] that he will: "I am going to go way out of my way not to revert more than once every 24 hours, and to avoid this particular subject for awhile as well." Knowing how Sam edits, he blew his top this time and if he says he will cool it I assume he will. Please unblock for now, and if he does it again reblock - David Gerard 11:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

His behaviour doesn't indicate that he's likely to cool off (see my message above); he treats your action as a victory over me. Moreover, the same could be said for the majority of people who violate 3RR — they'll "cool off", until the next time. SS is a well-known barrack-room lawyer, constantly harrassing other editors with his (sometimes odd interpretations of) policy; I don't think that it's appropriate to let him off with a grin and a wink and a "don't let me catch you doing it again, you little scamp". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • David: Yes, I complimented him for making a good qualification for Italian fascism as being corportist, but I still opposed the edit, as a revert. That was not a comrpomise, it was just an immediately useful addition — which, incidentally, is no longer necessary. With the improved passage as it is now, there is no need for a corportist qualification, since it only speaks of Italin fascism as the first form of fascism, without touching on the thematic titles for the particularities of the two forms (i.e. the corportist and hitlerian/nazi kind). El_C 11:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • And David: I am also interested to learn your thoughts about the w-l post title: Wrongful block, and [19]. El_C 11:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, I wouldn't characterise my unblock like that ... I just thought being hardarsed about it wouldn't be productive in this case. "Wrongful block" is rather too aggrieved, but I don't doubt Sam's sincerity - David Gerard 12:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    Characterise your unblock like what, David? I am simply asking for your opinion. Also, do you mind addressing that diff? El_C 13:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Why is it that some get blocked for 24 hours, and some for a couple? There is no consisency. Either make it a hard rule that it's 24 hours unless it can be proved without doubt that you didn't break 3RR, or give up on the whole thing. This page takes up a lot of time for a lot of people. 24 hours isn't actually a long time, I'm sure the people who are blocked will survive it. I can't see that Sam was warned he was about to break the rule. The following shows how another long time user who hadn't been warned was unblocked:

[20] *Slrubenstein's talk page shows he wasn't warned, which he probably should have been. Would anyone mind if, in light of this, I reduced the length of the block? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, FWIW. James F. (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. El_C 23:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
If this was a first offense, I'd agree with reducing the length of the block. Since this is Slrubenstein's 3rd block for violating the 3RR [13] [21], I'm not sure a warning is necessary. Carbonite | Talk 22:49, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm guessing he didn't realize he'd violated it. If he'd been warned, he'd have had a chance to revert himself and avoid the block. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I personally don't care if you unblock Sam, I just think the whole 3RR policy needs to be reviewed for fairness to all. --Silversmith Hewwo 14:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

The only way to avoid this nonsense is to be honest and admit that blocking for making four reverts is a punishment. Once we admit that, we can establish the principle that everyone gets 24h no matter what. Unless we do that, there is one rule for people with admin friends, and one rule for others. We need the rule of law, not rule of cliques.
This proposal aside, let me point out that Sam Spade made a promise not to revert, and to stay away from that article for a while. With the rule as it stands at the moment, that is sufficient to allow unblocking. Those who complain about the unblocking are being hypocritical unless they protested (as I did) against Slrubenstein's recent unblocking, which was without any such promises and indeed he immediately resumed reverting resumed his POV-pushing in the article less than 48h later, and proceded to make personal attacks). I repeat: as the policy stands, there is nothing wrong with unblocking Sam Spade (even though his reverts to Neofascism_and_religion were pretty stupid). — Chameleon 15:04, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
That comaprison draws a crude parallel between the two cases. Silversmith possibly still thinks that I was unfair in my support to reduce SlR's 3RR block, but if this is the case, she is mistaken. In the case of SlR, there was a heated and pressing discussion involving many people who wished to rely on his expertise, a discussion that could —and I argue did— end up benefiting from him being unblocked and intensively tackling the material on the talk page. In the case of Sam, he was the only one challenging that passage, the only one reverting everyone else. And most of the editors in the discussion found his explantions and expertise with the material wanting. As well, we have the snide certainly. Silversmith is more than free to offer to reduce a 3RR block if she finds it would benefit Wikipedia, and admins may act on that or not. But to speak abstractly on consistency and such, well, I argue that there is such a consistency, except its geared to the benefit of Wikipedia and it isn't inflexibly rigid. If there are good grounds to unblock Sam Spade, anyone is free to present these, or if they are an admin, unblock him. This, after all, is how the wiki runs, and anyone is free to propose policy for it to run otherwise, too. El_C 15:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
So are you are saying that his unblock wasn't due to his not being warned, but because his opinions and arguments were valuable, where as Sam's are not? In your opinion that is. It seems that the policy as it stands is too open to bias. And I don't see the "certainly" comment as snide. It isn't very fair to make assumptions like that, particularly when Sam isn't here to defend himself. --Silversmith Hewwo 16:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Show me diffs depicting that SlR "immediately resumed reverting," Chameleon, or please retract that. I, myself, have no knowledge of such activities on his part, and I would of course, object to these and would have re-imposed the block myself. El_C 15:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Whoops, Silversmith told me that and I repeated it without checking. The facts remain though. — Chameleon 16:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Fine, well I invite her, then, to provide diffs which depict this, or retract. El_C 16:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
SlR did not immediately resume reverting. I apologise for suggesting he did. --Silversmith Hewwo 11:06, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

And once again, Sam gets to side-step the rules, or at least get off with a slap on the wrist, only due to his supporter's intervention. And this after he compounds his offense with his trollish comment [22]. To the troll-enablers, Sam owes a great debt. FeloniousMonk 17:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Could you please state who you believe the "troll enablers" in this case are? --Silversmith Hewwo 17:48, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Any person who cares so little about the hurt caused other people by Sam's insults, contempt of policy and attempts at gaming the system to cover it all up that they aid Sam in obscuring his history thus permitting Sam another day of abuse at wikipedia... either through direct intervention or by inaction. Such editors need to be aware that they are improving neither their own image and outlook, nor the wiki community. Time and again Sam's actions have shown him to be completely refractory; his own statements show he willfully remains unaccquainted with remorse or shame. Given that, two obvious questions for those who abett Sam Spade are just what has Sam to done to justify the many opportunities he's been given, and does his squandering so many opportunities justify yet one more. FeloniousMonk 18:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Skylooker[edit]

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

Reported by: gkhan 15:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pushes a POV-agenda that the armenian genocide didn't happen. I repeatadly asked him to discuss on talk-page. Please block him and revert the page back since I have already reverted three times. gkhan 15:33, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • you are pushing the rule pretty closely yourself. Since the user was warned they have been blocked for 24 hours.Geni 16:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, I know and I hate doing that, but the version he wanted is horrible and I did not want that on wikipedia. I apologise if I have made it appear as if i was "gaming" the rule, I would much rather have had a conversation with the user. gkhan 16:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Ohh, yeah, can someone please revert it back. The version that is up is really horrible, look at the diffs for yourself if you don't believe me. gkhan 17:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


User:Gump[edit]

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

Insists on putting 666 recommendation back on first paragraph (it was originally here which I was why I argue that the 1st edit was a revert, SqueakBox 16:11, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

on the basis that what you are suggesting as an intial version is over 500 edits ago. I don't think this a violation.Geni 16:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I thought it worth trying as an alternative to the page protection that has also been requested, and wanted the judgement of an independent admin. Gump clearly knew he was reinserting this 666 recommendation, indeed he was reinserting it because it had been there before from what I can gather. The fact that he hasn't reverted again is in his favour, SqueakBox 16:47, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


Posible threat of mass vandalism[edit]

Take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Preparations (now removed; see [27]) and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Regarding Cipher. --cesarb 21:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

probably someone winding us up. If not we've delt with vandlebots before. We'll deal with them again in future.Geni 22:06, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Especially now we've got CryptoDerk's vandal fighter tool, I don't see how they're going to pull such a thing off. One of the IPs is already on my blacklist. Mgm|(talk) 23:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

What is CryptoDerk's vandal fighter tool? RickK 23:30, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:CryptoDerk/CDVF --SPUI (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
See here User:CryptoDerk/CDVF for info. -- Longhair | Talk 23:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Anybody interested in cryptanalyzing the Village Pump messages? Assuming they do mean something; I think the winding-up theory is likely, but OTOH, would someone creating a fake cipher bother to use all those non-ASCII characters, or leave the hints of a pattern, as well as unencrypted text, that are present? Nickptar 00:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • If it is a real code (and I really don't think it is). Then it isn't a monoalphabetic substitution cipher. with the amount of text avialible I doubt any other form of cypher would be crakerble.Geni 01:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks bogus and hex-based to me. Like this: ”OÛ؃ø«1øŠ²â?=š›. a@(RS)õ¯ÇSþõq·¢þõ7"Bö. Simply grab a hunk of binary from, say, a ZIP file (via Notepad), and randomly insert punctuation. hehehe... I'm assuming this is a bogus attack as it doesn't look like any programming language, but it could be they PGPed it before exchange or something... weird... However I'm no expert so it could be legit code for all I know... but I'm assuming it's just a joke. Master Thief GarrettTalk 05:03, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Might be a joke or not, but there are some sleeping accounts (zero edits) that relate to this nonsense. See here. Is there any way to get a list of such zero-edit accounts, together with the time they were created? Still, I wouldn't get upset about all this. If something happens, we'll deal with it. Lupo 08:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

There have been threats by anons and users before to carry out massive distributed attacks using sophisticated bots or slave networks; usually its the people who feel most lonely who like to pretend they are part of a huge, potent organization. Phils 08:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a real code. Monoalphabetic substitution combined with rotating shift (like the Enigma code but simpler). Let's see you crack that! Aquatic 09:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
IANAcryptologist, but then it's not likely to be easily crackable, if at all, unless the shift repeats. It doesn't really matter, though - if they really think a DoS by a few lamers is going to permanently destroy Wikipedia, I suggest some psychological help to go with a technical clue. Nickptar 23:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Depending on how many different substitutions are in use, it still may not be enough crypto-text to decipher it. Plus, who cares enough to put in the energy? Noel (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Enviroknot/User:129.7.35.1[edit]

It's likely this is the same person: 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs): Enviroknot (talk · contribs):

If so, they've committed a Three revert rule violation on Neofascism and religion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

as Enviroknot

as 129.7.35.1

Note:

  • This editor, if it proves to a single person, is making the exact same pov edit that User:Sam Spade that resulted in his 3RR block today. This strikes me as quite a coincidence. I'm not suggesting here they are SS, but acting as SS's proxies during his ban.
  • I've been informed that User:Enviroknot is believed to be a sock puppet of User:ElKabong [33].

Reported by: FeloniousMonk 22:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

  • You've been informed so by a group who are accusing people of being ElKabong solely because they disagree with said group. Much the same as your accusing me of being Sam Spade. Enviroknot 01:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Frivolous, but expected; FeloniousMonk appears to want to attack anyone who disagrees with the POV he and his fellows are trying to push as a sock puppet. It is a phemonenon that I am finding out is quite common on Wikipedia, especially with editors who have some POV that they are insistent upon pushing.Enviroknot 23:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is going to be one for arbocom to sort out.Geni 01:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Enviroknot and User:129.7.35.1 for 24 hours. The latter resolves to the University of Houston, Texas, as does 129.7.35.176, an IP address known to have been used by User:ElKabong, who is also User:Enviroknot. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:39, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


User:66.220.100.4[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Matrix scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.220.100.4 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Carnildo 03:00, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Note in particular that he is removing all references to matrixwatch.org, despite the fact that I've cited it as a source used in working on the article. This is deliberate, as the edit summaries indicate. Also note that all editors were warned about the 3RR when User:Phils put the NPOV tag on the article.
Is there something not quite right about all these diffs? The times don't seem to fit. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:47, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo, I looked at the history and I can't see a violation. Can you supply the correct diffs and times; if they're partial reverts, give an example of the text being added or deleted; and also show the diff for the version s/he's reverting back to? I'm sorry if it's obvious, but I'm just not seeing it. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:55, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
The times are all local time (PDT) not UTC -- and I put them in newest-first order. Diffs against the baseline version:
1
2
3
4
And a diff showing the edits I've been trying to make for the last day:
1
--Carnildo 06:24, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Carnildo. As he's a new user, at least using that IP address, and as there's no history of violations, I've left him a warning. I'll put the page on my watchlist and if he violates it again, he'll be blocked the next time. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:18, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


Critical Information on Jehovah's Witnesses[edit]

This article has been speedy deleted three times, twice after VfD debates. Now it has come back for the fourth time and I have nominated for speedy deletion this time around. User:Mike Rosoft wants some of it merged with the Jehovah's Witnesses article however, and I don't really know what to do. Merge and delete is not really allowed under GFDL, yet I see that the main JW article links to it. After that rant on the vfd debate I want to see the article go soon. Sjakkalle 08:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Give him a few dates to put it in Jehovah's Witnesses (that should satisfy GFDL) and delete it in a few days. If it's deleted earlier, we can send him a copy from the deletion log by email for personal use. Or perhaps he could keep a copy in his userspace? Mgm|(talk) 17:46, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Things have been solved I think. User:Mike Rosoft already redirected. Mgm|(talk) 17:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


User:Powertranz[edit]

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

Reported by: Cantus 16:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)


User:66.176.193.185[edit]

66.176.193.185 (talk · contribs) has put my email address (which he shouldn't have) here. I am unhappy about this, and about the user in general, who is also RexJudicata (talk · contribs) aka Agwiii (talk · contribs) SqueakBox 18:08, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

You mean Agwiii (talk · contribs), right? --cesarb 18:19, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I do. he's been doing a bit on his RexJudicata home page, and I know 66.176.193.185 is his IP address from the contribs, and the parallel activity with REX today, SqueakBox 18:23, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

What he is also doing is described in this edit summary any comments, please email them to me at xxxxxxxxx@gmail.com, ie he is impersonating me using my email address. Bizarre, but typical of this user, SqueakBox 18:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's your privacy on the line. Feel free to remove the @ and dots to stop spiders or remove your email adress entirely. If it's really yours (I haven't checked) he's got no right to publish it on the wiki. Mgm|(talk) 19:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed it. It is my current email address facilitated to receive messages through wikipedia. I dislike the impersonation bit, and will continue keeping a close eye on this editor, who has a history of accusing me of cyberstalking and vandalism, promising to see me deported to Florida (where this IP address is located). There is an inactive Rfc against him for his sockpuppetry, and if he continues editing maaliciously I will revive it, SqueakBox 19:53, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have also told him not to impersonate meagain, SqueakBox 02:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)


User:CryptoDerk and page deletion of dispute resolution[edit]

17:01, 28 May 2005 CryptoDerk deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Uncle G" (vandalism)

Since when is deleting proper RfC pages OK He deleted the notice on RfC that it would be entered He deleted the notice to Uncle G on his talk page He deleted the RfC itself There is no dispute resolution if the dispute resolution gets deleted111 Can it be restored — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.124.185.186 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 28 May 2005

  • I've deleted this again. The first supposed RfC started with a picture of Britney Spears. The second version, which I deleted, was a page complaining about the deletion, not an RfC at all. This user has been constantly vandalizing Uncle G's non-existent user page in some attempt to make a point related to the fact he doesn't like empty user pages. Angela. 18:37, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • You obviously did not read the first one It followed the example user template exactly and described the problem That should not have been deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.124.185.186 (talkcontribs) 19:19, 28 May 2005
  • User pages aren't mandatory and posting an RFC without even informing the subject is disruptive. Also, Britney Spears has got nothing to do with it. CryptoDerk was right to delete this. If you prefer blue-linked userpages, sign up and and give the example yourself. Mgm|(talk) 19:09, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
    • Is not that some kind of thing that a request for comment decides and not some delete happy admin And for that matter I did inform Uncle G and CryptoDerk deleted the notice111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.124.185.186 (talkcontribs) 19:19, 28 May 2005

On Uncle G's talk page you posted the following

Not having a user page disrupts:

  • all talk pages with red links
  • lists of most wanted pages
  • the time administrators take repeatedly deleting your page

Not having a userpage doesn't disrupt. And here's why:

  1. Redlinks only show a page doesn't exist. It would be more disruptive if he created nonsense to fill the page just to have one.
  2. Userpages aren't included in the most wanted pages.
  3. Deleting his userpage takes about 3 seconds. Solving disputes (which most of the time shouldn't have started anyway) takes far more time. Besides, admins aren't obliged to delete anything if they don't want to either. The whole project is on a voluntary basis.
  4. Userpages are for personal information. Within the existing guidelines it's for Uncle G to use as he pleases. If he chooses not to take advantage of that, we can't force him.

-- Mgm|(talk) 19:31, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • So, I may have been wrong about it not being included in most wanted pages. But I still don't see how not having a userpage is such a big problem. Posting a header with a link to the RFC isn't enough. The first step is dispute resolution is talking with the user himself and I can't find any such discussion by the IP who posted that link. Mgm|(talk) 20:52, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • you are illiterate or you see at his talk page so many people discuss with him
  • so why does RfC get deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.124.185.186 (talkcontribs) 22:27, 28 May 2005
The user is at it again, removing the speedy tag from User:Uncle G (now using 63.209.14.211 (talk · contribs) since his previous one 63.124.185.186 (talk · contribs) was blocked). — Preceding unsigned comment added by CesarB (talkcontribs) 00:13, 29 May 2005
  • that not explain CryptoDerk delete RfC page
  • disputed delete not speedy!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.209.14.211 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 29 May 2005
The user is at it AGAIN, creating a lot of nonsense pages, removing speedy tags, and so on. --cesarb 01:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how this anon has perfect English in his edit summaries and such stilted English in the actual pages he edits. RickK 06:39, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

This same anon now has the user page User:BeBop, and also edits as 64.62.161.12, and he's being extremely disruptive and abusive. func(talk) 16:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


Offtopic.com[edit]

I've lifted the vandal protection I put on this article yesterday. so it gets the chance to be edited before the VFD closes and maybe change a few votes. However, I'm probably offline in about 3 to 5 hours. Could anyone else keep an eye on the article too? Mgm|(talk) 18:58, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm on the job (as well as others, I'm sure). Phils 20:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
it's on my watchlist now too, SqueakBox 20:34, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
and mine. Thryduulf 23:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Argyrosargyrou[edit]

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

Reported by: --E.A 21:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User continually reinstating his version against consensus of editors, his versions are insulting and POV, this is the second time i have reported him for a 3RR.

  • only three outright reverts so far. The rest are not really reverts.Geni 22:57, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This user has been at this on this article for some time now; see here. I have protected the page. Noel (talk) 03:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I dont understand what contributes to an outright revert, but from what i see, he has reverted to his own version 6 times, despite 4 of us trying to reinstate 1 version. --E.A 12:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I looked at this, too, but held off from acting because I couldn't really make out more than three reverts (but I was feeling tired, and didn't want to rule out the possibility that I was missing something). For edits to count as the same reverts, the same text must be added or removed each time. If the editor changes to his version, but uses different language each time, the 3RR isn't violated (it's can still be annoying, and might be grounds for asking for page protection, though much depends on the circumstances). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
      • So a user can revert, but modify the text slightly and avoid a 3RR ban? I would think a revert would count as any major change from a version the majority of editors are trying to reinstate? Seems too easy to manipulate this way. --E.A 13:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • people make the mistake of thinking that from time to time. We know about complex reverts and in this case the changes appear to be too big to count as complex reverts.Geni 13:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes; changing the text slightly doesn't do it — but in this case I thought (as did Geni) that the edits were significantly different. Simply chaning from a certain version isn't enough — it has to be (or to include) the same change from that version. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:35, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh - which is just another way persistent edit warriors (the kind I wish we could just ban without a whole bunch of folderol) can evade the 3RR rule. At least there's page protection... Noel (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


User:Sam Spade (II)[edit]

Note that he is now using evidence which predates my adminship (the same evidence he used against me on my RFA), to claim I am a rogue admin. Unsurprsingly, the page is linked to his <big> signature,. [35] Now, anywhere he goes, he besmirches me, a new step for him. But I am concerned of the impact this would have on new users and my abilities to preform my admin duties (again, considering that his allegations are unrelated to any admin actions, or existence, on my part). Please speak up against this harrasment. El_C 22:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Jack's signature is unacceptable, and he should be required to remove it. RickK 22:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed there. violet/riga (t) 22:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. From the top of User:Sam Spade/Report rogue admin. El_C 22:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

This arose because I blocked him on a 3RR violation; he e-mailed me to say, inter alia: "I think I can do more for the project by getting you and a few others de-sysopped than by clarifying minor matters of NPOV." personally I found his page amusing rather than offensive, and I suspect that it will do him much more damage than it does anyone else; on the other hand, I can see El C's point. Let SS have his vindictive little page, but the overblown advertisement for it in his signature should go. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:36, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade has, as long as I have known him, been unpredictable. He sometimes offers genuine praise and is able to engage in a productive conversation. However, when something arouses his ire, he seems to operate with blinders on. His list of rogua admins includes people who have made very valuable contributions to this project and who are well-respected (including, by the way, people I have vociferously disagreed with in the past). The very concept of a "rogue's list" is to my way of thinking offensive. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. And if someone does some consistently outrageous things in a variety of contexts over some time, we certainly should consider desysoping them — but only after a fair amount of discussion and hopefully something close to consensus. Sam's list, personal and ad hoc as it is, has no place in the process I just described. It serves no constructive purpose and seems to me to be just a way to antagonize others. Folks, lwt's stick to writing an encyclopedia. I am in no position to throw stomes, but I know that Sam isn't either. I ask him, and all I can do is appeal to his better nature, to get rid of that ersatz hit-list. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I am doing the honest thing, placing things out in the open. This could simply be a word document on my harddrive. Instead it is an opportunity for users to gather information against highhanded tyrants, as well as a chance for wrongfully accused sysops to understand the nature of the accusations and defend themselves. Mels violation of the Wikipedia:Controversial blocks policy was far from the first time he violated policy. I intend to gather information, publically if possible, otherwise if not, and have him removed from his position of power.I take his quote here as a sign he would like the entirety of our conversation revealed. Click here to report admin abuse 22:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Alright, but why do you want to spend so much time on something negative? And why the signature? I think it looks quite bad to have that splashed all over the place. violet/riga (t) 22:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
[A]n opportunity for users to gather information against highhanded tyrants — I refer Sam Spade to WP:NPA El_C 22:59, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Note Sam Spade's page at the time of issuing this notice. [36] El_C 23:20, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I had an epiphany, realizing that I could do more good for the wikipedia by ridding it of abusive admins than I can by editing articles. Mels quote was correct. Click here to report admin abuse 23:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
But you can't really be saying that your signature is appropriate? violet/riga (t) 23:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
What do you think I should do? What do you think the next person Mel blocks because he's mad at should do? What do you think is going to happen to the project if this dispicable oligarchic trend is allowed to continue? Are you familiar w why wikipedia worked, and why Nupedia didn't? Click here to report admin abuse 23:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want to spend all your time doing this then be my guest. I don't think it'll amount to anything, but if it helps you then go for it. The thing I object to is the signature you're using at the moment. violet/riga (t) 23:14, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I spend my time on lots of things. I certainly plan to spend less time here after the ugliness of my controversial block. But the question is, what is the most positive thing I can contribute to the wikipedia? At this point, it looks to me like combating the abusive cronyism amongst admins, and getting the broken (practically nonexistent) process of De-Adminship moving, thats what I should be doing. Thats what the project needs, an end to the mandate for abuse adminship has become. Click here to report admin abuse 23:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
As I say, you go ahead and do that. But why do you feel the need to place a huge advert for it on every talk page you visit? violet/riga (t) 23:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Not every page I visit, only talk pages I sign my name to. I use the wikipedia for reading purposes mainly, and I will still continue to improve articles from time to time. The energy I spent trying to NPOV contested pages however, I think would be better spent combating abuse directly, rather than simply its symptom within the articles. Click here to report admin abuse 23:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should leave the project, and leave Wikipedia to his devices. I can't waste anymore energy on his constant harrasment. El_C 23:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you could just ignore him? If you don't feed them, they wither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.103.119.217 (talkcontribs) 00:40, 30 May 2005

If you do I promise to send in a $50 donation. Click here to report admin abuse 23:12, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to Sam Spade for more contempt and snide innuendo. El_C 23:15, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:Sam_Spade.2FReport_rogue_admin. Click here to report admin abuse 23:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Bravo, Jack. See also: WP:POINT El_C 23:22, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Exposing admin abuse is disruptive, eh? Well I'm not the one who brought it here for comment, i agree that was a bit disruptive... Click here to report admin abuse 23:28, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Eh. I have not abused my admin powers, ever. As mentioned, all the evidence depicted by Jack, entirely predates my adminship. El_C 23:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, until I can show otherwise, I have removed you from the list. Click here to report admin abuse 23:40, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, Jack. El_C 23:48, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

If Jack wants to play his little games, more power to him, anybody who knows him or