Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive36

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: July 14, 2005 - July 21, 2005



User:Guy Montag[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Israeli terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [1]
  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]

Reported by: Heraclius 00:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My so called third revert was actually a new version synthized with relevent information. It was not a blank revert. In all I have, reverted three times.

Guy Montag 01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Jeus (talk · contribs) on Israeli terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Guy Montag 01:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Vandalism and Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland

Reported by: --Witkacy 02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on List of Irish-Americans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by Lapsed Pacifist o07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


  • User insists on blanking entries after receiving sources sought. Has been accused of double standards by User:Clawson for blanking entries with African ancestry. This user has also made a racist edit on Islam in Ireland. I have been involved in an edit war with this user on this article before, I have no wish to repeat this. User is currently aware of being in violation. Lapsed Pacifist 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)


  • The same user was blocked for a very similar violation yesterday. Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Already blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR and other violations by Gamaliel. Bratschetalk 5 pillars 01:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


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

  • Previous version reverted to: [17]
  • 1st revert: [18]
  • 2nd revert: [19]
  • 3rd revert: [20]
  • 4th revert: [21]

Reported by: 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Ultramarine has serious ownership issues with this horribly written article. Even so, Trey Stone was brave enough to copyedit it. Ultramarine, whose English is poor, does not understand this; so he keeps on accusing both Trey Stone and me of "revisionism" and "censorship." The fact that someone would accuse well-known anti-Communist editor Trey Stone-- of all people-- of these things is a strong sign that he doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. His conduct on the talk page and implied personal attacks are enough reason to warrant a block. 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not violated the rule. I have added substantial new arguments in most of my edits. In contrast, 172 insists on reverting to his version which deletes many of the critical arguments. In addition, his version has an incomprehensible ending with numerous spelling errors. Ultramarine 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Ultramarine did violate the 3RR. Don't let his misleading edit summaries fool you. And the version is not mine; it's Trey Stone's. 172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't particularly get what UM is babbling about in his current edit summaries, but he's continuing the uninterrupted reversions. J. Parker Stone 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I keep adding specific critique of the Communist states. Wikipedia should allow critique of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. Ultramarine 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
me and 172 have already explained this to you, i am through here. J. Parker Stone 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine has just broken the 3RR on Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well. He makes a regular habit of breaking the 3RR in order to get away with his usual POV pushing. 172 | Talk 15:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, I add new arguments. It is you who make every attempt to revert the results peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. That liberal democracy and capitalism produce good real-world results should not be deleted, even if it does not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine 15:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Quit lying. I was citing Lipet and Rustow. No one has ever called them Marxists. 172 | Talk 15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have supported my statements with the results of numerous peer-reviewed studies, including some by authors named by you. You have only insinuated that there are other studies but have refused to name any. Wikipedia should be allowed the mention the real-world benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism, even if this is contrary to Marx. Ultramarine 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
You are implying that I am objecting to your edits because I am a Marxist, which is a lie and an argument grounded in a personal attack. At any rate, this page is not the place to carry out this discussion. 172 | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should mention all points of view and not endorse any of them, Ultramarine. That is our policy, and you constantly break it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
As noted on the talk page, those attempting to delete the peer-reviewed results showing beneficial effects of capitalism are now reverting without even trying to explain the deletions. If you want to argue against the studies by many independent researchers, do your own study, do not do original research in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
We did not delete anything; merely tried to add counter-arguments which you try to either misrepresent or remove. The current state of the article [22] is ample proof of the fact that you are a POV warrior. If that section on 'poverty' is not POV, then I don't know what is. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
This was reported a couple of days ago, but I was first asked to look at it today. I've blocked him for 24 hours because he's been warned and blocked many times, and in fact continued reverting after this was reported. The times of the reverts were July 15 19:53, July 16 00:00, 00:48, 01:03, 02:50, 03:06. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Palestinian terrorism and militancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

  • Subsequent reverts:
02:01, 17 July 2005
22:42, 17 July 2005
22:11, 18 July 2005
01:59, 19 July 2005

Reported by:Heraclius 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This looks accurate. Since Montag asked for (and received) a block on the other user, it seems fair to judge his own edits as well. On account of this and an excessively combative attitude [23]. I'm giving him a short block. -Willmcw 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I have sent you a message already, but I want to make it clear that those edits are not a break with policy as they were made on two different days. Guy Montag 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
They appear to have been with 24 hours of each other. Please remember that even three reverts is too many. And bragging about getting another editor blocked is not conducive to collaboration, nor is telling to "F*** off". -Willmcw 22:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag reverted the article five times in a 24-hour period, and has and has done so an additional four times since then. This individual was blocked for violating the 3RR on three prior occasions, so I feel that a one-hour block is insufficient. —Lifeisunfair 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmm - and Heraclius got a 24 hour ban - for a 3RR breach by the same admin. I thought he was treating them both the same (which would have been according to Wikipedia policy). How very revealing. I wonder how he justifies this?

All of this type of actions sends out out a message. And the message here that being a bully, telling people to "fuck off", repeatedly breaching a 3RR and then reporting another usrs for the SAME violation - is all better than if you are (as the admin seems to described Heraclius earlier) "a jerk" because of his POV. What a shame - policy is explicitly that the 3RR rule is blind to content in so far as possible.

His first action on the ban being lifted awas a third "revert" in 24 hours (so still "legal" but questionable) on Palestinian Terrorism and militancy so "message understood" I think.

If the admins are unfair (or percieved to be so) then people will disrupt, troll and otherwise be "anti-social" to make a point - because they feel that they have no other recource. It really is terribly disruptive to "community". 06:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use different names. It makes it harder for the rest of us to understand what you're saying. Please note that I have responded to you on my talk page, where you raised these same questions. My advice to all of these editors (including Guy Montag) is to stop complaining, stop reverting, and find a way to write encyclopedia articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Template:Football club infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Football club infobox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):


Three revert rule violation on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Aecis 13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) (but updated since)


User:Stirling Newberry[edit]

Three revert rule violation on the Wikipedia Surrealism article by Stirling Newberry.

Classicjupiter2 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor 4.x in Aetherometry[edit]

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

Reported by: Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


  • This is an anonymous contributor using different IPs --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whereas the other parts of edits vary, note that in all four cases the "peer-review" halfsentence was deleted. --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:J Michaels[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Massacre at Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). J Michaels (talk · contribs):

and again:

and again:

Reported by: GhePeU 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


  • User J Michaels sistematically removes disputed tag from article Massacre at Hue. He did all of his contributions, except one, in this article and curiously this user appeared just after user TDC was blocked because he repeatedly reverted other pages. NB: on the first occasion I reverted inadvertently four times. GhePeU 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • User J Michaels still reverts every edit. GhePeU 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I would like to call your kind attention on this. GhePeU 07:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Memoirs of Walter Bruce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). (talk · contribs):

  • Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
  • 1st revert: [24]
  • 2nd revert: [25]
  • 3rd revert: [26]
  • 4th revert: [27]

Reported by: Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


  • The IP blanks out the VFD tag that is on the article, I asked for page protection of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Franck Ver Stut (talk · contribs)[edit]

4 reverts in 5 hours, on Ancient Egypt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

has been warned. reported by dab ()

User:Guy Montag[edit]

Palestinian Terrorism and militancy

  1. (cur) (last) 22:42, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am done arguing with anonymous idiots. Follow policy or you will be reverted)
  2. (cur) (last) 22:04, 17 July 2005 Heraclius (huh?)
  3. (cur) (last) 09:22, 17 July 2005 (tag removed pending outcome of RFC.)
  4. (cur) (last) 09:10, 17 July 2005 (you're right - when that much is in dispute {{totally disputed}} is a better call.)
  5. (cur) (last) 02:01, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag (like I said. State the disputed sections or leave it alone. No hit and runs)
  6. (cur) (last) 01:03, 17 July 2005 (If there aint no consensus then there must be a "Dispute" so tag is appropriate.)
  7. (cur) (last) 02:18, 16 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am not going to tolerate blatant disregard for polic.y. Either add detailed comments in talk or stop wasting people's time with hit and run tags. It is that simple.)
This appears to be only 3 reverts. Still too many, but not a violation. -Willmcw 05:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)


All five edits to User:SPUI on Special:Contributions/Jennet are the same edit, making the last four reverts (vandalism too). --SPUI (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, I realise I'm complaining about being called a Fucking Idiot after I called administrators the Same Thing. What can I say? I guess I'm just a Fucking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI. (talkcontribs)

User:Lapsed Pacifist[edit]

Three revert rule violation on The Sword of the Prophet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Keeps reverting to a version cotaining a paragraph describing Trifkovic as "a former supporter of Slobodan Milošević. He has denied the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica" etc. As with report above, games the 3RR by making minor changes to the wording while re-inserting the paragraph. Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Thryduulf 01:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Clear cut breach of policy.

Guy Montag 04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Previously warned, blocked for 24 hours. -Willmcw 05:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Please note the two violations above from Guy Montasg, neither of which was acted on - this was NOT an "in good faith" report of a violation. The Admins are supposed to treat both sides fairly - so both should get a ban here. . 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I received your email and replied. I've asked Montag about it and will block if appropriate. However if it appears that you are using this IP address to circumvent a block then that is not good either. -Willmcw 08:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:BrandonYusufToropov or User: or User:EnviroFuck or someone else?[edit]

At Jihad: not just violating 3RR and deliberately trying to evade it by dropping out to his IP address, but also tilting at windmills making false accusations of users being the banned user "Enviroknot."

Also took the time to make false accusations of sockpuppetry against Zeno of Elea on the article's talk page.

Signed: 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please do something on this, perhaps lock the Jihad page? It's silly and seeing BYT's comments on the Recent Changes list is embarassing to Wikipedia.Existentializer 16:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional: A new user named EnviroFuck has appeared and is most definitely; this user is also patently guilty of 3RR violation on the page.Existentializer 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've locked Jihad. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
Enviro#### ain't me. [32]. I'd like an admin to check in on the anonymous edits in question. Possible? BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Envirowhatever is learning. This time he accuses others of sockpuppetry before they accuse him. Observe his 7th (!) edit [33]. This travesty has to stop. He must have about a dozen accounts by now. dab () 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I have nothing to do with this. I saw an ongoing flamewar and OBVIOUS edits by BYT, and made the reversion because I thought it was warranted as per Wikipedia policy. When you are done making false allegations, please calm down and start dealing with this rationally. I wasn't even the one who reported this, someone else did, I only posted a concurrence and added the evidence as it kept piling up. Existentializer 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
yeah, well, you are, of course, a sockpuppet of somebody, so why don't you just disclose your previous accounts, this case is complicated enough as it is. dab () 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Please come back when you have calmed down.Existentializer 15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
great, you have just convinced me of your identity. I'm not upset at all, because you will have no success. Anyway, there is an rfar headed your way, I believe, so let's just wait for that, and not jump to conclusions. dab () 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I repeat, please calm down and cease making false accusations. It is highly unseemly for an admin, even one of your dubious stature.Existentializer 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: --Witkacy 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have warned user:Tautvydas as it doens't appear he's ever been warned about it. You (user:Witkacy) have also broken the 3RR on the same article, and as you demonstrated above your awareness of the rule I've blocked you for 24 hours. I have also protected the article in question, as requested by a third party at WP:RFPP


Three revert rule violation on Template:Wolf hunting controversy. Friday (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Gabrielsimon 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment I believe the 4th diff shows a workaround, not a revert. I was attempting to avoid the disputed term altogether, with or without quotation marks. Yes, I know that even 3 reverts is not good, however I was making a good faith effort to work through the dispute. See Talk:Wolf hunting controversy for a history of this squabble. Friday 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

response : i was dinged for four modificatipons in 24 hours, and one was totally different, so the rules catch you as well. Gabrielsimon 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • It's a workaround. There is a substantive difference in meaning between "the hunt" and "game". --khaosworks 01:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Kim Bruning[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Kim Bruning (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


  • As an admin, this individual certainly knows better. These reverts apply to a specific section, which Kim Bruning has repeatedly removed (in its entirety). This is highly inappropriate (irrespective of the 3RR violation), as it's an ongoing formal discussion regarding the proposed undeletion of a page that Kim Bruning deleted (arguably against policy). As a result of this edit war, Snowspinner has protected the page (with understandable reluctance, given the overall ramifications of doing so). Quoth Snowspinner, "The fact that there is an edit war here baffles and appalls me..." I couldn't agree more. —Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you find the first edit to be a revert? El_C 05:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I misread that, it seems. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: BMIComp (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)



Three revert rule violation on Talk:David S. Touretzky (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David S. Touretzky|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by AI (talk · contribs):

Reported by: James F. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Will put a warning on his talk page, but thought that I should give official notice as well. James F. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Rhobite 03:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)



Three revert rule violation on Bosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). B0sh (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Who?¿? 08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • (All times given in UTC) Current Vfd consensus is in favor of disambiguation version of this article to keep. Previous rv's have been performed prior to these. Who?¿? 09:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • This is just one example, in which the user has systematically reverted or added text more 'political' in nature to the Karl Rove article, including numerous reverts of the section above. In general, user refuses to work on 'talk' to resolve differences, and his/her edits are seriously damaging the article's integrity to protect his political POV. He has deleted this well-sourced, factual information numerous times.
    • Blocked, you should probably report the bluk removal of text to WP:VIP. --nixie 14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record. [40] -- RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: THOR 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • I inserted all the reversions, as well as the last four that violated the 3RR. I was prompted to the user by his reversion on a template I was working on; wherein he proved dense and uncaring to proposals and discussions on talk pages.


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

Reported by: Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


  • I did revert four times as well, but I didn't realize it. I reverted myself seconds later. Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Christianity and world religions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Amin123 (talk · contribs):

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


  • On the section titles "Possible relationship with Zoroastrianism" keep removing the phrase "through Judaism", either deleting it entirely, or replacing it with "through Old Testament". Has been warned about 3RR and asked to self-revert. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


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

Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 23:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Existentializer wants to add a piece reporting a contradiction by Nintendo. 3RR broken by User:A Link to the Past too, who wants it sourced or removed. User knows about the 3RR and has attempted to have another user blocked because of it (see above[41])--Irishpunktom\talk 23:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)



I admit to be the vandals in the Fort Bleakeley, Kaschner/Wellmann, Whodunit (and variants), and Doppelganger incidents. Though it may sound far-fetched, it is true. I take full responsibility for any directly and indirectly related damage, be it physical, emotional, or virtual.

In any case, I hope my positive and helpful attitude and contributions to Wikipedia stand out more than the negative results of my previous acts. James Bell 00:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I am as unfamiliar with these cases as I am with Mr. Bell's usual pattern of editing, I wonder if perhaps Mr. Bell's password has been compromised. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Mr. Bell left a farewell message on his user page on July 12, though he also made a couple of posts here (one to the Bank of Wikipedia section, above). I'm not sure what is going on here. --Deathphoenix 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An anon created a hoax article called Fort Bleakeley towards the end of March 2005. He complemented it with other supporting articles to make it look as if it were real. After the article was discovered to be a hoax, he made all sorts of weak arguments and insults to other users, particularly User:Plek, who discovered the hoax, and User:RickK (who I believe has recently left). The anon, who called himself "Jake," was banned and tthe articles deleted; he evaded the block, recreated the articles, and created a decoy called User:JakeGHz. JakeGHz, because of the similarity to the anon's name, of his immediate involvement in the matter, and because he wrote an article on April 1st, JakeGHz was (correctly) branded as a sock of the mischievous User:Jake0618.

Some gibberish left by my younger cousin, who somehow got my password and masqueraded as me. Disregard. James Bell 10:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


User SlimVirgin is consistently taking a pro-Israel/pro-Jewish/pro-Zionist stance on various articles in edits, revert wars and even in locking the articles with what appears to be siding with the same side of dispute all the time. Can some responsible admins please look into this? She (I am assuming it's a "she", but you never know in cyberespace) has done it several times just today. I know that she is a famous op and probably some other admins will prefer not to risk their status, but if it is true that she is taking sides on issues, and she is an "important admin" (although an important person would not end up being an online junkie) this would be a Very Bad Thing for Wikipedia. Wiki25 20:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Diffs? --Kbdank71 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
For instance, the edit history of Gaza Strip, Israeli terrorism, Zionist terrorism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and this is just today in a short span of time.

This is a diff, SqueakBox 20:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter which version of an article is locked as page protection is not permanent. That aside, please provide links to specific instances of alleged wrongdoing. It would also help your case if you did not make snide asides about people such as your comment about being an "online junkie". Gamaliel 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No doubt Wik25 (talk · contribs) is also JoergenG (talk · contribs), Joergg (talk · contribs), Joerg2 (talk · contribs), Testing124 (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs), MichaelSlone2 (talk · contribs), and MichaelSlone3 (talk · contribs), who has used a series of proxies and sockpuppets to revert Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about 50 times in the past week, while being reverted and/or blocked by at least 9 other editors. His other contributions, particularly using his earlier sockpuppets, are also quite "interesting". Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you supposed to be blocked, Jay? Everyking 22:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
James, for once could you possibly investigate something on your own before jumping to conclusions? Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • "10:19, July 13, 2005 Hadal blocked "User:Jayjg" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation at Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani)" - in other words, no, his block had already expired. Radiant_>|< 22:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • My mistake then. Nevertheless the point still stands: complaining about somebody else's revert warring despite having been blocked for it yourself. Everyking 03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    Come now. This is getting close to an ad hominem tu quoque. As long as we know what Jayjg did, how does that disqualify him from pointing out the behaviour of others? JRM · Talk 13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Your mistake? No. This is simply further evidence that you're nothing but a troll, Everyking. Tomer TALK 07:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Everyking is not a troll. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
That's the second time Tomer has attacked me and I have never even encountered him in editing before, at least I don't think so. I'm not going to get into this trading of insults with someone I don't have any practical reason to argue with. Everyking 14:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I've taken no admin action in relation to Gaza Strip, and have only rarely edited it. Israeli terrorism was briefly protected yesterday after a spate of reverting and editing by anon IPs and new users who were adding POV nonsense to it (including that Rachel Corrie was a victim of terrorism and had been shot), and several of them looked about to violate 3RR. Zionist terrorism was protected because the same group of editors threatened to go there next, and I intend to unlock it today. I protected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because of a 3RR violation by a user who keeps using sockpuppets to revert. Because I'm not able to prove that it's the same user, and therefore can't block — and even if I did, he'd come back with other accounts — I protected the page instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think any Admins are important themselves, but they perform important functions. I am quite aware of SlimVirgin, and she has been involved in pages I have been on, yet my experience she has been reasonable. I don't particularly recall her being supportive (which I would sort of like) or in opposition (and many here have had an opportunity to oppose me in one thing or another). If anything, I think she has leaned the opposite way of this complaint. As for an Admin, there is probably no one better at resolving disputes, and I suspect much of it goes on behind the scenes, which is probably the right way to do it. --Noitall 22:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree. I looked over the histories of the articles in question and I don't see anything from SlimVirgin except attempts to help the articles along. On the whole her involvement seems slight. -Willmcw 07:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


Looks like I'm being pulled into my first real WikiDispute. User: (contribs) started editing on Wednesday. His first two edits were to change links on Norfolk Southern and Template:North America class 1. Since they were the first edits by an anonymous user, and they appeared to me at that time to be malicious in nature, I reverted them. The user then made more changes to Norfolk Southern and to Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway; he moved the information from that article into Norfolk Southern in a new subsection entitled "Subsidiaries". I left comments on Talk:Norfolk Southern and Talk:Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway stating my belief that some subsidiary information is appropriate in Norfolk Southern, but that the other page shouldn't be made into a redirect. User: reverted my revert of the template and an unrelated edit to Railfan (see Talk:Railfan for further discussion on that edit). He also tried to report me as a vandal disrupting editing on pages relating to American railroad history (a dubious claim if you view my own user page and contribs). Another admin removed this allegation from the incidents page.

Other editors apparently agreed with my original reverts and with the sentiment that I expressed on the Norfolk Southern talk page and they have reverted edits by User: to these pages. I say "apparently" here because I made no effort to contact these other editors to inform them of the situation; instead, after my two reverts were reverted, I stepped back and let the community decide. This morning I see that User: has returned and reverted the other editors' reverts and reported me again, this time as a sockpuppet of another administrator. Other admins have decided that this claim was incorrect and removed the allegation from the incidents page. I've invited the user to join the discussion on his talk page.

At this point, I'm continuing to edit as I have been editing for the last year, waiting for feedback from User: Is there anything further that I should be doing? slambo 12:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The lack of further comments and the evidence presented below suggests to me that I am doing the right thing. If I am misinformed, please let me know. Thanks. slambo 18:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-railfan vandalism, multiple open proxies, Philly TV, etc.[edit]

There has been been a rash of vandalism of railroad articles lately. One of the vandals of the railfan article is User:, who also listed a frivolous "vandalism in progress" falsely claiming that Slambo and SPUI (who have been reverting the vandalism on railfan) are vandalizing the articles.

Three other vandals making similar edits to railfan are User:, User:, and User:, all of whom have already been blocked as open proxies.

Another user who vandalized the railfan article by trying to move the entire article to foamer and add some derogatory comments to the article on 12 June is User:, who if you look at their edit history is User:Spotteddogsdotorg. Their user page claims to be a non-fixed IP but the edit history says otherwise.

Note also that (who is Spotteddogsdotorg) nominated Roger Moss for deletion, even though User:Spotteddogsdotorg claims in a post to my talk page that he/she has no interest in Roger Moss. There was some controversy about the Roger Moss VFD a month or so ago, along with VFDs for several Philly TV personalities (Tracy Davidson, Doug Kammerer, NBC 10 Live at 5 and others); check the VFDs and you will see that User:Spotteddogsdotorg (or was involved in every one of them and nominated most of them. During those VFDs there was a "bloc" of users such as User:Melvis, User:Hohokus, User:ConeyCyclone, and possibly User:Toasthaven, who all voted as a bloc with Spotteddogsdotorg, and all have similar edit patterns and went straight to the VFDs not long after creating their accounts.

One of the railfan vandals, User:, was also the user who added an IFD tag to Image:Tvsrr2.jpg at 12:34 on 14 July; this image then appeared with a IFD nomination at 12:37 by User:FunkyChicken!. has been blocked as an open proxy.

Meanwhile several anon IPs have been making frequent edits to the vanity plate article, repeatedly removing a railroad themed vanity plate image, and changing the term "railfan" in the article to the more perjorative "train spotter". They are User:, User: (who has already been blocked as an open proxy), User: big surprise, User:Spotteddogsdotorg. User: listed a frivolous "vandalism in progress" report of myself, similar to the frivolous one that User: listed of Slambo and SPUI; User: who is User:Spotteddogsdotorg then moved's listing from "low" to "severe" within minutes.

Other users that appear to be related and also need to be checked out: User:, User:, User:Toasthaven2, User:PhillyDude!, User:KiwiPunter, and User:

User: is definitely User:Toasthaven2 if you look at the message on Toasthaven2's talk page at 17:11 on 12 July. See here:User_talk:Mothperson#Re:_Roger_Moss for other users' views on

User: is User:KiwiPunter based on [42]. KiwiPunter vandalized the psychiatry article on 5 July. nominated several legit articles for VFD including defect detector, which is railroad related, and Doug Kammerer, which had just survived a VFD after being nominated by Spotteddogsdotorg.

My guess is that every one of these users is either the same person, or a small group working together. Also of note is that Spotteddogsdotorg left a message on my talk page (as well as those of Radiant! and Mothperson) on 7 July indicating a familiarity with open proxies and accusing us of being sockpuppets of each other. I suspect this user has a lot more open proxies or knows where to find them.

Spotteddogsdotorg left another message on my talk page at 14:14 on 15 July claiming "This username is no longer active, but this user is under a new name. You and your buddies are going to go nuts trying find the new name!". Given the prolific use of open proxies, my guess is there may or may not be a "new name" - or there may be several. I recommend that admins keep an eye on articles relating to these subjects for vandalism, frilovous VFD nominations, and subtle insertion of derogatory POV:

  1. Philadelphia TV stations and TV personalities
  2. License plates, license plate collecting
  3. Railfans and railroads

For more verification see also: User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox, User_talk:Mothperson#Re:_Roger_Moss, and here and below on Mothperson's talk page: User_talk:Mothperson#User:Spotteddogsdotorg_and_minions. Kaibabsquirrel 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Spotteddogsdotorg also vandalized my user page this morning. Kaibabsquirrel 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Software feature to limit collateral damage?[edit]

User:WBardwin just got blocked again, please see User talk:Bishonen and User talk:Jwrosenzweig. WBardwin edits from an AOL proxy in the - range. User:UkPaolo edits from -, an NTL range. They are only two of the highly virtuous contributors that keep getting blocked over and over, sometimes "indefinitely", when an admin blocks an IP in these ranges. Please take a look at WBardwin's talk page to get a sense of the scale of the problem that keeps hitting these and other good users! I could show you a pretty hefty pile of e-mails from these two, too, as they've taken to appealing very politely to me, which is fine if I'm at the computer, but sometimes I'm not. It says on the Special:Blockip page that blocks in these ranges should be kept to 15 minutes or less, but I guess admins miss it sometimes. I don't know what to do, but we really, really need to take this seriously. Two suggestions:
1. Could somebody who understands to edit special pages please put in a warning in red letters at the top of the Blockip page that says "Before blocking, please read the IP range box" (plus maybe a warning in purple that says "Please read the red text" and a warning in cyan that says "Please read the purple text")?
2. Would it be possible to implement a software feature that brings up a warning whenever an attempt is made to block these ranges for more than 15 minutes? E. g. "You are about to block an IP shared by many users, please see the IP range box. These ranges should not be blocked for more than 15 minues. Do you really wish to block it for 48 hours?" or whatever. (In some pleasing color.) Really. If I was WBardwin or UkPaolo, I think I might have left by now. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the difficulty in this case is the autoblocker (don't get me wrong, I think it is definitely a useful tool). I blocked WBardwin by blocking a reincarnated sockpuppet named Mickey654 (or something like that -- I'd have to check the log) -- in other words, at no time did I know I was blocking an IP range. The range got blocked as a result of my blocking a username. So all the flashing purple and cyan boxes in the world wouldn't have tipped me off. How can we deal with this? Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong either, I'm getting so I daren't block vandals at all, with all these supercomplications, and I'm certainly not offering my cowardice as the way to go. But what about my second suggestion? Might it be possible for the software to know what you didn't, about the IP range, and warn you about it? Bishonen | talk 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...I would like that, if it's possible. But then it raises some difficult problems. We have some standard penalties (say, a 24 hour block for 3RR violations). Do those not apply to users accessing from AOL? If so...the implications are not good. I don't know if there's an easy solution to this. I do agree, though, that at least knowing that I am blocking one of the ranges would be beneficial. Jwrosenzweig 17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
The trick here is to think of them as containment measures, not penalties. That is, we are not being "unjust" for not blocking AOL users dutifully for 24 hours if we're doing it to keep open access for potentially dozens of innocent editors. Yes, it does mean that if you're a bastard coming from an AOL proxy, you have a lot more opportunities to be annoying than other vandals. That burden is on us, however. JRM · Talk 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the autoblocker does more harm than good. I think it should be shut off or at least its operation made optional at the time a user is blocked. I also believe that we would be better served if IP blocks did not affect logged-in users. It is only important for them to affect IP users and users seeking to create new accounts. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that functionality should be implemented in the IP blocking systems to automatically detect when bans are made of users with a dynamic IP address. If the system detects that the IP being blocked is in fact served from a dynamic IP pool, or a whole IP range is being blocked, a message is displayed warning the admin that the whole range will be blocked. A number of technical approaches could be taken to do this; I would suggest parsing WHOIS query data from blocked IP ranges to determine if they are served from a dynamic pool.
The other approach would be to implement a change in the way that users are blocked for such matters. Username blocks would automatically block the IP ranges as they do at the moment; however, if a "username blocked" user tries to access Wikipedia, the wiki is still visible but it disallows article editing, thus allowing a registered user in good standing to log in with a different username and password and remove the edit lock.
These are only a few possibilities as to how this solution could be implemented and are by no means exhaustive. If anyone here requires any further input in these areas, please do ask; I am happy to assist. --NicholasTurnbull 21:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It does seem to me that we should let logging in override the autoblocker. For obvious reasons we should not allow account creation. And eventually we may need to discriminate against very new users. Bovlb 23:01:27, 2005-07-15 (UTC)
I, too, would very much like the option to turn off the autoblocker on a case-by-case basis. If someone creates an account with an inappropriate name, for example, I'd like to have the option to permanently block the account but not trip autoblocks for IP addresses shared by it. Of course, repeat offenders could still be autoblocked, but it shouldn't just be always on.
Determining what IP ranges are dynamic or not is not something you can do fully automatically, neither is detecting proxies. But there's no reason why we couldn't have software support for admin-maintained lists of dynamic ranges, just as we do now, but with a bit more forced attention (compare the spam blacklist, another automatic feature with manual input). I feel the education program is not doing much good; too many admins apparently still can't RTFM. I'll see if there are any feature requests on Bugzilla for enforcing a warning/hard limit on block time per IP address range, and add one as appropriate. JRM · Talk 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't find a relevant earlier bug, so this request is now bug #2879. Add your support and comments there as needed. JRM · Talk 11:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Treat AOL differently?[edit]

_ _ I've never noticed the least mention of whether there are reasons for not solving the AOL problems by some software that would require negotiation with AOL.
_ _ IMO it is in their interest to prevent the current kind of inconvenience to their innocent users, so it's a matter of mutual self-interest, not of our choosing between going to them begging vs. threatening the nuc-u-lar option of blocking all editing from AOL IPs.
_ _ As a first approximate conception, think of putting a front end with two doors between the user and what we have now. One door just checks against AOL IPs, and when it finds one, responds to attempts to edit with a msg about AOL having a second door. The second door may not even have a URL, let alone a WWW one, but could use IPs to communicate between our servers and theirs. Their users could invoke that door only after at least once going to an AOL Wiki-access page; they'd be informed there that AOL would enable them to edit Wikis only thru the second door and only with every edit to a wiki being accompanied by a "WA" code unique to the combination of wiki and AOL account; the wiki could use it as a substitute for a fixed IP, i.e., a basis for blocking and banning. Perhaps it would be worthwhile making the WA unique instead to the combination of the "wiki group" and AOL acct, so that e.g. WikiMedia Foundation could choose to be a wiki group, and have the option of blocking or banning a vandal from WikiMedia wikis they haven't yet edited.
_ _ I implied that all the screen-names of a given acct would share the same WP WA; that's not a horrible idea, but it is not necessary if the number of WAs you can get by renaming screen-names is limited, e.g. they get recycled to the same acct. (On the other hand, is it worth pushing for two accts paid for with the same credit card getting no extra WAs? Or for denying the second door to customer whose credit cards come from numeric ranges include prepaid (and thus effectively anonymous) cards?)
_ _ Some users, especially if they don't always use AOL, might find it advantageous to have an AOL frame around their Wiki pages, to remind them; others may prefer AOL being visually transparent; AOL could of course offer those options. AOL could also choose to add value, e.g., building a WYWSIWYG wikiwiki editor into the client software and replacing or automatically supplementing the edit pane on edit pages with that.
_ _ There's no such thing as a SMOP, but if nothing like this has been considered seriously, shouldn't such a concept be looked at hard?
--Jerzy·t 21:14, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

  • I agree that AOL is a special case and have suggested before that that some sort of identification of AOL users may be called for, such as email confirmation of their identity. This would require no coordination with AOL and would stop most of the vandalism. There has been no interest in this from the developers, and little support from the broader community.
  • I believe that the possibility of AOL working with us on these issues is remote, because they are facing serious business issues due to the ineroxable decline and fall of dialup.
  • Vandalism from dynamic IPs is likely to become less a problem with time again due to the decline and fall of dialup. The pools of IPs assigned to broadband users tend to be shared by smaller groups of users and it is more difficult for the end-user to force an ip address reassignment.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Very helpful, tho not definitive:
    1. You don't even give a WAG about these timescales
    2. My concept preserves more of AOL users' privacy (which may or not make the dev'rs more interested)
    3. Not clear that AOL's troubles are as preoccupying as you suggest
In any case, shouldn't this probably move off here? Perhaps to wherever your previous suggestions landed.
--Jerzy·t 22:57, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
  • Timescales. AOL's lost, idunno, 20% of their peak dialup subscriber base. And may lose another 20% this year? Guessing. The industry rags have projections that would be more helpful than mine. I brought up before on the mailing list, you're welcome to try, you sure won't do any worse than I did. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Chadbryant & the eleventh plague[edit]

Many people will probably be aware of a plague of sock-puppets — accounts created only to harrass Chadbryant and vandalise his User page. A string of them have been blocked over the last few months (I've compiled a list below from the History of his User page, though I might have missed one or two). Now a new one has turned up: Archived Chad (talk · contribs). Aside from the name, his only edits have been to Talk pages, and all concern Chadbryant. This time he's not doing his usual outright vandalising, he's just baiting Chadbryant (and indulging in some childish insults aimed at me on his Talk page). Could someone check to confirm his identity with:

  1. Chad "Dink" Bryant (talk · contribs)
  2. Derek Duggan (talk · contribs)
  3. Mel Etitis Is An Asshole (talk · contribs)
  4. Steven Owen (talk · contribs)
  5. Bubbles The Wimp (talk · contribs)
  6. Bubbles The Chimp (talk · contribs)
  7. MichaelJacksonMolestedM