Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive4

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: January 23, 2005 - January 28, 2005

Various Image articles related to map of India[edit]

This chat has been resurrected from WP:RFPP. I apologise for adding 30k to this page, but this dispute has not yet died and it should really be discussed here instead of there. silsor 16:15, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Copied text moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GzornenplatzBlock to reduce bloat/load-time on this page. Please see that page for the reproduced material. Noel (talk) 16:55, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A long term block requested[edit]

I am requesting a block against Gzornenplatz a second time, as per the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_page_protection#Gzornenplatz and other related discussions on various pages - hopefully for longer than 24 hours, as Gplatz reverts upto 30 articles at once and wastes other editors' time, and since this is not just the second offense but the nth in a series of edits that was mentioned during arbitration: the entire list of images being reverted can be found on the arbitration Evidence page. As the first link shows, Gplatz has actually consented that the CIA map of India is not NPOV, but he continues to revert to it anyway, and besides the long edit war with me, has been edit warring with User:Nichalp after the discussion here. -- Simonides 15:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Listed by Silsor 16:19, 23 Jan 2005)

You need to ask the community at large this question, not just admins. Wikipedia:Blocking policy makes clear that the Wikipedia community has the authority to block - admins do not have this authority. jguk 21:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not to mention Gzornenplatz is believed to be Wik, who was banned from editing after an all-out vandalism spree. Even if unbanned, Gzornenplatz/Wik is under various Arbitration Committee rulings, which he now seems to be breaking again. Jordi· 16:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why are we even discussing this? I'm tired of dealing with this person. As far as I'm concerned, GzPl has three choices:

  • Edit non-contentious articles.
  • Learn to edit contentious articles in a co-operative way
  • Hit the road, Jack.

Wikipedia is not a public highway. We don't have to put up with everyone. Per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, he should be blocked for a month. End of story. If a couple of other admins agree, I will do so. Noel (talk) 17:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 17:56, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Doubly agreed. If he IS Wik, he should be gone without discussion. If he isn't Wik, his behavior qualifies him for banning anyway. RickK 21:09, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you actually read that policy: "Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies". I am not violating any general rules nor specific arbcom terms. If "reverting upto 30 articles at once" is supposed to be disruption, then Simonides has indicted himself, since he obviously reverted those same pages just as much. Unjustified blocks have been and will be reverted by other sysops, so don't waste your time further. Gzornenplatz 21:29, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It may be useful to recall that Wikipedia:Banning policy states that the decision to ban a user can arise from 5 places. The first "place" mentioned is "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." I would far rather Gzornenplatz/Wik reformed to become a co-operative user. If he does not do so soon, I for one would support a move to use this method to ban him. Gzorneplatz/Wik, please reform. No-one really wants it to get that far, jguk 22:10, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Again, which policy am I supposed to be violating? Can you even specify it? Gzornenplatz 22:17, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Being disruptive, taking an overly aggressive approach (eg mass reversions on 30+ articles) and other unneighbourly activity. Remember, not all Wikipedia policy is written down. Many users see your actions as being disruptive and would prefer you took a more conciliatory approach where you have content disputes with other users. You would do well to recognise this and calm down. I believe your behaviour, taken as a whole, is extremely discourteous to other users. As you are aware we have well-trodden paths for dealing with content disputes - please follow them, jguk 22:30, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Simonides has engaged in the same mass reversion, so even from a purely technical view, I can't have behaved worse than him. And if you actually look at the issue, it is obvious that he is trying to push an Indian POV and I'm reverting to an NPOV version. There's no "conciliation" possible with blatant POV pushers. We do not have "paths for dealing with content disputes" that lead to binding decisions on content, and anything else doesn't help in such cases. But you probably care more about "peace and quiet" than about the neutrality and accuracy of Wikipedia content, and think I should just let the POV pusher have his way. Now, aside from the mass reversion, if there's any other "disruption" or "unneighbourly activity" you'll have to specify it, and I can respond to it. Vague and unfalsifiable general accusations, which basically amount to saying "I don't like you", will not fly. Gzornenplatz 22:45, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
"The other person did it too" is not a defense. I agree that we need better procedures for dealing with both contentious issues, and POV-pushers, but revert wars aren't it. As to "general accusations", the reason I didn't do a block was that I was originally taking the initial report (here) on good faith - when I actually looked at your recent editing history, I saw nothing particularly objectionable. Noel (talk) 14:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"The other person did it too" is a defense against me being punished but not the other person who did it too. That's elementary justice. If you get a consensus that those "mass reversions" are block-worthy disruption, then you could block both of us, as well as a number of other users I could name who are doing the same (Halibutt, Emax, etc.). I fully agree that we need better procedures for those disputes than revert wars, but until we have them, revert wars are the best we have; the only alternative is to give up to the POV pusher. I find it curious that you take the report of an accuser on good faith, and on that basis, without showing good faith toward the accused and without investigating, propose a lengthy block and say "I'm tired of dealing with this person" (I don't remember having even talked to you before outside of this page). Gzornenplatz 03:29, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
a defense against me being punished but not the other person who did it too - Fairness is not my priority; building an ancyclopaedia is (see our previous discussion). you take the report of an accuser on good faith, and on that basis, .. without investigating, propose a lengthy block - Life is short, and I have better things to do than wallow in the details of these set-tos. Noel (talk) 13:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I see fairness is not a priority of yours. Thankfully, it is one of other sysops. (Contrasting this to "building an encyclopaedia" is a ridiculous strawman, as if building an encyclopaedia required you to be unfair!) If you have better things to do than to deal with such disputes fairly, then just stay out of them entirely, OK? Blocking people arbitrarily is not going to make the encyclopaedia better. Gzornenplatz 17:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I said that fairness was not as high a priority as building the encyclopaedia. If you disagree with that, I can only conclude that for you, the opposite is true - that the encyclopaedia is not the most important thing here. Noel (talk) 18:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And I can only conclude that logic isn't a priority of yours either. There is no contradiction between fairness and "building an encyclopaedia" that would force you to weigh them against each other. On the contrary, fairness in dealing with disputes helps in building the encyclopaedia, as it will keep the bad users out and the good users in. If you blindly block a good NPOV user, the encyclopaedia could lose many useful edits and various POV pushers could go about their ways unchecked, and this could send a fatal signal, attracting even more POV pushers and driving more good users away, etc. Gzornenplatz 18:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
This entire thread is a perfect illustration of why you are continually a source of dispute on Wikipedia. The impression you give is that being involved in controversy is more interesting to you. Nothing was actually done to you in this instance, so there's nothing real for you to actually complain about, but still you're here battling.
As I keep trying to explain to you, there is a "contradiction between fairness [to editors] and 'building an encyclopaedia'" - putting the former as the highest priority would necessarily take time away from doing the latter. Noel (talk) 14:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
nobody forces you to spend a single second with this, of course. But I should think that if you decide to take action, you should be expected to familiarize yourself with the case first. dab () 13:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I did check before I took action: see my comment above left at 14:41, 24 Jan. I saw no point in wasting time checking the details before I got feedback that people agreed with the proposed action. Noel (talk) 14:36, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You shouldn't even propose an action before checking the case. You're like a judge saying "So you killed a person? I say it's death for you. What? You did it in self-defense? Get out of here, I have no time to waste with such details." Gzornenplatz 17:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand the history of this dispute correctly. But at least, it is disingenious to talk of "mass reversion" here: this is about a single issue, the border of India, and the "mass" only comes into play because there are lots of versions of the map of India, with different regions highlighted.
also, I cannot see that gzpl is 'not arguing his point'. He does make a very clear case on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/GzornenplatzBlock. Of course, the reverts solve nothing, but that goes for both sides. Why is there not a discussion where alternative solutions (such as explicit annotation of the line of control) are considered by all parties?
So, while I may not be aware of the history of this, I don't see gzpl as unilaterally guilty at all. If you block him for a month now, this just means that the other side has won the revert war, but it doesn't contribute towards a solution of the pov dispute. dab () 14:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have never been involved in this dispute, but I will say something anyway. The map by Gzornenplatz has anti-Pakistani (not ant-Indian) POV. I have seen many Indians argue that the current line of control should become international border, something that Pakistan vehemently opposes (and that is the dispute between Indian and Pakistan -- notice how Indian government claims that there is no "dispute" about Kashmir, but Pakistan claims that Kashmir is the "core dispute"). I don't think most Indians argue or think that they will ever get Pakistani part, but many Pakistanis believe the whole of Kashmir (at least the Muslim majority part -- if not Jamu) should be part of Pakistan. This makes Gzornenplatz map anti-Pakistan. His map endorses Indian claim. However, I also see problems with Simonides map. Why does the border include all of Kashmir within India? The entire area of Kashmir should be changed to dotted line. Why the text only has: presently administered by "Pakistan" and "China." It should list all three countries: presently administered by "Pakistan," "India" and "China." OneGuy 15:52, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, that's my version of how the NPOV map should look like Image:IndiaNumbered3.png OneGuy 07:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I keep hearing people say Gzornenplatz is Wik. Does someone have solid evidence of this? If so, he's banned, and should be blocked. If there is no such evidence, why is someone saying this? And if the case is unclear, has anyone overtly put the question to him: "Gzornenplatz, are you willing to publicly affirm that you are not the same person as Wik?" -- Jmabel | Talk 06:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Evidence apparently exists: check Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. On its history [1] [2] and talk [3] are confirmations from Fred Bauder and Raul that Gzornenplatz is indeed Wik returned. My guess is that Jimbo is waiting to see if the ArbCom can handle Wik itself, but may step in later if the ArbCom proves to be a paper tiger. Jordi· 09:00, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that Jimbo probably isn't aware of the situation. Snowspinner 21:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo to Gplatz/Wik: "You vandalized wikipedia with a vandalbot, you have lied to my to my face on multiple occasions, and yet you still have the nerve to come here and act like a victim." [4]
He knows, but has not yet taken action. Jordi· 07:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, I'll reiterate: given the suspicion, has anyone simply asked Gzornenplatz to affirm that he is not Wik? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:40, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this dispute over now? Gzornenplatz agreed (on his talk page) to the version of map that I uploaded, and I haven't seen Simonides or any other Indian object to it OneGuy 07:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gplatz/Wik is trouble on far more than just the India images. Jordi· 07:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, this entry on this page began with a dispute about maps of India. That's what I meant OneGuy 09:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think that the India issue is done with. The entry will be archived once comments stop getting added to it. Noel (talk) 14:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This has developed into a discussion about in what cases admins are justified in meting out their maximum non-arbcom-endorsed penalty of a month's block. I argued that gz is not such a case, regardless of whether you think he is annoying: vandals are blocked, annoying people are rfar'ed, and the arbcom will decide if they are annoying enough to be blocked for longer periods. If we agree that admins may block "annoying people" for a month, hell, I could have saved myself the pain of rfaring a far more annoying specimen :-\ dab () 14:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
that said, I of course recognize that the case is entirely different if gz is indeed a reincarnation of a blocked user. In that case, he will be blocked because of that, and not because he is "annoying". But: why is everybody ignoring Jmabel's question whether gz was actally asked to confirm or deny that he is Wik?? dab () 14:32, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Check this old version of Gz's talk page, in response to a comment where another user mentions Fred Bauer has told him Gz=Wik: [5] Gz: "Fred Bauder is weird like that. Don't mind him."
This seems like a denial to me, but keep in mind Wik has been known to lie, and see also Jimbo's comments to Gz I paraphrased above. Jordi· 14:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
yeah, ok? so on what grounds do people keep saying he is Wik? Honestly, I'm just wondering, as I' m not familiar with the history of this. dab () 19:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Although Wik "left" when he ran his vandalbot against Wikipedia, I consider him to be under a ban by the community. Accordingly his backup account Gzornenplatz is banned as well. silsor 18:15, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, he makes good contributions, and for another, surely he will just come back under another name. What's the point? Everyking 18:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder told me Gzornenplatz was Wik (I don't really know why, it didn't seem relevant to the discussions I was having at the time - but he did). Raul later confirmed that. I have no reason to suspect that Fred and Raul were doing anything other than telling the truth and I fully accept their confirmations that Gzornenplatz is Wik. I have also, many days ago, espoused the view that Jimbo must be aware of this - and that he is giving the ArbCom its head on this one. There is one thing that puzzles me though. Although Wikipedia:Blocking policy makes it clear that there are 5 ways a user can be blocked, and that the first one of these is community consensus (which, I note as an aside, isn't the same as admin consensus), I can see no reference to Wik being permanently blocked - either by community consensus, or any of the other 4 methods. Am I missing something? jguk 20:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's something that was kinda informally understood after the vandalbot episode. But it's going on a year now. Such a thing ought not to apply forever. Everyking 21:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


ATTENTION: Gzornenplatz is not to be blocked as a reincarnation of Wik for the moment as per a recent injunction.

An arbcom case has been started to resolve the matter. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:39, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

I don't want to make a big deal out of this, it was no big deal as long as Wik was just considered gone. Ignoring a departed vandal is one thing but allowing them to return is another. To Everyking's comment re:Wik/Gzornenplatz just coming back as another user - why do we even bother to ban anybody then? After all, they can just come back as someone. There will always be more vandals, but we have to do what we can. And as for making good contributions - I think most of our banned users have made good contributions at some point or another. But that's not the point here. This isn't even about Gzornenplatz's recent edit wars, since those are under the arbcom's jurisdiction.

If I'm shown to be wrong about the community banning Wik, I'd be glad to remove the block, but I just don't see how we would allow him to return. In Jimbo's opinion Wik earned himself a permanent ban[6] (this email also includes Wik/Gzornenplatz's threat to use the vandalbot), and in the opinions of others as well[7], [8], [9]. We are talking about someone who ran a script to systematically register accounts and use them through proxies to automatically vandalize pages. That just doesn't fly here. silsor 02:13, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think an admission that they are the same and an apology for running the vandal bot would suffice for an open return to the community. I don't know if there's any possibility of that happening, though. Everyking 02:20, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
If Gzornenplatz is Wik, then the same ruling should apply. The ban applies to the user, not to the account. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:23, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Based on the Arbcom ruling concerning Gzornenplatz, no official connection with Wik was drawn. Thus, there is no basis for imposing an ex post facto ban on Gzornenplatz in connection with Wik. Admins may only apply the sanctions imposed on Gz's editing, which are already quite stringent. Whether or not Jimbo imposed a permanent ban on Wik in June is irrelevant because the Arbcom already made a ruling on Gz without considering that statement by Jimbo in June. BTW, even more recently, the arbcom has just thrown out two such cases against Gz. An admin blocking Gz for any connection with Wik would be himself acting without regard for the most recent Arbcom decision. 172 02:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The only reason they didn't act is because they must have felt this is out of their league. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
Just to clear the air as to the identity question, without saying anything else right now: I spoke with arbitrator Raul654 just now and he said, for the record, that "during our previous arbcom case, the arbcom compiled evidence linking gz to wik / and the evidence was about as conclusive a match as we could hope for / So really, the question of - Is Wik the same as Gz? is a nonstarter / Yes, they are. Period." silsor 03:22, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I already commented on not making a big deal out of this; I did what had to be done so I'll leave it for now and wait for the block (removed by 172) to be reinstated. silsor 02:36, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

You did the right thing. This is beyond ArbCom now. The decision to enforce a ban on Wik is for the community, just as the community has banned Mr. Treason. I heartily endorce any admin that blocks this person, no matter what past, present, or future accounts they decide to create. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
This is beyond ArbCom now. The Arbcom heard a case requesting a ban on Gz in connection with Wik and rejected it. Other admins will fortunately reverse the move of any admin unilaterally attempting to reverse the decision of the Arbom. 172 02:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, they felt that the existing orders should be applied. In their minds, hearing a new case was unnecessary as the old orders are still in force. -- Netoholic @ 02:48, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
This is a distortion of the rulings. They made it clear that we are only to apply the existing orders to Gz concerning Gz, not the orders concerning any other editor an admin randomly suspects Gz may or may not have been in the past. Note that they did not even bother to recognize the connection with Wik. [10] (In other pressing incidents they do do this, e.g., note the rulings concerning the Libertas sockpuppets. They have not done this in any of the Arbom cases following the Wik's resignation, so we must treat Gz and Wik as separate users.) 172 08:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, 172 has always been one of Wik's few supporters. Wik is permanantly banned, and he is permanantly banned for an extremely good reason. [11] is instructive to anybody who is new to this. Unless someone on the arbcom or Jimbo says that the appeal to the arbcom that was demanded in that e-mail has taken place, I think the declaration of an indefinite ban stands. As such, I'm going to reinstate. Snowspinner 03:27, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Strongly support block of Gzornenplatz as Wik sockpuppet. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:28, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Danny also opposed these moves to impose vigilante justice against Gz. So I'm wondering if there is any connection between Danny's decision to leave indefinitely and this random push to permanently block Gz without reference to the Arbcom, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that Gz has been violating the Abcom restrictions imposed specifically on the Gz account. 172 09:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most of his recent edits were good. If Gzornenplatz formally apologizes for his past behavior, why can't he be given a second chance? OneGuy 07:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:172 has just unblocked him, commenting that we need to take it to ArbCom to ban Wik/Gzornenplatz. May I suggest 172 reads Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which makes it clear that we do not need to go to ArbCom? Indeed, community consensus is the first example of how a user may be blocked. If 172 wishes to change that policy, he should discuss it on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy, jguk 08:22, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is not a community consensus, by virtue of the fact that the Arbcom just rejected the request to indefinite on Gz. Thus, we were only afforded the latitude to enforce the rulings on Gz concening Gz, i.e. the revert parole. Given our responsibilities as enforcers of Arbcom rulings, regardless of my opinion of the wide range of Gz's valuable contributions, I myself would block him if I saw him break the restrictions on his editing. However, I see absolutely no evidence here that he has been in breech of them, so this whole thread just seems like a random ax to grind. 172 08:31, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wik/GZ already had a second chance. he went through a lot of arbitration and other dispute resolution measures, with little results. If he really wants to become part of the community again, he should appeal to Jimbo Wales. Until then, I strongly support an indefinite block of him including all sockpuppet accounts. He was bocked three times in the last 24 hours by different admins, and got unblocked twice by 172, who himself is on parole -- Chris 73 Talk 09:47, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Are we trying to correct his behavior, or are we just punishing him for the sake of punishing him? He's done a lot of good work as Gzornenplatz, and even before his latest bout of arbitration he had largely stopped the behavior that made Wik persona non grata; ever since he was recently placed under editing restrictions, he's been pretty good about abiding by them and really hasn't made significant trouble. (Yes, he's been involved in a number of editing disputes, but he's discussed things and accepted compromises even if he didn't try to forge them himself.) Demanding that he apologize isn't likely to accomplish much (see MeatBall:DemandApology), and as long as he's improving his behavior, why should he stay banned?

This is all academic, I suppose; he was banned by Jimbo, and Jimbo's say-so is needed to unban him. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:59, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where is the link that shows he was banned by Jimbo? I have seen a couple of email list posting about banning him, but no proof that Jimbo ever banned him OneGuy 21:25, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo declared him hard banned on the mailing list. Whether Jimbo then created a block on the account is immaterial. As for why we're doing this... Wik launched one of the worst vandalbot attacks ever. It was sustained, and it was very difficult to clean up. He is hard banned for this reason, and because he tried to force people to ban people on his say-so. These are serious, serious offenses. And what escelated it to the point where this happened last time was Wik's edit warring and reversions. As revert warring has continued as Gzornenplatz, I have trouble seeing the case for reformation. Snowspinner 21:43, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the case is clear. Jimbo knows that Gzornenplatz is Wiki, but he didn't say anything about banning Gzornenplatz indefinitely.
"You vandalized wikipedia with a vandalbot, you have lied to my face on multiple occasions, and yet you still have the nerve to come here and act like a victim." [12]
This confusion would be resolved by asking Jimbo that he states clearly whether Gzornenplatz should be banned indefinitely or given a second chance. OneGuy 23:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that's the right link for that quote. silsor 23:42, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, here is the full quote with the right link
This comment of yours is the sort of classic that I am sure is going to lead to your banning sooner rather than later. You vandalized wikipedia with a vandalbot, you have lied to my to my face on multiple occasions, and yet you still have the nerve to come here and act like a victim. You've agreed to my compromise on Pila, this is true -- but you say that the other side did not, which is transparently false. Jimbo Wales 09:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) [13]
The quote shows that not only Jimbo knows that Gzornenplatz is Wik, but also note the first sentence: "This comment of yours is the sort of classic that I am sure is going to lead to your banning sooner rather than later." "Sooner rather than later"? That is sufficient evidence that Jimbo didn't think Wik/Gzornenplatz should be banned at least on 19 Dec 2004 when he wrote that sentence. What has changed since 19 Dec 2004? Why should he be banned now? OneGuy 06:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am getting a bit tired of this. Everybody keeps saying Gz is Wik, and Jimbo hates Gz/Wik's guts, and therefore he should be banned. And this is all backed up with sybillic remarks of Gz's and apocryphal references to statements of Jimbo's on mailing lists. Hell, Jimbo knows how to use mediawiki. He can come here (or to VP) and officially state he thinks gz should be blocked. Until he does so, this is all very much in the air. Why don't we just drop this until we get a clear ruling by the arbcom (you know, along the lines of "block gz!"), or by Jimbo. It's not like gz is vandalizing WP at a 1,000 articles an hour, so no harm is done by just letting it rest for a while. dab () 13:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Amen. The ArbComm has it, there's no harm done by waiting, let's wait and see what they decide. Noel (talk) 15:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Check out the edit history of the Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict article. OneGuy is aware of the 3 revert rule and is keeping an eye on the clock so that he can revert again after the 24 hours have passed. I have no opinion as to which version is the NPOV version, it might even be the version OneGuy prefers for all I know, but he's still gaming the time. RickK 21:12, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

this article will just go in circles, forever, anyway. Look at the bright side, it keeps the pov warriors busy, taking heat from more prominent articles (let's face it, this article is hardly ever seen by anyone not involved in the dispute). dab () 21:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear. Actually, in general OneGuy is a very good contributor, I'm surprised he's been pulled into this silliness. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:44, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
What does being a good contributor have to do with violating policy? He's violated 3RR twice on the same article in the space of two weeks with no consequences, even after multiple warnings from admins. --Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OneGuy was warned by you and other users about violating this policy earlier in the month. He reverted the page five times in 24 hours today. Also, he is (again) claiming that he has not broken the rule on my talk page. He knows the policy and continues to get away with breaking it.--Viriditas | Talk 21:58, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OneGuy has reverted the article 5 times within a 24 hour period. This is the second time he has broken the 3RR policy on this page, the first time when it was under a different name. He was warned by other admins about the policy at that time, and discussion took place on this page. To date, he has still not been blocked for his repeated violations. --Viriditas | Talk 21:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • 20:57, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [14]
  • 11:11, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (ops .. that was before 24 hours. Back to POV version .. till tomorrow 2:55) [15]
  • 11:08, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [16]
  • 07:25, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version) [17]
  • 23:33, 22 Jan 2005 OneGuy (revert to NPOV version ..) [18]
I count that as three reverts - as one was a self-revert that cancelled one of the others. That said.. any edit war like this is a Bad Thing - take it to talk please! -- sannse (talk) 21:59, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
So, basically you are claiming that anyone can revert five times a day. Is this correct? I don't see anything in the policy that allows one to "cancel" out a revert and the self-revert. I understand eliminating the actual self-revert, but not the revert itself. --Viriditas | Talk 04:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, here we go again. Viriditas again is trying to distort the facts. Check the above edits. You will notice that yes the 4th edit is a revert but I immediately reverted to the previous version (what Viriditas calls "5th revert" ) when I realized the mistake OneGuy 22:03, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How is presenting facts, "distorting" them. You reverted the page five times in 24 hours. It doesn't matter why you did it. --Viriditas | Talk 22:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See above. sannse doesn't think this constitute "5 reverts" and I doubt anyone else reasonable will consider it that. You reverted the article to a POV version without discussing it on the talk page. If there was any abuse here, that must be it OneGuy 22:19, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You violated the 3RR policy twice on the same article in the space of two weeks, and this constitues abuse on my part? Please. Your own edit summary contradicts your claim. If you "realized" your mistake at 11:11 on 23 Jan 2005 and made a self-revert,then why did you violate the 3RR again at 20:57 on 23 Jan 2005? If you don't count your self-revert, you still made four reverts. This is the second time you've violated the 3RR on this article, your first violation on this article is archived. --Viriditas | Talk 05:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As you can see, no one has agreed with your claim that I reverted the article 5 times (something you initially claimed). You have been reverting the article without any discussion on the talk page. That seems like abuse to me OneGuy 05:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I suspect that most people could care less about this issue, nor tracking down every one of your claims, which happen to be false. The facts clearly show that you reverted the article five times in 24 hours, regardless of what anyone thinks. As I have recently learned, 3RR policy does not count a self-revert, so you still made four reverts, and this is the second time in two weeks that you have violated the 3RR on this article. --Viriditas | Talk 05:41, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm with OneGuy here. At the very least, counting the 5th one -- where he reverted himself -- is absurd. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's still four reverts.--Viriditas | Talk 04:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Self-reverts are explicitly not counted in written policy, just as reverts of simple vandalism have no limit, either. It's right at the top of Three-revert rule, and has been for some time. - RedWordSmith 22:41, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)
Meanwhile, he reverted after the self-revert, making it four reverts. The policy says nothing about "cancelling" a revert out. --Viriditas | Talk 04:48, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The policy might not have said anything about that, but anyone with common sense would recognize that the 5th revert (done within few minutes) restored the previous version. You even counted that as a "5th revert" because you apparently would like everyone who disagrees with your POV agenda get banned OneGuy 05:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about your own reverts. Your fifth revert was done at 20:57, 23 Jan 2005 [19], almost eleven hours after your initial self-revert. I think your claim about the fifth revert being "done within a few minutes" is far from true. Disregarding your fourth revert, which was a self-revert, you reverted four times in 24 hours. I have no agenda, but you apparently have difficulty with facts. --Viriditas | Talk 05:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In order to get everyone who disagrees with his POV blocked, Viriditas is resorting to extreme misinterpretation. This revert was done within 2 minutes. Revision as of 05:11, 23 Jan 2005.
All the reverts are here
(cur) (last) 14:57, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
(cur) (last) 05:11, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (ops .. that was before 24 hours. Back to POV version .. till tomorrow 2:55)
(cur) (last) 05:08, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
(cur) (last) 01:25, 23 Jan 2005 OneGuy (rv to NPOV version)
(cur) (last) 17:33, 22 Jan 2005 OneGuy (revert to NPOV version ..)
Counting from bottom up, notice that both the 3rd and fourth reverts canceled each other (so they both should not be counted), leaving only 3 reverts in 24 hours. OneGuy 06:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There is no misinterpretation, and I am not trying to get anyone blocked for "disagreeing" with me. The facts are quite clear: you continue to attack me insead of addressing the contradictions and inconsistencies of your own statements. First, you have twice denied violating the 3RR in this article, here: ([20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and the first time (10 January) here: [25] [26] [27] [28]. Secondly, I am not familiar with any 3RR policy that says that "reverts which cancel each other should not be counted." I can understand not counting an initial self-revert, however. Finally, it is you who has resorted to misinterpration, as you mistakenly categorized your fourth revert as a fifth, when you wrote, the 4th edit is a revert but I immediately reverted to the previous version (what Viriditas calls "5th revert" ) when I realized the mistake. In actuality, your fifth revert was made 11 hours later, not minutes later as you say I claimed. [29]. It's somewhat ironic that you would accuse me of "extreme misinterpretation" when in fact, that is exactly what you did when you mischaracterized your fifth revert as a fourth. --Viriditas | Talk 06:23, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am done responding to this. Anyone with common sense would see that both the 3rd and 4th reverts (done within few minutes) canceled each other, leaving only 3 reverts in 24 hours. This is the second time that Viriditas tried to get me blocked (but failed) because apparently he can't stand anyone who disagrees with his POV. He has been reverting the article continuously for the past several days or (weeks) without ever discussing his reverts and without ever trying to resolve the dispute on the talk page. If he posts anything on the talk page at all, it's usually about how I violated (in his imagination) some policy and could get blocked OneGuy 06:46, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You wrote, both the 3rd and 4th reverts (done within few minutes) canceled each other, leaving only 3 reverts in 24 hours. The way I interpret the policy, the actual self-revert itself is not counted. I don't see anything about "cancelling" any prior reverts. The whole point in self-reverting is to acknowledge your mistake and restore the previous version, which is why it should not be counted. You, OTOH, made an additional revert within the same 24 hour time period, violating the 3RR for the fourth time. You are essentially saying that anyone can make five reverts as long as they self-revert once, within 24 hours. Is that how everyone interprets the 3RR policy? I'm more interested in understanding policy than seeing anyone blocked or banned. --Viriditas | Talk 06:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas, you are wasting people's time with this legalistic bullshit. OneGuy shouldn't game the system, either, but immediately reverting a revert does, you know, cancel that revert. We can't cover all this silliness in policies, but that's why we are allowed to use our common sense. dab () 10:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hear hear. Had certain people spent half the time that they spent wikilawyering here on discussing the article instead, then they might have made some progress. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
In my view a self-revert, if done soon after a revert, cancels out that revert. I would count this as 3 reverts and move on. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:24, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frantic deletion of images by User:UtherSRG[edit]

I would like that you people take notice of User:UtherSRG who is unilaterally deleting a lot of images without any sort of warning. Many of his deletions do not qualify as a speedy delete, and they are breaking many articles. I have posted a message on his Talk page specifically about his deletion of Image:Euflag.png which was completely unjustified and broke a series of articles, including the European Union article itself. —Cantus 22:47, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

I would imagine, based on his deletion summaries and past work, that these images are meant to be replaced by their commons counterparts. However, it turns out that the EU flag image at commons is called Image:EU flag.png; probably this one was a simple mistake, easily enough corrected. I updated Template:European Union table, which seems to have solved that particular problem. -Aranel ("Sarah") 23:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What-links-here doesn't work properly for images at the moment though, does it? Are you sure that that's the only thing using it? Otherwise we might need to reupload to commons under the old name just to be safe. --fvw* 23:46, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

These images were deleted in response to my request for help in emptying Category:NowCommons (request is at the top of the page). BrokenSegue 00:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've gone through Uther's last 100 deletions. Here is a partial list of the broken images. Anybody care to find the rest? [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. -Frazzydee| 00:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Papua (Indonesian province)[edit]

Can someone else look in on this? Gzornenplatz and John Kenney on the one hand and and Daeron on the other (who may be the same person) seem to be having an edit war over this (often contentious) article. I tried facilitating a little on the talk page; got a response from John Kenney; tried to suggest a tweak to that which I thought might meet some of Daeron's concerns; haven't heard anything from them downstream of that which seems relevant to actually solving this. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:19, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I looked at this briefly (didn't look at the diff of every last edit, so be please take that into account when reading my comments). It seems like Kenny, Daeron and the anon are responsible for most of the editing, with GzPl only doing a few. GzPl's version also seems somewhat more NPOV than Daeron's. OTOH, he doesn't seem to have made any effort (on the article Talk: page at least) to see what Daeron's point is, or work it out - just restores the article back to his version. Daeron, after doing the same several times (with occasional variations, perhaps in an attempt to include some content they could accept), is now responding on the Talk: page, although I'm not sure there will be a meeting of minds. Noel (talk) 15:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We're under attack by several anon accounts[edit]

Same person or else several people working in concert, vandalizing a whole slew of articles. RickK 00:56, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Which IPs? Which articles? We're ready to fight for the wiki, if it means our lives! -Frazzydee| 00:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lots and lots of articles, lots and lots of accounts. RickK 01:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I have to sign off now, I have to leave. You guys need to deal with this. I seem to be alone here. RickK 01:08, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocking obvious vandals on sight. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
me too. we may have to drop the patient "test"..."test5" practice in obvious cases. dab () 14:50, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*screams* that's a lot of vandalism! What's going on? -Frazzydee| 01:14, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

*looks around quizically* Where? It looks like the normal level of vandalism to me. --fvw* 01:15, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
We've got a lot of them blocked by now. Check out the block log. -Aranel ("Sarah") 01:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And even more now. They come in spurts. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 03:26, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's just because people are blocking on sight :). There does appear to be a slightly higher number of vandals tonight, but I doubt it's a coordinated attack. Probably a slight increase because of this too. --fvw* 03:46, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
Well, a couple of nights ago there definitely was a co-ordinated series of attacks on Judaism, Christianity, Christian, and Zionism, though it could have been one extremely persistent vandal. The same edits were being inserted into the same articles (and eventually their Talk: pages, when the articles were protected) by the same IPs, usually anonymous proxies. Blocking the IPs on first vandalism seemed to slow them down a little, and after a couple of dozen IPs were blocked, they appeared to run out of steam. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:10, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Those were all anonymous proxies though, so I suspect that was just one person. --fvw* 19:23, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)
Is this page supposed to serve the same function as WP:VIP? It's seems redundant to list and discuss these occurrences of vandalism in both places. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:46, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
No. I think RickK's rationale for leaving a message here was to alert more users because of the size of the attack. -Frazzydee| 21:16, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remove Page[edit]

I am trying to move page Gonzalo rodriguez-pereyra to Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra simply because I didn't capitalise his surnames and this just looks sloppy. Unfortunately I also created Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra first, and so cannot move the first to the later. Can you help? Thanks. Deiseruus 01:09, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Handled it. Is he significant in some way? Winning an award doesn't really tell us much, so there's probably much that should be added to his article. - Nunh-huh 01:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


User:Herschelkrustofsky has violated 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche by reverting five times in two hours. He is causing chaos on the page by doing complex reverts of large chunks of the article (see history [52]) with deceptive edit summaries, so it's hard to follow. I have therefore isolated the following paragraph for clarity's sake.

"What LaRouche supporters see as praising classic culture, LaRouche critics see as a bias against non -White, non-European, non-patriarchal, non-heterosexual cultures and identities .For example, LaRouche has written: "Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?" (Internal memo - Lyndon H. LaRouche, NCLC 1973)."

Here are the diffs:

  • Herschel deleted this quote at 6:45 Jan 23 [53]
  • Again at 02:01 Jan 24 [54]
  • Again at 03:07 Jan 24 [55]
  • Again at 03:26 Jan 24 [56]
  • Again at 03:35 Jan 24 [57]
  • Again at 04:05 Jan 24 [58]

He was warned he had violated 3RR at 03:56 on the talk page, but did it again anyway at 4:05. SlimVirgin 05:12, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This has been dealt with. SlimVirgin 07:03, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)


User:Afanous keeps uploading images with suspect copyrights. He has been requested to explain their provenance, but at least one picture that I know of (Image:Charles2.gif) was uploaded from a page which holds copyright on its content. RickK 06:31, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Posting while blocked[edit]

User:Herschelkrustofsky was blocked for 24 hours starting at 06:42 UTC on Jan 24 for violating 3RR at Lyndon LaRouche, but may be continuing to edit using a different account. With respect to another user account believed to belong to Herschelkrustofsky, the developers recently stated that: "On technical evidence, combined with similarity in posting patterns, Herschelkrustofsky and Weed Harper can be considered to be operated by the same person." See here for the Weed Harper account's latest edits. [59] SlimVirgin 17:42, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is the case - I asked Tim Starling about this, and the Herschel and Weed accounts are the same person. Penalties to one apply to the other. If the second one (whichever is second) is used to violate the Wikipedia:Sock puppet policy on second accounts, it may be blocked indefinitely and the user asked to use only the main one - David Gerard 18:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
User:Weed Harper is blocked for 48 hours for block evasion. silsor 18:21, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

Relief-Admin Requested[edit]

I posted what turn out to be some inflammatory comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Isaac Fanous (on which i did not vote), including raising the possibility that the nomination is intended to "make a point" about the deletion that resulted from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marco of Alexandria early this month. I was acting, in the newer VfD, in behalf of WP standards for VfD, but not as an admin per se; i am now accused of vandalism directed at User:Omar Filini (presumably on the previous VfD page and perhaps its corresponding article, tho i will report here after reviewing what could arguably be involved).
I have since also advised another user involved, via User talk:Afanous, believing the complaint has only enhanced my influence on him.
While i can't see any occasion for use of admin powers in the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Isaac Fanous matter, IMO any other admin than myself would probably be able to exert a positive influence there; in particular i think there is need to deal, as a personal attack (as i labeled it more or less "privately" on User talk:Afanous), with the edit including "So its a religious issue". (In it, Omar also was the first to do what he later complains about, in assuming WPians are mostly Christian, and influenced by that).
I'd appreciate someone else stepping in to facilitate civil discourse and counter abuses of the process. Nomination was 15:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC), so the link to the page with its link will be moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old as the 28th becomes the 29th.
--Jerzy(t) 19:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

This didn't require an admin, but easily could without the involvement of someone responsible and (unlike me) previously uninvolved, as Afanous & Omar have escalated their conflict further. I'm now aggressively removing personal attacks, and the subject of some of them.

Should i bother completing my research about what could be construed by Omar as my vandalism against him? Would anyone have read it if it had been done before this increased distraction?

--Jerzy(t) 00:11, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still don't exactly understand the problem. They're fighting over a VfD? Personal attacks on each other? Why not just ignore it until the VfD is over? Jayjg | (Talk) 00:18, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You sound like you think it's fine to say "no personal attacks", and ignore escalating personal attacks. IMO opinion your failure to speak out against leaving such policies on the books is a problem!
Well, perhaps the problem is that i'm a busybody, i s'pose. I think Omar shows no sign of learning from the earlier 20-5 loss or the current, so-far-9-2 loss that he can't accomplish anything with his uncritical self-confidence. (Afanous, on the other hand, can't take yes for an answer unless he gets to give it back to Omar as good as he's getting.) IMO a firm insistence on at least doing it by the rules helps communicate to them that these games won't eventually overcome the community's consensus if they are stubborn enough.
I'm trying to do that since it happened in front of me, but there are a number of reasons i'm not the best one for it. One is that Omar thinks the grudge he has over not getting a free rein on the earlier VfD gives him an excuse for defying my efforts, and treats each restriction as part of my persecution of him; someone else taking the roles i now do would simplify that. I also may not be suited to the role tempermentally, and just finally finding that out, in trying harder lately to correct the VfD-neglect, which i described about a year back as one of the weaknesses of my admin candidacy.
Tell you what: why not take a look at the page and tell me how well you think i'm doing so far.
--Jerzy(t) 04:53, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Everyking again[edit]

Everyking has violated the terms of his RfAR (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking#Revert limitation) by reverting Autobiography sales and chart positions to his last version: [60], [61]. Note that while his edit summary says "no objections were raised", what he asked for on the talk page was for approval, and the only response he got was one "I don't care". Note also that, before his revert, the page was a redirect, and I don't think anybody was paying much attention to it. --Carnildo 00:13, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It does appear to be a reversion, but I won't be involved with another blocking. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That looks like a revert to me...I'm willing to get involved. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 01:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear, that was a revert, to a much older version too. That article becoming a redirect was not a mistake. The article contents were condensed and added to the redirect target first. iMeowbot~Mw 01:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was involved in this too so I won't block, even though it's pretty obvious. silsor 01:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Blocked Everyking per above. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Damn, Fennec, I was just typing out the block reason and I check here, and you're already on it. Can't stand you people! =P [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 02:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
An anonymous IP edited Autobiography sales and chart positions to restore Everyking's version -- this is the diff between his version and the anon's [62] and here's the latest diff [63]. This User: person has two edits so far -- this article and La La (song). Seems highly suspicious to me... can someone check on this? Madame Sosostris 17:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ek is an admin, right? He is supposed to be reasonable. So why don't we ask him openly if he was fooling around with open proxies to get around his block. If he did, it would be quite a serious offence, and this time he would not have honoured his block. If he didn't, well, he didn't. dab () 09:07, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I didn't. Fooling around with open proxies? I'm the same person who doesn't go on IRC because I don't know how. Everyking 09:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) -- 3RR Violation[edit]

The user has violated the Three Revert Rule on the following posting:

Atlant 01:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and I just reverted it — Davenbelle 01:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
24 hour time out BrokenSegue 01:44, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sea of Japan[edit]

An anon keeps attacking the Sea of Japan article. I'm going to block him/her if they vandalize it again, but I've used up my 3 reverts. Could somebody else keep an eye out on it? RickK 09:07, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The edits are vandalism, and I think more than three reverts are alloed in these cases. ([64], [65]) -- Chris 73 Talk 09:28, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

To quote from 3RR policy:

 To restate the policy, after making a reversion, do not do so again more than two times within
 24 hours of the initial one. This policy doesn't apply to self-reverts or correcting simple 

-- AllyUnion (talk) 09:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking (?) again[edit]

There have been several reverts today through anon proxies, doing what Everyking's Arbcom decision disallows. I don't know if this is sockpuppetry or someone else stirring up trouble, but Special:Contributions/ and Special:Contributions/ show what's happening. iMeowbot~Mw 17:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suspicious. Are you sure they are anon proxies? Jayjg | (Talk) 18:30, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yep. Googling both those IPs turns up proxy lists as the first hits. iMeowbot~Mw 18:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes they are - -- Netoholic @ 18:45, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)
Well, I think our policy on anon proxies and their blocking is quite clear ... —Morven 19:18, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. These are now both indefinitely blocked. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 19:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, wonderful place to plug this. I think it's already got consensus for a test run in 4 days, but more input is always good. --fvw* 16:08, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Another thought. At least one of them passes through all sorts of interesting HTTP headers, including User-Agent. To what extent are these things logged? If the edit had the same User-Agent and Accept-Languages (if not just en), that wouldn't prove anything but definately point strongly in a direction. --fvw* 16:27, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

That might even be a reason not to check for those things, if all it does is raise more suspicion and not offer evidence of anything. Aside from IP addresses, the only useful data would come from creepy spyware-like methods :P iMeowbot~Mw 13:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remember that as an admin Everyking has probably accumulated the usual set of people who are happy to cause problems by making Everyking appear to be acting badly, including using anon edits to do things Everyking might be thought to want to do, simply to troll. Jamesday 14:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DanP 3RR breach[edit]

Please be advised of a 3RR breach by User:DanP. The reverts can be found on Foreskin restoration, and are as follows:

  1. 19:11, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. See talk page.)
  2. 18:36, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. Use discussion page please)
  3. 00:58, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. please use talk page)
  4. 00:47, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. Immerman is in this one.)
  5. 23:53, 24 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. and add Schultheiss)

I have advised DanP of the 3RR before, on his user page, but received a hostile response. - Jakew 20:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I gave him a final warning for this violation a few seconds ago, hopefully we won't have to go further. -Frazzydee| 21:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
By the way, you may want to watch it too, you've used up your three reverts for today (just warning you in advance! If I block him, I have to block you too). -Frazzydee| 21:03, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know, if I revert again, I'll break the 3RR. I'm a good boy though. :-) - Jakew 21:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

DanP has been around long enough to know better. I've blocked him for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Jayjg | (Talk) 22:55, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By the way, his Talk: page shows that he had the 3RR carefully explained to him on December 16 of last year, and promised to abide by it. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, he characterized his edit-war as removing "vandalism", indicating that he did it deliberately, was un-repentant, and likely to do it again. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to establish whether this is the same person who posts as User:Robert Blair and from IP range 207.69.13*.* against whom no admin has cared enough to take action. - Robert the Bruce 02:22, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ooops ... nearly missed this as well: 3RR breaches on Ridged band: 4 in 24 hours.

  • 19:08, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. Please respond on the discussion page.)
  • 18:35, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv. Please use the discussion before making extensive changes.)
  • 01:09, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv)
  • 00:53, 25 Jan 2005 DanP (rv)

What now? Another 24 hours? Double? What? - Robert the Bruce 17:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I believe this very clearly violates this. Palestine-info 03:01, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A personal opinion by Lapid is not a statement by "Israel", nor is it a "repetition" of "their claim". If you want to quote Lapid, that's a different thing, but don't misrepresent Lapid's statements as statements by Israel. In fact, as the links I provided showed, the later, official statements by the Israeli government were that the burial was denied because of "security concerns" and fears that it would "strengthen Palestinian claims to the traditionally Arab sector of the city as a future capital". Please quote and attribute accurately and adequately in the future. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:14, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Palestine-info, the old arbitration case you linked to refers to editing restrictions no longer in place. SlimVirgin 05:52, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Re:SlimVirgin: According to the history, the final decision was added January 16 2005[66]. The period is a bit unclear, for HistoryBuffEr it is one year, but there is no separate mentioning of the period for Jayjg, so I would assume it is also 1 year. Am i missing something? -- Chris 73 Talk 06:04, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
It says that HistoryBuffEr is banned for 30 days for personal attacks and 30 days for discourtesy, and prohibited for one year from editing any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict except in a proscribed manner. There is no mention of a continuing edit restriction on Jayjg. My understanding (based on memory) is that editing restrictions had been suggested against both parties, but were not in fact imposed. SlimVirgin 06:10, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
"For the period of editing restrictions neither HistoryBuffEr nor Jayjg may remove any adequately referenced information from any article which relates to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Doing so may result in a 24-hour block imposed by any administrator. In the case of Jayjg, unblocking himself will be severely dealt with." (emphasis mine). Jayjig is also restricted, but the period is unclear. I think it is one year, too, based on the [decision] text -- Chris 73 Talk
Chris, the editing-restriction period against HistoryBuffEr is spelled out, but no restriction period against Jay is defined. My memory of reading the pages is that at one point a period of restricted editing against both parties was proposed, but then was only imposed on HistoryBuffEr. The end result is very unclear. In my view, it would be unfair to block him based on this text, because he may not have realized such a restriction might still apply to him. SlimVirgin 07:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I don't think believe any such editing restriction applies, since in the end no findings regarding improper editing were found against me, and the penalties against me were dropped. Not that it matters in this case, since Palestine-info's edit made one claim, but provided a citation stating something quite different. Adequate citations must actually match what they are attempting to prove. Jayjg | (Talk) 07:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Aside from the ambiguity of whether any editing restriction was in force, Jayjg still abided by it anyway since the statement inserted by Palestine-info was not "adequately referenced". Palestine-info quoted an opinion by one person, and represented it as the official position of Israel, which was incorrect. Jayjg replaced it with Israel's actual position and referenced it. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 08:49, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Oooh, bugger. The Arbitration Committee apologises for the confusion caused by our inconsistency. Sorry we didn't catch that one. - David Gerard 08:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Jayjg & SlimVirgin: I just got confused by the Arb ruling disambiguity. The comments above were only for my understanding, certainly not a push to get someone blocked. Best regards, -- Chris 73 Talk 10:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

The quote was said by Israel's justice minister, claiming that it doesn't represent the "official view" of Israel is not true. Since everyone who watched the news during the time of Arafat's death probably do remember hearing Lapidot saying this, I believe it is very relevant to the article. But Jayjg didn't think so, deleted the text and replaced it with a vague quote from Non explanation for why this was necessary was offered. And I wouldn't have brought it up if the removal of properly referenced text in question weren't done in such a hostile and unexplained manner (see the talk page). Palestine-info 10:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, politicians run off with the mouth all the time, and what they say doesn't necessarily represent their respective country's positions. Lapid was not speaking in an official capacity when he made his remark, so it was incorrect to attribute his comment as "Israel's" official position. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 12:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you replaced the original statement in the article about "security concerns" with a comment emphasizing Lapid's personal concerns. As far as I know, Justice Ministers do not set policy on where Palestinians are buried in Israel, and in any event Lapid was speaking hypothically, before Arafat died. The official statement was made after his death. Also, (and unsurpisingly) you misrepresent my source; I brought two sources, Newsmax and the Chicago Tribune, though I could have brought many more, and the sources were quite clear on Israel's official position. As for your claims about what you would or wouldn't have done based on the Talk: page, you changed the text without using the Talk: page, including text you were proposing which had been clearly rejected by a number of other editors. Dealing with your constant attempts to inject bias into all articles relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is quite tiring; on the Israel article, for example, you've even made a Request for Comment, and had a number of unrelated editors come in and tell you are wrong, but you simply don't accept it. Jayjg | (Talk) 15:43, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My apologises if I was wrong, but it really seemed like a clear-cut violation of the ArbCom's regulation. If edits like these aren't covered by the rule, then which are? It would also be interesting to hear the arbitrators who were involved in the cases opinion. Palestine-info 16:52, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that you concern yourself less with lawyering and rules, and more with accuracy and good writing. It would appear that you made a demonstrably inaccurate edit, and Jayjg reverted it because it was inaccurate. Trying to get him in trouble for this is completely missing the point of Wikipedia. Isomorphic 18:36, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

African American[edit]

A new user (although they talk as if they're familiar with Wikipedia processes and editors) named User:Gearle0521 moved the African American article to a bizarre name and deleted several paragraphs as racially biased. When I suggested he/she discuss it before deleting this text, they claimed that only racial minorities have a right to edit articles about racial minorities, and my reversions were racially motivated. Probably a good idea to keep an eye on this User and this article. RickK 07:45, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

They have now put a vfd header on the African American article, which I have reverted. RickK 07:49, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

He's now been blocked for 24 hours, but don't be surprised if he comes back as an anon and tries to impose his "only minorities are allowed to edit articles about minorities" dreck again. RickK 08:00, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

such a policy would suck for articles like Mitanni :P dab () 08:58, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And Penguins would be hard to write about, too. RickK 23:12, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry[edit]

User violated the 3RR on Intelligent design, reverting against multiple editors and declining any comment on the talkpage section on the issue for two days.Discussion on talkpage. violation of rule. full Talk:Intelligent design reveals a willful disregard for consensus and npov principles. [67] --Ungtss 16:25, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use WP:RFC, this is not a general complaint board, this is only for matters requiring administrator assistance. --fvw* 16:34, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
thanks, sorry:). Ungtss 16:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
hmmm, I thought a 24 hour block required administrator assistance.--Silverback 17:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oops, yes, Somehow I missed the bit that mentioned 3RRs. Sorry about that, this is the appropriate forum. --fvw* 17:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
It is also interesting that IP, in its first edit ever comes directly to the ID page and does the same revert that Newberry had been doing.--Silverback 17:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also interesting to note that User:Munnin's first and only edit was the same reversion. Ungtss 18:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there an administrator that I can bring this to please?[edit]

I'm new to Wikipedia. These are communications between myself and someone named FVW, who I believe is acting like a bully for no reason, and who has defaced my talk page with a rude, insulting, and alarming notice for no reason whatsoever. i had added a link to the topic "Bhajan" to a page of devotional singing and bhajans, which also links to other bhajan webpages. It would seem to be a logical link to add, however, even if it is somehow not appropriate for some strange reason, there was no reason for FVW to add a mean-spirited warning to my user's page that would make me very unlikely to add helpful links in the future. My user page is User_talk: The webpage I had added to the topic of Bhajan was Thank you for any assistance you can offer to help clear this up and prevent further abuse of well meaning wikipedia contributors.

My communications with FVW begin with the title: your alarming notice

Hello, it took some sleuthing to find who left this alarming warning for me, since you did not include any contact information. I believe you left the alarming warning after I added a link to the page regarding Bhajans, because apparently you deemed it to be spam. The referenced page is a noncommercial page of chanting and devotional singing that includes many bhajans and links to other pages of bhajans, and which is soon to include even more. If you deem it to be not appropriate to this topic for some reason, that is obviously part of your job, and I am new to this process, however it seems that you are quite quick to send alarming notices that must certainly chase away those who have come to contribute valuable links, such as the link I added to your bhajan page, which had no links at all until I added the link to our free, streaming audio page of bhajans, which also includes links to other pages of streaming audio bhajans. I think that it is a shame that I'll have to see your alarming notice whenever I check my user talk page at wikipedia.

FVW replied: Wikipedia is not a web directory. Only add links that are informative and strictly relevant to the subject. --fvw* 15:56, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Of course, giving a link to a free page of streaming bhajans is clearly informative and strictly relevant to the subject of bhajans. It was surprising to see that you left this message on my page and then chose to also leave the nasty warning alarm on my page just because you thought that my page of streaming bhajans somehow did not relate to the subject of bhajans. I think this makes it clear that you like to bully people who have come to participate in this effort, since I clearly explained why this alarming notice was not wanted or warrented. Is there an administrator that I can bring this problem to?

-- 21:27, 26 Jan 2005

Slow down a minute. You can edit your user talk page, if you wish. I have looked at the external link you cite; and it seems that [[User:fvw] has a point. Please take a little time to absorb Wikipedia ways of doing things, before assuming you are being singled out in any way. Charles Matthews 21:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suggest the first thing you do is register - I believe the problem is that you are trying to add the link to an IP talk page rather than your own username. violet/riga (t) 21:53, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looking at your contributions, you have been adding many external links to different articles. Since you seem to have a personal involvement in at least one of these external links I would consider this spam as well. I think you're misrepresenting this a little here. silsor 21:54, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
And especially since you seem to get some commercial benefit from at least the streaming audio link by advertising your books at the bottom. silsor 21:55, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
You also added a link from Jesus to [68], a page that advertises your products while presenting a common optical illusion of Jesus. Who do you think you're trying to fool? silsor 21:58, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
The majority of his contributions have been to add links to a spirituality website. (either a site that he is affiliated with somehow, or helps run, or really likes, etc...) Few of them have been overly useful, with some (Such as the link on Jesus about a "site that helps you see Jesus in yourself") being completely pointless spam. I think fvw was justified in this case. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 21:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC
Moreover, these sites all fail the Wikipedia:Alexa test badly: [69]. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:03, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I think that the message was useful. I notice a whole set of these at User:Etz Haim/Messages. Is there any reason that these haven't been turned into formal templates? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, so that's where they were coming from, I nicked it off someone else (not Etz Haim) using it. All very nice, though I prefer my spam text, it's more general. I'd definitely support putting these in the template namespace. --fvw* 23:21, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
Yes, those would be nice to have in the template namespace! Thue | talk 23:35, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Funny how this supposed newbie was able to find his/her way here so quickly. I smell a troll. RickK 23:19, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I posted about a problem under this title and received a number of responses that apparently supported the administrator who I felt was being unfair, with some suggesting that I'm a troll or looking for some kind of financial benefit, which is not the case. I merely sought to share some helpful pages in what I thought was an appropriate way through this encyclopedia. Since my suggestions are obviously not wanted here, I'll cease to participate in this forum, and have erased the previous dialogue so that more mean spirited messages from Wikpedia administrators toward me need not be added. Best wishes. -- 00:29, 27 Jan 2005

And I've restored it, since you have no right to delete other people's comments. RickK 00:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

This is the most mean spirited group of people I've seen yet on the web. -- 01:28, 27 Jan 2005

You obviously have never been on Usenet. RickK 05:10, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Surely I'm allowed to delete my own posts and leave you administrators to have your silly accusations and mean spirited communications with one another. Ciao. -- 01:49, 27 Jan 2005

Edit war by Robert the Bruce on the user page User:DanP[edit]

This looks close to 3RR violation, or at the very least testing the limits. Whatever, "he's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy." I think the personal attack in the last revert is most worthy of interest. The implication that anyone who disagrees with his edits must be acting as a puppet in some anti-circumcision conspiracy (I'm not opposed to circumcision, as it happens).

03:04, 26 Jan 2005, 16:50, 26 Jan 2005, 17:19, 26 Jan 2005

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, he barely avoided breaking the 3RR, but constantly defacing another editor's user page might be considered vandalism... -- Ferkelparade π 00:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Only two reverts within 24 hours. The change is a bit extream to count as a complex revert. There is no policy allowing us to block for personal attacks and although I would view this as vanderlism I don't think it is enough to block. In short I think this belongs medeation, RFC (I'm guessing those two have happened already) or arbcom. Geni 00:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The user in question is undergoing unofficial mediation over an issue he has with one of the arbitrators (the issue predates the election result), and their "mediator" has now joined the original user in vandalizing the user page. I will not waste more of my time on this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly warned and eventually blocked Jakew. Speaking of that mediation, has anybody heard of Theresa lately? She seems to have disappeared slightly. --fvw* 00:38, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
Wikivacation? Her last contribution on WP is 9 January and on WikiBooks 13 January. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:48, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

...which corresponds to the beginning of her dispute and "mediation" with Robert the Bruce and Jakew. Coincidence? I'm just saying...

As for Robert the Bruce, check his edit history. Reverting is his most common form of editing and he's guilty of every charge he's leveled against other users, including violating the 3RR for which he still remains unpunished. Exploding Boy 21:03, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln#Early political career and law practicethree revert rule violation and edit war[edit]

There has been an ongoing revert war concerning only the third paragraph of this section, dealing with the possible bisexuality of Abraham Lincoln. The latest version is the result of Abelincoln98 violating the three revert rule. He has also been shouting on the talk page.

There are around 5 versions floating around. Most are obviously not neutral, and the current one removes the link to the article where his sexuality is contested (obvious vandalism), but even ones that are claimed to be neutral aren't (in my opinion.. heh). I'd suggest reverting to the version before the current one, and protecting the whole article (or just that section, if such a thing is possible). If you don't want to protect the page, then you're definitely going to have to monitor the actions on this page more carefully, because I doubt this revert war will end any time soon. --brian0918™ 01:12, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

JimWae has also just violated the three revert rule, but I think his revert is justified as there was a vote on the wording. Abelincoln98's previous edit is more like vandalism. Are there any admins out there??? --brian0918™ 02:01, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it. I hope that people will rapidly be able to reach an agrement on the talk page. Abelincoln98's edits do not in my opion count as simple vanderlism however I'm not going to block JimWae on the basis that is not a great way to increase comunication. Other admins may dissagree with this descision Geni 02:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. --fvw* 02:17, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)

Abelincoln98 has started vandalizing the talk page now. Specifically, he deleted an entire section, which included his own comments as well as others. I've reverted and posted about his vandalism on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. --brian0918™ 04:04, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I left them a short note warning them not to do that. Noel (talk) 05:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Diapers again![edit]

User:Sud-Pol quite obviously is back as User:Brother Larry... cf. his contributions. The images have already been IFD'ed by RickK, and the Diaper Exposure article is on VFD. Looks like he's now using one-off accounts... Lupo 08:32, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think speedy deletes of the diaper pics may be the next weapon in this war. RickK 08:37, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but unfortunately WP:CSD doesn't cover this, unless we can classify it as vandalism... :-( A first measure might be to block his sockpuppet accounts indefinitely and direct him to use only User:Sud-Pol. And that account would be blocked, too, for increasing lengths of time each time he does it again. (Based on Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption in conjunction with Wikipedia:Profanity.) Lupo 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It covers it now! silsor 08:51, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
Cool! :-) Lupo 08:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some context for those who didn't follow this: see Incident Archive 1 and Incident Archive 2. Finally, his remark to dab obviously wasn't meant sincerely and honestly: [70]. Lupo 08:49, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I didn't really need to see some of those diaper fetish images. One would think that photo developers would be tipped off by the image content, unless he's using a digital camera. silsor 08:44, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

On a related note: I do wonder about Image:Zzz.jpg (uploaded and added to Infantilism by User:Brcolow), too... Sigh. Another user to watch. And finally, the article sv:Blöjfetischism contains a contact link to a "diaper lovers' site"... Lupo 08:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the goggles they do nothing! speedy delete it, quickly! dab () 09:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, User:silsor's addition to WP:CSD was meant tongue-in-cheek, I think. If it survives a day, I will henceforth speedy such images. But for now, I've put this one on IFD, too. Lupo 09:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
according to CSD, goatse would have to spend a week on IfD. dab () 11:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Right, I've added a CSD under "other" for images recreated after being deleted according to policy, since this already applies to articles and should clearly apply to images too. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 13:13, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's making outraged claims that he isn't posting porn. I see somebody has blocked him, though. RickK 20:26, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've now blocked him permanently. He has impersonated me and has continued vandalism, as well as uploading the cr*p. RickK 22:33, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violated by him 1, 2, 3, 4.

For months this guy has been trying to push his POV in Papua (Indonesian province). Notice his version of the map doesn't even show Papua as Indonesia province. Also, note his misleading edit summaries OneGuy 11:43, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

blocked him for 24h. I have no idea what this is about, but OneGuy, you seem to be gaming the system. If the war continues tomorrow, we'll have to protect the page... dab () 15:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why does Daeron get banned for violatoin of the 3RR but OneGuy gets away with it each and every time? 10:52, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I am gaming the system? This was the first time I got involved in this dispute. Check the history of Papua (Indonesian province). This has been going on for almost an year now, and I doubt you can protect the page for an year OneGuy 15:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OneGuy didn't break the revert rule. And he did make a compromise suggestion on top of coming here to have Daeron blocked, so, yeah, he was behaving correctly. dab () 10:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not talking about this incident. I'm talking about all the other times he has violated the 3RR and nothing was done. I really don't understand why the management here turns a blind eye on his persistent islamic apologist POV pushing, edit wars, violations of 3RR, etc. And, yes, he IS gaming the system and the management. He tries to find any little infraction someone has made to try to get them silenced by the management. As your block of Daeron has proved, it is pretty effective. 12:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


One user keeps trying to impersonate User:OneGuy. I've indefinitely blocked two such accounts so far (OneGay and OneGoy), now a third has sprung up (User:OneGvy). I could need some re-assurance that blocking them indefinitely (for impersonation attempts) and reverting their edits as vandalism is ok. Lupo 12:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, blocking obvious impersonation attempts is fine with me. Mgm|(talk) 12:54, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
...and it seems to be adequately covered by Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames, so I think you're in the clear -- Ferkelparade π 13:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I see now that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Usernames is quite clear that this is the way to go. Lupo 13:06, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Request a Block of user:Rydel[edit]

For point one he was blocked on Dutch wikipedia ..... But hat will not give him the point that you should never say these things as he barely edits. That is why I request a block on en:wikipedia Waerth 21:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocking for personal attacks failed to ever reach consensus, I'm afraid, though I've warned him. Snowspinner 21:45, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)
I am surprised at that. Waerth 02:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Newbie Neptunemoon has been leaving a series of apparent junk questions on Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). When I asked him to clarify, all I got was that he keeps adding comparable junk on my user talk page. I've given him a pretty clear warning to knock it off, but he hasn't, and I'm about to be off line for at least the next few hours. Would someone else please keep an eye out? Does this qualify as vandalism? He did make a few apparently OK edits on fanboy topics. Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:11, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

If he does it too many more times, it qualifies as vandalism in my eyes. And if he does, I'll give him a brief block for it, until he can get over it. Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't be so harsh. Try to figure out what he or she means. The person may be a non-native speaker. Everyking 22:29, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He seems to be able to put a coherent sentence together when he edits regular articles. Jayjg (talk) 22:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, he's just vandalized George W. Bush, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. RickK 22:41, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

User:172's block of[edit]

User talk:172 has repeatedly blocked based on these four edits: [72], [73], [74] and [75] under his interpretation of what he now says is Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption. Previous reasons given were "trolling" and "personal attacks". 172's block was for one week, without giving a warning at User talk: and does not seem to be supported by any part of Wikipedia:Blocking policy. It falls under Wikipedia:Controversial blocks. I'd like some feedback. Fred Bauder 01:01, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Speaking as an outside observer, I see no trolling, no serious personal attacks, and the only disruption appears to come from User:172. --Carnildo 01:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Looking at the edits of the anon, I also cannot see a reason for a block. I did not see any personal attacks, the closest was an angry response here about reverts by Everking, comparing Everking to Rumsfeld. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:25, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it was a rather extended screed about me being an apologist for Stalinism. It was a bit over the top by anyone's standards. A week's block was a harsher penalty than anything I personally would endorse, though. Everyking 01:31, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As someone who hasn't been involved at all, I can see nothing the anon did to warrant a block. They were pushing a POV, but were willing to discuss that on the talk page, possibly rather too vigorously. Discussion on their talk page should precede a block for any but the most egregious vandalism.-gadfium 02:02, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I did not block this user because of his edit to the article. I blocked him for intentional disruption and making personal attacks, not on me but on other users.

His comments on the talk page (directed at Everyking) made it clear that this user was only here to vent rage against somebody:

  • We, the people of ex-soviet bloc countries are personally insulted when anglo-saxons pet "Uncle Joe" as the kind old leader.
  • You are Stalin apologets.
  • I really wish Stalin ruled you, not us. You are like Rumsfeld, who met Saddam during mid-1980s and praised him as a good ally in the anti-Khomeini Iran war. When will you realize that Putyin's current rule is an analog of Stalin's...
  • Thus, by not mentioning Stalins criminality in unambigious terms, you hold the english-speaking world blind to Putyin's methods and you contribute to a "new Uncle Joe" sentiment, which will inevitable put the world and the poor Russian race in great danger...
  • Anglo-saxons betrayed us big time then, shame on the Free World...

After I'd blocked for attacking Everyking as one of the 'Anglo-Saxons' who betrayed the Hungarian patriots, he then sent an email to a number of other admins browbeating me because of my alleged Russian ancestry: "'Sokolov' is a patent slavic name, thus we have good reason to assume that user '172' belongs to an ethnic group which has some relation to the USSR / Russia. This means the admin user '172' cannot be an objective judge of matters concerning Josif Stalin, because he is bent on protecting that russian dictator by necessity of ethnic kinship so strong among slavs." Just to respond to those bigoted comments-- even though they are not worthy of a response-- I am not Russian. My family lived in Lodz until 1939. Of the surviors following 1945, one relative returned-- my father's cousin-- but he was killed shortly after the war. One of my aunts fled to the Stalinist USSR, but was killed there. The rest found there way to the U.S. after leaving the refugee camps in Germany. So my family likley suffered far more than his due to the horrors of German and Russian totalitarianism. Yet this is no excuse for me, or any other editor, to start trolling the Stalin page and ranting and raving about 'Anglo-Saxon' betrayal and 'Stalinist apologetics.' Hailing from Hungary does give an excuse to use the Stalin article as a forum to vent rage against the Russians. He must be held to the same standards of behavior as (say) Everyking, Fred Bauder, and myself when participating on the Talk:Joseph Stalin.

The personal attacks and disruption generated by this user more than warranted a block. Furthermore, the one week block is established protocol. For example, User:Neutrality blocked User:Genyo, another nationalist editor who was behaving in a similarly disruptive manner on History of Russia for one week. (Actually,'s behavior warrnated an even longer block than Genyo, given the combination of disruption and personal attacks directed against Everyking. Genyo at least attacked 'Russian imperialism' while refraining from attacking other users.) 172 03:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling about the block, except perhaps that it ought to have been preceded by a warning. I am troubled, however, by Fred Bauder's apparent judgement, based on his comments on User talk:172, that having grown up in the Eastern bloc entitles an individual to make POV edits and personal attacks. RadicalSubversiv E 06:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This block was unjustified by any stretch of the imagination. Can an admin unblock please? Consensus is clearly against 172 on this. Also, I thought no agreement was reached concerning blocks for personal attacks. If so, it is a red herring for 172 to claim he blocked for "personal attacks". --Mrfixter 12:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, it is a red herring for you to claim that I blocked that user because of personal attacks. He was blocked for causing disruption, and given one week to cool off, just as User:Neutrality once imposed on User:Genyo for similar antics on History of Russia. 172 17:40, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
22:46, 27 Jan 2005 ...I blocked this user for personal attacks... Special:Log/block, so said 172. Where was the warning before you blocked? Nowhere. Discussion before you did it? Nowhere. Policy for blocking for personal attacks? Nowhere. I don't know anything about 172vsFred, and I don't care. Do not block like this again, Disruption is NOT carte blanche. Admins like Neutrality do not make policy. --Mrfixter 18:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is my last response to you. (1) I did indeed block that user for making personal attacks, which was an aspect of his particularly disruptive behavior. My statements were not contradictory. (2) I did not say that Neutrality makes policy. I pointed to that block as an example of precedence. Now leave me alone. I will not bother to block this user again. It seems that most users who frequent this page these days will scramble to find any excuse to jump all over admins for protecting serious editors from trolling and vandalism. 172 18:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
And consensus is not against me on this one. On an almost daily basis one user or multiple users get(s) blocked for similar behavior, and hardly no one bothers to srutinize the admin for dealing with obvious trolling. The only difference here, as Radical correctly pointed out, is that Fred Bauder has had an ax to grind against me for over two years and that the user's edits lined up to his own POV. 172 17:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Latest block log entry (of a cycle of 5 block/unblocks):
  • 04:47, Jan 28, 2005 Fred Bauder unblocked User: (Disputed block)
Do blocking wars fall under the 3RR? Probably not, I guess, but maybe worth of an addition: No admin can block/unblock another user more than 3 times in 24 hours. Chris 73 Talk 12:27, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
There's no real reason the principle of the three-revert rule shouldn't apply to blocks/unblocks as well. But as we've recently learned, the blocking function only applies to editing and nothing else, so admin-specific capabilities aren't covered. Ergo, blocking Fred Bauder and 172 wouldn't keep them from continuing this fight. --Michael Snow 19:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Expect when I am dealing with a school or uni IP I want the abaility to be able to use a lot of short blocks on itGeni 14:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Whilst you are at it, you might also consider 3RR style limits on page protections/unprotections and page deletion/undeletions. These sorts of revert wars really shouldn't happen between admins, but I've seen examples of each. -- Solipsist 14:45, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Controversial blocks which addresses what happens in the case of controversy over blocks...the user stays unblocked. Fred Bauder 14:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think having lived under a totalitarian regime gives a Wikipedia editor unlimited license. They ARE entitled to a rant or two when they encounter what they perceive as bias. The underlying problem is a failure to adequately apply NPOV in the area of leftist totalitarianism. Fred Bauder 14:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm still extremely troubled by this. You seem to be implying that a user who grew up in a country you judge to be totalitarian is entitled to more leeway in violating policy than a user who did not. I find this unacceptable. Just out of curiosity, how would you react if 172 applied this logic to a Chilean user making similar edits to Henry Kissinger?
I'm not saying I think 172 was correct in blocking this user so quickly, without a warning. But your comments give the appearance that you've unblocked and raised the matter here because you have a beef with 172 and because the user's edits lined up with your own POV. I would love to be reassured that this is not the case. RadicalSubversiv E 15:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
172 and I are both involved in a dispute over the NPOV of articles dealing with communism and Russian history. Of course, I welcome reinforcements, but my experience has been that unless they move beyond ranting, they are no good anyway. Leftists do engage in rants and provocative edits. I don't proceed on the assumption that they ought to be blocked, at least not for a few edits. Besides, in such cases I am involved in a dispute with them and not entitled to as was the case with 172 in this case. Fred Bauder 16:19, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
You are lying. I was not involved in a dispute with this editor. I had absolutely no interaction with this user before blocking him. I would suggest that you check the talk page, but I suspect that you know that you are lying, and that this is a part of your two-year McCarthyite smear campaign against me. 172 17:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
You seem to have mis-understood Fred's comment above ("I am involved in a dispute with them and not entitled to [block them], as was the case with 172 in this case") - he's saying that in this case, you were not involved in a dispute with them, and therefore not de-barred on those grounds from doing a block. Please calm down and don't jump to incorrect assumptions. Noel (talk) 18:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, check Wikipedia:Blocklog. He has repeatedly charged me with being involved in a dispute with that editor. The comments above just are not too clear, but I have not seen him retract the statement that I am in a dispute with that editor. 172 18:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172 is in a dispute with anyone who recognizes the product of biased editing in the area of Communism or Russian history and protests because the current pathetic state of the articles in this area is in a large part his responsibility. He has a long history. Jumping all over this anonymous editor is just a continuation of a long-standing pattern. Fred Bauder 20:03, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

The pathetic state of History of Russia, History of post-Soviet Russia, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 (a featured article)? You've pissed me off so much that I'm going to scale back my work on all other areas and focus entirely on Russia from now on. If you want to provoke some more fights, I'm ready to defend the scholarly integrity of these articles against any McCarthyite hack that gets in my way, as I have been for the past two years. 172 07:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Nationalism" is not a Wikipedia infraction in itself, at least not justifying a ban for a week based on 4 edits without warning. Fred Bauder 14:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with blocking wars is that we fail to present a united front to a potentially disruptive user. If he takes it wrong, seeing a crack in our front, he then goes on to being banned, wasting arbitration committee time, instead of being brought up short and conforming to our shared policies. Anonymous editors are not allowed to make a practice of personal attacks, endless rants about the evils of communism, etc. I'm in agreement on that, but not with pre-emptory blocking of someone who is initially outraged at a single article, an outrage I share but express in a different way. Fred Bauder 14:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

not blocking a user is not an endorsement of that user's edits. If uninvolved admins object to the block, don't block. I am honestly concerned about 172's behaviour. Of course the nationalism rant is stupid, but since when have we been blocking users for being blockheads? Admins are janitors not the lords of Wikipedia. We have the cumbersome but working system of rfc+arbcom. 172, if you are upset about that user's ranting, open an rfc about it, just like everybody else. dab () 15:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
that said... some admins' heavy-handedness may stem from frustration over drawn-out arbitration cases. I do invite the arbcom to be swift and unimplorable in dealing with disruptive behaviour. dab () 15:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No, must be held to the same standards as every other editor. Neutrality blocked Genyo for one week for causing disruption on History of Russia, and's behavior was even worse. Fred Bauder seems to think that by virture of being from Hungary, he is entitled to use the page as his personal soap box and to attack users personally. But I will make sure that he is held to the same standards as every other editor. 172 17:54, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
believe me, I have stomached my share of hungarian nationalism, and I know it's annoying. Note however, that we do not base policy on precedents set by Neutrality. We are based on consensus. Neutrality's block may or may not have been appropriate, but you will have to base your blocks not on his, but on policy, and on community consensus. The alternative would be that if one admin got away with a dubious block once, it would become de-facto policy from that moment on. dab () 19:37, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Where the policy guidelines are ambiguous, as is the case for blocks because of disruption, which I admit indeed fall under the category of controversial blocks at the moment, wide latitude is afforded to the discretion of administrators and precedent. Nevertheless, I will not reinstate the block and I will drop this issue. If the community lacks the will to stop our Eastern Europe-related articles from balkanizing and turning into a theater for playing out ethnic rivalries, I suppose now I do too. 172 21:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
no, no, I agree it is a problem, I'm just saying the way you should address it is not by unilaterally blocking users, but try to get a consensus to work it into policy. If you ask me to vote for a policy that slaps a short block on the kind of rant we're looking at here, I certainly will! The more reasonably complete articles we are sitting on, the more work it is to protect them from being torn apart by pov-pushers. I do believe policy will have to recognize this, and give us better tools for defending WP. Again, I'm not saying that your block was unfounded. I'm saying that "block-revert-wars" make us look divided and clueless. dab () 22:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's why I gave up. If Fred Bauder wants to continue providing cover to trolls because their POV lines up with his own, then he'll no longer encounter my opposition. As for a vote on a new policy, I'm unfamiliar with the process for launching a vote, so I'll leave that to another user. 172 01:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

There are two identical Wikipages Azerbaijani language and Azerbaijanian language. I tried to merge the first one with the second one under common name 'Azerbaijanian language' but did not succeed. Can somebody help me to redirect 'Azerbaijani language' page to the 'Azerbaijanian language' page'. I appreciate your attention and your help. Thanks in advance! --Tabib 14:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll take care of this. Noel (talk) 15:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


User:Travis9 is a purposefully created sockpuppet for voting on VFD:Don't be a dick. It's a strange kind of sockpuppetry, though. I think someone may be "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point". Zocky 16:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After some persuasion on the IRC, I've decided to assume good faith and believe that Travis9 is indeed a newbie who happened to know how to vote keep/BJAODN on their 5th edit on their first day. Zocky 16:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it's vaguely possible that they could have seen this on another vote, looked to see what BJAODN was, and then copied the other vote. But I wonder how they found they way to VfD so quickly... Noel (talk) 15:08, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well VfD isn't that hidden. You wander around and run into a page on VfD (these tend to generate discussion elsewhere too) or you dive into policy (not unusual for newbies) and run across the deletion policy. --fvw* 23:47, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Moving page errors[edit]

I am not sure where to put this, so if I am in the wrong spot, I apologize. All I want to ask for help is that I created a new page, Fact-value distinction, and I wanted to make sure alternate spellings such as fact/value distinction went to the new article. I tried to accomplish this in the wrong way, I suspect now, by creating the alternate spelling name pages and trying to move it to the correct article. It did not work out well, first of all I spelt distinction wrong on one page. Could someone help clear this up for me. Someone? thanks --Mikerussell 18:32, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Done. Noel (talk) 19:24, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Could someone kindly block him? He keeps disruptively incorporating a template which is up for deletion into the Wikipedia:Sister projects link boxes. The result is an deletion notice that does not match the various templates themselves. This is uglifying a LOT of articles. He knows about the Three revert rule, but seems intent (more so than me, which is a feat). Take a look at his contribs and the histories involved. -- Netoholic @ 20:16, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

I dunno, from looking at WP:TfD#Template:Sisterproject and Wikipedia talk:Sister projects, it seems like there's a real debate over how to do this, and I don't see that either of you two has everyone else on their side, so I think you all are going to have to work it out (which I am confident you both will, albeit after some sparks and grouchiness and upset). Noel (talk) 15:36, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This isn't just "we're having a dispute". This is "he was knowingly breaking articles, as well as Three Revert". -- Netoholic @ 00:51, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)