Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive8

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents: February 16, 2005 - February 24, 2005

User:JonGwynne (I)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse gas. hist

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [4]
  • 5th revert: [5]

Reported by: Vsmith 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The 1st was a substantial revert to his, User:JonGwynne, edit of 01:17, 13 Feb 2005. Reverts 2 through 4 are announced reverts. Revert 5 is a substantial revert disguised in the edit summary as Repair vandalism when in fact there was no vandalism. Vsmith 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"substantial" revert? That's a new one do we get a defintion?Geni 00:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps I used the wrong term? - new at this. I was referring to an unannounced revert that included a few cosmetic or other minor changes designed to slip past the 3RR rule. Vsmith 01:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
complex revert seems to be the term that has gained traction. Geni 02:02, 16 Feb 2005
Regardless of the terminology, he removed this paragraph:
IPCC TAR chapter lead author (Michael Mann) considers citing "the role of water vapor as a greenhouse gas" to be "extremely misleading" as water vapor can not be controlled by humans [6]. Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas and an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by anthropogenic gases will lead to greater evaporation of water from the tropical sea surface, which could lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere. Whether the main impact is through heating due to trapping of infrared radiation or through harder-to-determine effects through cloud changes, it is a definite part of the greenhouse gas equation even though not under direct human control.
Of course I removed it. is hardly a reputable source and they weren't even the original source for the alleged quote - it came from something called the "Environmental News Service". If a reputable source for this quote can be found, then it can go back in. Until then, it is unworthy of wikipdia.
at least 4 times. Jayjg (talk) 17:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I know. I also know that User:JonGwynne has come very close to being blocked for breaking the 3RR in the past so it is quite a clear caseGeni 18:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 19:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note that JG was blocked for 8 hours on 2005/02/08: [7]

Only because you lied about my alleged reversions - which, incidentally, where nothing of the sort. Too bad you have to resort to deception to get your points across William. --JonGwynne 00:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Omar Filini[edit]

Three revert rule violation on List of Egyptians. hist

Reported by: Carnildo 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On 24 January 2005, I removed the link to the article Marco of Alexandria from the List of Egyptians, as that article had just been deleted via VfD for non-notability. Since then, Marco of Alexandria has been re-added to the list at least fifteen times by Omar Filini, variously as a redlink, an external link, or as an unlinked name, sometimes to the "painters" section, sometimes to the "poets" section, usually to both. --Carnildo 00:45, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. It seems the additon of the Marco of Alexandria was done a number of times before, making the 4 edits listed above 4 reverts within 24 hours. The article of the Marco of Alexandira was also properly deleted as per Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Marco of Alexandria. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Bahá'í Faith[edit]

Could this be unprotected? It has been protected for 24 hours and there is a massive consensus on the talk page that the image does not belong thereGeni 02:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is what Request for (un)protection is for. I'll look at it though. BrokenSegue 02:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I assumed good faith and unprotected. It seems that clear concensus on the picture has been reached and further edit warring could be seen as vandalism. BrokenSegue 02:50, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ah right since i don't deal with page protection I'm not as familia with the process as I should be.Geni 03:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Keane, Inc. and User:Keane India[edit]

These User pages are being created for advertising purposes. RickK 06:46, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any good reason not to delete the user pages and block the users. But I figured we should talk about it first. Rhobite 07:39, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Looking at their edit histories it looks like they didn't edit anything else from the user pages and related pictures. I'd say it's obvious advertising. Delete the pages for being ads and leave a friendly note on their talk explaining the situation. (MacGyverMagic 08:51, 16 Feb 2005)


I got this on my talk today following a block I performed yesterday:

To whom it may concern,

I admit to the vandalism under this IP, done out of anger but to make amends I have expanded a bunch of articles, wikified them, and even added some photos.

Culture of Zimbabwe Culture of Uruguay Military of Ghana

And I also plan to expand

History of Africa History of Islam

The IP I was under was the school's. Please unblock that IP and block mine if need be.

my apologies

Vincent Gray 03:29, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the honesty and apologies, but of course being an admin, I have no clue about his "own" IP. I won't block him for getting into touch with me and discussing civily. Should I unblock because it's school IP (haven't found evidence yet)? Or should I have it run its final 2 blocking hours? Mgm|(talk) 08:56, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

it's a temporay IP and shouldn't be blocked for long anyway. Nice to see an example where a block made somebody change his mind! Our system is clunky, but sometimes it works :) dab () 11:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How did you find that out? I must be reading the Whois page wrong. Mgm|(talk) 12:51, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
ah, I did a traceroute and watched it lose itself in verizon namespace. dab () 19:08, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Talk:Autofellatio#Comment desperately needs some order. --SPUI (talk) 09:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I must say it was really bold to post to admin board after posting this [8] and this [9] :)) OneGuy 10:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware there are no ongoing edit wars on that article, and no significant breaches of policy. I'll post on Wikipedia:Requests for protection again if a sterile edit war should develop, but at present all parties seem to be behaving themselves. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You must admit though it was quite bold of SPUI to come to admin board after posting this [10] and this [11]. What on earth is he thinking? :)) OneGuy 11:13, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I must admit that you've done a good job of trolling me. I have lost; I will have a nice day. --SPUI (talk) 22:21, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You've both been very naughty, but this is only for serious incidents. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Our friend is back with his girls in diapers, posting as User:Jimmy Society. He's uploaded several images and added them to several articles. I have to go to work, and can't keep a close eye on him right now. Joyous 12:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

As we decided here before, I blocked him, and his changes have been reverted, images deleted (a number were re-uploads at the same name). -- Infrogmation 12:43, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


These people seem to be using Wikipedia as a hosting service. I left a note on the creator's talk, but I'd like to mention the free wiki hostings they can use. Can I speedy delete this based on CSD#11? Mgm|(talk) 14:13, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, a speedy delete tag was added because a proper article was made at Digit (magazine). This tag was later removed by the article's creator. Mgm|(talk) 14:16, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

I saw someone tagged another related article with db because CSD#11. So I was bold and did the deleting. Feel free to revert my deletions if you disagree, but please post here if you do with the reason. Mgm|(talk) 14:22, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
Could someone take a look at this users contributions as well? It looks like they've also copyvio'd some phpBB images. Mgm|(talk) 14:26, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Full of, er ...[edit]

I blocked two users, because I don't know how to delete their accounts entirely:

The second one actually looks kind of amusing in the log; as if I took someone too seriously when they told me to "stuff it" ;-) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:08, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why would you want to delete the accounts? They could be recreated if deleted. Presumably these accounts were created for the sole purpose of looking funny in the block log. I can see two teenagers laughing their arses off as we speak. Kids! you gotta love 'em Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changing poll options on Talk:Autofellatio[edit]

In the current survey over what external links to include, User:OneGuy is persistently changing one of the poll options from "No commercial porn sites" to "No commercial porn sites; link to a Google search instead". Since people have already voted for the "no commercial porn sites" option, I find this behavior unethical and completely unacceptable, however, I've already reverted him three times. Is this change considered vandalism, in which case I can continue reverting, or do I need to find someone else to clean up after him? --Carnildo 22:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The people who voted for no commercial links voted for non-commercial links, like google or yahoo. This is pretty clearly from the discussion. I just clarified that further on top. Why are you trying to hide that information? Since you have not voted in this section, it's not your business anyway. OneGuy 22:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They did not vote for "no commercial links; link to Google", they voted for "no commercial links". I voted in that poll, therefore it is my business. --Carnildo 22:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"No commercial links" implies linking to non-commercial sites like google. I just clarified that. You have not voted in that section. I don't see anyone who has voted in that section complain about the clarification. Why are you complaining? OneGuy 22:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about this simple solution: let the voting option stand as it is and create a new one called "no commercial links; link to Google"? --Conti| 22:54, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
The statement about google is only further clarification of "No links to commercial porn sites." Why should we have two polls on that option? I can change the wording about google if you would like OneGuy 23:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do think it was completely fallacious complaint by Carnildo, but I changed it back and instead put that information in my vote. I hope everyone is happy now OneGuy 23:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I don't think this is really an "incident" that is damaging Wikipedia in any serious way. Could this be taken to user talk pages? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The situation in and of itself, no, but the precedent set if OneGuy's edits were allowed to stand could be very damaging. If we allowed changing poll options after the fact in this instance, where do we draw the line? --Carnildo 23:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That's your assertion that the clarification changed the "poll options." It did not. No commercial links implies linking to google or other non-commercial sites. OneGuy 02:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It did change the poll option. It did not clarify it. "No commercial porn links" and "link to Google" do not mean the same thing. --Carnildo 05:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who read the discussion that started this poll knows we were talking about linking to google images instead of linking directly to a commercial porn site. I further clarified that part for new voters on top who might be voting in that poll. You apparently want to hide that part from new voters. Other than that motivation, this was none of your business since you didn't even vote in that section OneGuy 06:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on User:John-1107. hist

Refusal to either remove spoiler(s) or leave {{spoiler}} tag.

Reported by: Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)


  • Since it's a spoiler, anyone who doesn't want to know about Star Wars Episode III might want to avoid it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:29, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Its his personal user page. I think your edits are not proper. I won't block him for reverting his own user page! -- Chris 73 Talk 01:38, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I was reading his user page, as (one might imagine) is appropriate. I happened to see a spoiler for Star Wars Episode III. This pissed me off. A lot. I have been avoiding spoilers for that movie for YEARS, and I don't appreciate being blindsided by one. I put the spoiler notice up so it wouldn't happen to other people. I suggested he might want to remove the spoiler, but as long as the spoiler was there, the warning was appropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see any comment of yours on his talk page. This should have been the first step in dispute resolution. A edit comment is IMHO not enough. In any case, I don't think a 3RR applies to his own user page. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
He began by communicating in edit comments, I didn't start it. He asked what the spoiler tag was, I explained. He set up the forum for discussion, not me. Besides, he doesn't own his user page, it's part of the Wikipedia. I wasn't editing his user page in an unreasonable manner. It's not like he was reverting vandalism. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:51, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
The only comment in the history besides yours is from an anon This may or may not have been John-1107. The anon reverted your edits within one minute. Maybe John-1107 can clarify this question. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I assume it was because he's edited it from IP addresses before. I lack the technical means to determine this (I am not a developer). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:59, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
well I would block for 30 minutes but there doesn't seem to be much point. No you shouldn't revert your user page more than 3 times however that last revert is one heck of a complex revert however user does not appear to be aware of the rules so I see nothing to be gained by blocking.Geni 02:01, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, would someone at LEAST either put the spoiler warning back or remove the spoiler!?! That's the whole point of this... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner has blocked John-1107Geni 02:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This was a stupid 3RR war, but, frankly, it came from John being inconsiderate and disruptive, which was the reason for my block. So 48 hours for that, plus 24 for a 3RR. Snowspinner 02:19, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Blocked for 3 days for reverting his own user page? Don't you think that is excessive? If it would be my user page, I would not hesitate to revert. Also, it is not known if the anonymous IP is him, and I would be surprised if he finds a change of his user page within one minute. I strongly oppose the block. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:33, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree with this block. For one, you're not even sure the anon was John. If you were going to block anyone, block the anon (who also doesn't have the defense that he's protecting his user page).
As to whether anyone could be blocked for reverting their own page more than three times, I would say no. Our rule (no time to find the cite) is that people control their own user pages, and others should generally stay off them. (Of course, someone other than the page owner could definitely get a 3RR on such a page.)
Finally, about the spoiler: yes, I agree it's bad to have a spoiler without a warning. But I would say that the appropriate path is to take it up with the person directly first, and if they prove un-cooperative, go through the mediation/RFC process. Simplly unilaterally editing someone elses page is not kosher, until such action has received community support as the only workable alternative. Noel (talk) 13:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose anyone's willing to tackle the spoiler situation? Does it count as a 4th revert from me to remove the spoiler at this point, rather than add the spoiler tag? I *really* don't want to do it anyway, at least because of how it might look. So, unless someone else is gonna do it, I'll just wait til tomorrow or something, I guess. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 02:21, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
What was with adding this {{spoiler}} notice one someone's user page without his permission? We allow users more freedom on their user page. Palestine-info has all kinds of pro-Palestinan links on his user page. Are you going to stick {{POV}} notice on his page? Some users even write diatribes on a topic when they can't do it in the article. We don't edit other people's user pages unless the page is a gross abuse, and there was no gross abuse in this case. OneGuy 15:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is a red herring. One would expect (unless one were remarkably stupid) to encounter POV information on a user page in general, and one called Palestine-info in particular. One would NOT expect to find a spoiler for Episode III on someone's user page in the middle of a description about some girl they like. Spoilers are different than POV speech. POV speech doesn't "hurt" anyone. Spoilers do. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

That was absolutely absurd block. He has the right to revert his own page when someone sticks a {{spoiler}} template on his user page without his permission. The person who added {{spoiler}} notice should have been blocked for vandalism, and the admin who blocked the poor guy should have been blocked for harassment OneGuy 14:23, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism huh? OK, sure, I add a spoiler tag to a page with spoilers, yup, clear-cut vandalism if I've ever heard any. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

If admins are allowed to arbitrarily protect their user pages, can we fault a non-admin for wanting to preserve theirs? Block Dante Alighieri for vandalism, and unblock John-1107 since reverting vandalism is not counted in 3RR. Dante didn't even make an attempt at communicating with this user on their talk page. Snowspinner is being oppressive over this, and I hope some admins out their will take steps to resolve this by unblocking this newcomer. -- Netoholic @ 15:36, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)

I communicated via edit comments as that's the way that the initial revert was communicated to me. Incidently, the stated reason for Snowspinner's block wasn't this 3RR anyway, it was disruptiveness. You'd have to ask him what that means. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm really tired of people abusing "vandalism" around here the way politicians abuse "terrorism". Vandalism is adding "your mother sucks {gross, disgusting objects}" to articles, and similar juvenilia. This is a dispute over content and policy. Noel (talk) 15:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If we were talking about something in the article space, I'd agree fully. Adding unwelcome text repeatedly to a personal User page is a different story. Call it vandalism or disruption, whatever you like. -- Netoholic @ 16:09, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
Not only was he blocked unfairly for 3rv, but he was blocked for 3 days! This was clearly absurd, bordering abuse and harassment. The user should email Jimbo and post to WikiEN-l email list [14] OneGuy 18:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Editing someone's user page in a factual and reasonable manner is not vandalism or disruptiong, and I'd suspect that anyone who claims it is has an agenda. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Editing user's page without his/her permission has been called vandalism by some admins before, and people have been blocked for this. See this example. Fvw called it vandalism. What Jakew did was minor (and he later was blocked by Fvw) compared to Dante Alighieri sticking {{spoiler}} on the user page. OneGuy 16:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm irked at other un-called for "vandalism" labels too. Wikipedia:Vandalism lays out pretty clearly what "vandalism" is, and it's clear that adding the tag was a "good-faith" (albeit very inappropriate, IMO) attempt at improvement. Noel (talk) 16:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lots of things are called vandalism... that doesn't make them vandalism. Again, I don't see how sticking a spoiler warning on a page with a spoiler is either "vandalism", "disruption", or a "big deal" in any way shape or form. Nor, frankly, has anyone offered any rationale why it is, other than these tautological arguments about "not editing another person's user page", and that happens regularly and appropriately. Note also that I didn't even remove the spoiler because I respect his right to have it on the page. I just informed others that there was a spoiler, a completely appopriate act. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:37, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

In any event, I've received an email from John-1107. I'm not totally convinced that he's aware that he's done anything wrong. He may have a certain... "divergent view" of things than most people. Given the situation, I'm not sure blocking him for the 3RR is warranted, as he doesn't seem to even understand what the 3RR is, let alone the general concepts involved in editing the 'pedia. Given that, I'd ask Snowspinner to drop the block to 48 hours total, removing the 24 he stated was for the 3RR and leaving the 48 for general disruption (at his discretion of course, I have no opinion on that matter). If anyone is interested, I will forward them a copy of the email as an explanation of what I mean about his POV on reality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

On their own user space, people should be able to write a review with spoilers or opinions that might be considered POV in the article space. We give more freedom to users on how to maintain their user page. This is well known and many examples of that can be cited. Please see User:MINDBOMB as an example of anti-Islamic diatribe on his page. We usually do not edit war by deleting and inserting stuff on someone's user page without their permission, unless the page is grossly abusive. More troubling, however, was 3 days block by Snowspinner, who blocked him without even checking carefully that the 4th edit was not even a revert. OneGuy 20:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also noticed now that the 4th edit mentioned above was not even a revert. [15]. In this edit John only moved the {{spoiler}} to the right section of the page. He didn't remove it OneGuy 18:58, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. I didn't notice that. Given how no one ELSE noticed it until now either, I hope you can understand how I didn't at the time. I suggest he be unbanned. I'm apologizing now on his talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've unblocked him and explained on his talk page. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Having said all that, he did add his user page to [[Category:Futurology|*]], [[Category:Fictional universes]], and [[Category:Micronations]] . This should be removed because that's abuse of Catergory space, which is outside his user space. Same applies to the article MINDBOMB, which is a redirect to his user page. MINDBOMB should be deleted. OneGuy 21:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have moved [MINDBOMB] (which had some history) to a subpage of his User: page, and deleted the redirect. Noel (talk) 00:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Currently he is blocked again. It appears there are two independent issues: The 3RR, which seems to have been none, and a number of questionable edits. While i have no idea about the SF content dispute, removing other peoples comments is wrong. (A few samples: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], ...) A block for removing other peoples comments seems to be valid, and the user has been warned not to do that. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Are we sure this isn't a result of him not understanding how to deal with edit conflicts? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:22, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested, Snowspinner blocked him again by giving this reason on the talk page: "I see your response to being unblocked was to rant about how your beliefs will not be removed and to delete Cyrius's comments again. Have a nice 48 hour block." However, Dante Alighieri unblocked him today (February 17th) and the incident Snowspinner refers to happened yesterday, February 16th or even earlier February 15th. There are no edits by John-1107 on February 17th. So not only Snowspinner did not apologize for his wrongful earlier block, he again blocked him by claiming something that is factually incorrect OneGuy 23:05, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Israel. hist

Note: I count User:SS-88 as an obvious sockpuppet. C.f. the 3RR: "Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit". Lupo 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) was also involved in between: [21].

Reported by: Lupo 13:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops: first diff is not a revert, but the original change. Oh well. Lupo 13:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I permanently blocked SS88 because I thought that was a sockpuppet account of User:SS-88. Oh well. I've blocked it now due to sock-puppetry. They can use the other account to edit with. They only need one account. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Are we positive that User:SS88 and User:SS-88 are really the same person? We have seen instances in the past (one of the CheeseDreams socks) where are similarly-named sock was someone else making trouble for them.
Anyway, I'd block the second account permanently on the grounds that it's an inappropriate (because it's confusing) user-name, which is true whether it's a real sock, or someone else's troll. Noel (talk) 13:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


This proxy has edited Bahá'í Faith to insert a picture against a huge consenus (see talk page. This contuines a pattern of behavoiur that has been going on for some time wehre a proxy repeatedly reverts the page untill they break the 3 revert rule where apon they are blocked and a new proxy pops up to continue the cycle. I would regard the lastest edits as simple vanderlism and as such I ask that the proxy recive an indefinet blockGeni 16:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is an open proxy and thus can be blocked indefinitely. I will block it now. BrokenSegue 22:55, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne (II)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Greenhouse gas. hist

Optional: Insertion of material [diff_link_here date_time_stamp_here].

Reported by: Vsmith 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Revets occurring between 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 and 14:46, 17 Feb 2005

  • The 1st was a revert to his version of 15 Feb before his previous ban.
  • The 2nd was a revert of his tabulated data - summary stated "not a revert"
  • The 3rd was a partial to remove paragraph which he has removed repeatedly - not labeled a revert.
  • The 4th was a simple revert referred to as "Restored more accurate (and readable) version of table" - included paragraph removal also.
  • The 5th was a revert to his version of the tabulated data.
Vsmith 16:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I corroborate Vsmiths complaint. I also note that JG has, rather recently, been warned (feb 7th), then banned for 8 hours (feb 8th), then banned for 24 hours (feb 16th). I therefore request a longer ban this time. Also, JG has taken to labelling his reverts as "not a revert", which is extremely bad form. At no time has he shown any contrition. (William M. Connolley 17:49, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

I can't block for more than 24 hours what ever happens (under the 3RR rule anyway). Personaly I make it 3.5 revets in total (and we don't reconise partial revets). I am not going to block becuase I have just protected that page so no further editing can take place anyway I hpoe this allows you to make use of the wikipedia disspute resolution process.Geni 18:04, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I feel rather frustrated that you have protected the page, albeit on the "correct" version. The dispute resolution process has been tried and failed - see the talk page, or Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JonGwynne (how about this one? [27]; or this: [28]?).
(William M. Connolley 19:02, 17 Feb 2005)
I have not protected the correct version the protected version is always the wrong version. Have you tired arbcom (I'm not sure medation is function right now).Geni 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was tempted to complain bitterly that you had failed to protect the wrong version :-), but we all make mistakes... Arbcomm is the next step, and maybe quite soon, if JG won't learn from his latest ban (William M. Connolley 19:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)).
Meanwhile, JG has broken the 3RR *again*: [29] (note that this one is a "complex revert" - ie the same stuff, thinly disguised) [30] [31] [32]
(William M. Connolley 19:03, 17 Feb 2005)
Head, table, bang. User blocked for 24 hours under the 3RR rule.Geni 19:22, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I have "used" my 3 reverts for the day, and am anxious to remain clean, so may I ask anyone watching to restore Medieval_Warm_Period to its state before JG broke the 3RR? Also... the only problem with the GHG page was JonGwynne, so it can be unprotected now if you like (William M. Connolley 19:47, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)).


Three revert rule violation on New anti-Semitism. hist


  • These are complex reverts, as the user keeps reverting and then editing the article, but using deceptive edits summaries not recognizing the reverts.
  • User has been violated the 3RR before and been warned, but has treated the concept with contempt (e.g. [33]), suggested that admins who tried to ban him for this were "right-wing" and would lose their sysop privileges for abuse[34]. Jayjg (talk) 17:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not seeing it. You have a major content dispute going but the difference between susposed revisions is huge. I can see one outright revert and maybe a couple of complex reverts (if you take a really liberal defintion of that term which I don't).Geni 17:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't be silly J. You are the only ones reverting to a version recognised by the community as POV on VfD. Coming here is a bullying tactic. I could threaten you, but I won't descend to your level. On VfD there was a consensus to re-write the article, and I am trying to. Chamaeleon 17:36, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I warned you yesterday about your violations of the 3RR, and you treated the whole concept with contempt; this is the inevitable conseqeunce. And the fact that four different editors have reverted your unilateral edits should be an indication to you that your actions do not represent "consensus". Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it will be clearer if we focus on one small section at the top of the article. He has taken the phrase

The term represents a shift in the meaning of the term anti-Semitism, to apply to an apparent rise in anti-Semitic vandalism; to claim an allegiance between anti-Semitic vandals and left-wing activists seeking Israeli compromises on the Palestinian question.

and converted it to

It is a controversial term, and opinions on it are utterly different depending on whether one's opinions are closer to Zionism or anti-Zionism (or somewhere in between).

5 times in 3 hours. Jayjg (talk) 18:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR applies to articles not sections. There is not rule that an admin can inforce against repeatedly editing against consenus (well except under the dissruption rule and I'm not planning to use that) as long as you make significant overal changes.Geni 18:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The 3RR applies to any content in an article, and he also deleted identical and significant amounts of content 4 different times. For example, he deleted the entire sections titled "1.1 Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism", "2 Manifestations of the new anti-Semitism", "2.1 False allegations", "2.2 Antisemitic cartoons" etc. from the article four times. It's hard to see how this doesn't qualify as 3RR for any number of reasons. Jayjg (talk) 20:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The three revert rule states "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours" (epthersis mine)Geni 20:35, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And? All his reverts are to that page; these are known as "complex reverts", and are well understood to be reverts. See blockings just above this for examples. Jayjg (talk) 20:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Quebec sovereignty movement. hist

By his own count in the edit summary, four reverts.

Reported by: Curps 21:03, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours under the 3 revert rule Geni 21:15, 17 Feb 2005

User:Curps (I)[edit]

User:Curps reverted my edit three times in Quebec sovereignty movement and did so by making false statements.

Reported by: JillandJack 21:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It requires you to make 4 reverts to break the three revert ruleGeni 21:17, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
JillandJack, on the other hand [35] [36] [37] [38] gets blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:51, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) already done by the previous request above. Guess I should read more carefully :( -- Chris 73 Talk 04:00, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
In addition, the edits of Curps also look like a violation. There are 3 clear cases [39], [40], and [41], plus one more complex change of multiple edits between 02:27, Feb 17, 2005 and 03:00, Feb 17, 2005. The overall diff is [42]. Looks like a revert to me, but I would like another admin to doublecheck. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 03:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, four reverts. The last one is a complex revert, but clearly a revert nonetheless. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Blocked for 24 hours under the 3RR rule -- Chris 73 Talk 04:10, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

My edits from 02:27–03:00, 17 Feb 2005 were just that — edits. They were not a reversion to any prior version. You seem to be saying that any edit of any kind to a page constitutes a "first revert" for purposes of the 3RR rule. That is a novel theory. -- Curps 04:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No it's pretty standard the whole complex revert thing appears to have gone way beyond the idea of preventing gameing of the system Geni 05:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If that is the case then both Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Revert pages need to be modified substantially to clarify this. The latter page says a "revert" means going back to an earlier version, or undoing something. Apparently you are using a different definition.
Or perhaps there is a very broad definition of "undoing". For instance, if an article contains the word "interesting" and you edit it to "fascinating", then you have "undone" the work of whoever who originally wrote "interesting" (perhaps many months and versions ago) and this counts as the "first revert".
This means we have to distinguish carefully between edits that only add text without modifying ("undoing") one comma of existing text and edits that do modify existing text. Again, this requires substantial changes to both Wikipedia:Three revert rule and Wikipedia:Revert pages. In the former case, there is a "three revert rule"; in the latter it is a "one edit, two reverts" rule.
I would volunteer to make the necessary changes to those articles, but perhaps someone who understands it better than me should do so. -- Curps 10:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well we could do that but a more honest version would state "The way this rules is applied will entirly depend on the admin who makes the dercission"Geni 18:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Since the topic is rather delicate, I would suggest that you discuss any proposed changes on the appropriate Talk: pages before diving in and changing anything. In some cases, the wording is the direct result of a poll, so you'd have to re-poll before changing anything. Noel (talk) 12:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:SS-88 and User:SS88[edit]

The Nazis are starting to swarm. Can we have a firm policy that anyone using 88 in their name is using an offensive Username and can be blocked on sight? RickK 23:03, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think that this is not such a good idea. I think we should take each offensive username as it comes through. Incidently, I permanently blocked SS-88 for making a threat against me (check my talk page). He implied violence. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
For one thing, people can have 88 in their user name for perfectly normal reasons, such as being born in the year 1988. For another, it isn't really offensive per se, because hardly anybody actually knows what it's code for. Let them have these user names if they want, as that'll make them easier for us to identify and track any POV editing. Everyking 23:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'll go one better. I will ban anyone who is being in-your-face about being a Nazi. This is not because they are a Nazi. This is because, just like User:Fuckmeuptheass would not be an effective editor regardless of his or her contributions, an admitted Nazi is going to be a perpetual troll by nature. Said person is not banned - but the account with "Heil Hitler" in the name most certainly is, as is the userpage full of Nazi symbols. Aside from offensiveness, doing so is an implicit threat against any editors who may be Jews, Catholics, or otherwise, and generally makes editing Wikipedia, well, harder. Snowspinner 23:56, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear! El_C 00:18, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have already done this, and the user got unblocked for it. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Paradigmbuff deleting his contributions[edit]

This user seems to have been seriously upset by a conflict over "L. Paul Bremer. He has now deleted most of the article and the talk page, and gone on to a deletion rampage at other articles, see his contribs. Charitably, he's upset with Wikipedia and wants to remove all his own contributions, but he seems to be taking out a lot of other stuff with it, at least that's what he did at L. Paul Bremer. Some explanation of the problem may be found here--picked a bit at random, because the talk page has been refactored by paradigmbuff and everybody's comments and replies moved about till little of it makes any sense, and the actual writing of P himself seemed to get increasingly incoherent, making Rama alarmed for him. Here is [User:Rama]]'s good faith attempt to calm things down (I spoke with Rama on IRC), which signally failed of the desired effect. And here Paradigmbuff tells User:David.Monniaux, who tried to intervene in the conflict, that he now wants to remove his own stuff. More explanation altogether on David.Monniaux's talk page, because other people's talk pages seem to be the one place Paradigmbuff doesn't do his wild deletion swipes, as far as I've seen. Altogether, I think he's an upset user, rather than a vandal, but he's wreaking quite some destruction nevertheless. Could/should he be briefly blocked, to break his flow, and contacted by an admin? Featured article L. Paul Bremer is a real mess now. A short mess. :-( Bishonen | Talk 23:34, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He appears to have largly stopped. His high speed edits stopped at 22:11 and he has only edited once since (I'll keep an eye on him but I think you have already delt with the problem)Geni 23:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a legal matter, once someone hits the "Save page" button, they had given the public domain an irrevocable license to their material, and they have no more right to remove it than anyone else; i.e. it has to be a consensus decision of the editors. Noel (talk) 00:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The user contacted me, and we have started a discussion on the talk page. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:21, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)


Today User: removed content from Lorenzo de' Medici three times without explaining his actions. Curiously, he later dropped this note on my talk page:

==Please take down article ==
Can you please take down this article for 1 week.

I will do anything if you do, I will become a mod
or something, or donate money.

What bugs me is the edits by User:Philidias. Is this the same user as the anon? After I reverted my own revert (I first thought User:Philidias's edits was vandalism, but I had only checked the last diff), the removed the above comment and replaced it with "thx". Any ideas what to make of this, and could someone have a look at Philidias' edits to the article? - Fredrik | talk 02:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The anon is almost certainly User:Philidias - same change, one minute later. Only two of the edits were as the anon though, the rest were all logged in. Noel (talk) 17:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
My best guess is that the anon is involved in a bet which he would lose if the information he's been removing were freely available - I can't imagine any other motive for wanting to take down such a harmless article. — Dan | Talk 02:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about that. At the same time, he added some material to the article, stuff you'd have to do a certain amount of looking (or really know Lorenzo) to add. It looks more like an attempt to copy-edit it down to be shorter, but this is just a total guess, frankly. Neither the anon, nor the user, has any other edit history. for what that's worth. Noel (talk) 17:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I did a lot of work on this a coupla years back - I'll look at it. Noel (talk) 13:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, all done (after a lengthy detour through the Kings of Naples - sigh, life on Wikipedia :-). I put back most of the text he removed (no idea why he took it out, it was all quite germane, interesting, and useful), and left almost all of his added stuff (ditto). Probably worth keeping an eye on it, though. Noel (talk) 17:45, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Activity update. Both User:Philidias and User:John05, neither of whom have edited any other articles, are now deleting text from the article. Fredrik | talk 21:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Frogs. John05 is almost certainly the same person (or, as Dan suggests, it some sort of bet/competition), as they are deleting the same material. I don't get Philidias though - why add some real content, and then do the vandalism thing? Irritation that their changes were not 100% accepted? Who knows. But mass deletion of content like that is definitely borderline vandalism, even from someone who did contribute something. John05 is just a plain vandal, though - I left them a test3 message. Noel (talk) 22:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explanation received by email:

 I am truly very sorry that I was editing the parts out.
 The reason I did it is because I too paragraphs and put
 it in my paper- bibliography paper of lorenzo de' medici.
 I know that I shouldn't do that, but I didn't think at that
 time it was plargarism, and the teacher said in class that shes
 punishing people for it.  I won't ever copy something again.
 Please if you can take the article down for 1 week, or put it
 the way I had it. She hasn't graded my paper yet.  Thanks for
 reading my email

I haven't answered yet. - Fredrik | talk 23:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah. Blast. Well, that certainly explains it. The thing is that even if we did change our copy of the page, because Google caches copies of pages, searching for the text they copied would probably hit on Google even if our copy has been updated.
I'm really sorry for them, but I'm afraid they are going to have to face the music. I'll leave them a note explaining the Google issue, and suggesting they go talk to their teacher right away - getting in front of it's probably better than letting her find it out. Noel (talk) 02:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's even worse than I realized before: Wikipedia content is copied by lots of sites, which also update their local copies rather slowly. And Google has indexed all them too. So, basically, they're stuck - if someone searches for the text this person used, they will find it, no matter what we do on the page here. Basically, this person is trying to put the milk back in the cow - can't be done.
I left notes explaining all this; you might want to email them a copy if they don't read it off their talk page. Noel (talk) 02:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have now exchanged several email messages with this person. He didn't understand the problem with mirrors until after the third message. After that he insisted that we should add a line to the article explaining that parts of it were contributed by him. This is of course unacceptable for many reasons. So there's nothing we can do to help him, and there's no reason we should -- he cheated and should take responsibility for it himself.

On a related note, could text removal or rewording for similar reasons be a common phenomenon on Wikipedia?

Thanks a lot for helping out with this, Noel. Fredrik | talk 13:03, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sure, no biggie. Interesting suggestion about this happening on other articles - something to keep in mind. Oh, FWIW, our miscreant could certainly truthfully claim to his teacher that he did contribute some text to the article - alas, just not the stuff he used in his paper! Of course, if the teacher looks at the history, they will certainly notice the student doing something odd to the contents... Noel (talk) 23:26, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to say that I think this case is hilarious, both funny and interesting in relation to the impact WP is starting to have on real life, and that it should be archived/referenced somewhere as a precedent. dab () 10:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I haven't updated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incident index in a while; I need to get on the stick and do that. (Now that things have slowed down for a bit, so there's not so much archiving, would be a good time, actually...) Noel (talk) 23:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Redirect spam loophole[edit]

User:Dangerous vandal! Block it! showed a particular nasty type of spam, (s)he found a way to redirect articles to outside pages. I thought redirects do not work outside of the Wikimedia namespace. Can this loophole be disabled? -- Chris 73 Talk 11:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Brion disabled this. silsor 12:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
thanks for the fast response -- Chris 73 Talk 13:34, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I filed a bug report on it, but it doesn't seem to have been necessary. — Dan | Talk 13:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It was reported back in December. --SPUI (talk) 14:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


User and I imagine sysop Aloan pulled the debate at Wikipedia:Requested moves on moving this article to Rastafari after 4 days, whereas it should be 5. Much worse he claimed there was no consensus to move the article, though a simple count indicated 4 votes in favour of the move and one against. He also ignored the fact that there is a clear consensus with no opposition to removing the disambiguation page and redirecting Ras Tafari to Haile Selassie. User:Guettarda, another of the ayes, directed me here. Please can we have a rapid solution to this, either accepting the present consensus or reputting the article on the Requested moves page. I did not put the article on the requested moves pages so that an administrator could ignore the consensus. I have written to ALoan, and await a reply. This is a highly sensitive subject because the title is offensive to Rasta believers, and because it is a debate about whether we use an white middle class outsiders terms to discuss a group that are anything but. I feel ALoan has been very brute in his approach to it, and please can an admin take a look, and ideally take over from ALoan. --SqueakBox 17:17, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:ALoan has now put the article back in requested moves and withdrawn from the case, leaving me satisfied. --SqueakBox 17:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes - that was me, undertaking my usual "outrageous power tripping from a sysop". I have apologised all round, in case anyone has not noticed. It didn't help that it was listed under a heading February 13 when it was actually listed on February 14. Anyway, the less said the better. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Dieser Benutzer wurde gesperrt[edit]

We should keep an eye on User:Dieser Benutzer wurde gesperrt. S/he went on a spree of page move vandalism, so I blocked him for the standard 24 hours. The damage has all been undone, but I suspect this vandal will return. Gamaliel 18:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'd say just block the name permanently. Page move vandalism is too obnoxious to tolerate. Everyking 18:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I blocked him permanently when I noticed him. I wonder if my block will stay once Gamaliel's goes? Anyway, page move vandalism is a permanent block, as far as I'm concerned. Willy one Wheels has set the precedent. Jayjg (talk) 19:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sigh, we would really used Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive3#Page-move rollback... Noel (talk) 22:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As a note, the username means, roughly, "This user was banned." Mackensen (talk) 19:41, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia now has dozens of pages called [Page name] is silly as redirects. How easy would it be for someone to delete them all? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty easy, if have a list. Where are they? Jayjg (talk) 20:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I found a whole flock at Special:Contributions/Xezbeth (a barnstar to them!), and did all of those. Not sure if there's another good place to look; I can't face paging through all the pages created today! If there are more, just list them at WP:RfD and I'lk nuke 'em. Noel (talk) 22:02, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Basically every article title created today ending in "is stupid!" By the way, does anyone know why User:Dieser Benutzer wurde gesperrt is not listed as the article creator, when you go to one of those redirects (example: [43] Antandrus 20:40, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because when [X] is moved to [X is stupid], the person who did it is noted at the author on the redir left at [X]. When the original page is moved back by GoodUser, the redir at [X] is deleted, and a redir is left at [X is stupid], with the author as GoodUser. So please don't chastise the people doing the cleanup (as I found one person doing)! Noel (talk) 21:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I just added a whole flock of redirects for deletion to WP:RfD as you asked (those are from Gamaliel's history); there are also some in Xezbeth's history and in my history; there may have been another person involved in undoing Willy's damage but I can't remember who. Is there an easier way to list these, since they don't show up on New Pages? Antandrus 22:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, I did all those. If you see any more, just list 'em there and I'll zorch them too. Sorry, I don't know of any easy way to find them all - maybe someone else does? Noel (talk) 02:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
With page move vandals (Willy and the like), it might be a good idea to copy and paste the contribs to the user's talk page before fixing them so there's a record of redirects to delete. — Dan | Talk 04:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is probably a stupid question, but is there any real reason to delete the redirects? Why not just leave them? Everyking 04:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, they're certainly not obviously visible to everyone, however: 1) if you click on "what links here" (for instance [44] ) you will get "Edge of darkness is stupid!" which is certainly an odd thing to see when you are checking for internal links. 2) the original vandal knows they are there; maybe that doesn't matter, but I hate the idea of them having the satisfaction of creating a vandal page, even if it is only a redirect. Maybe that's a trivial reason. There might be other reasons I'm not thinking of. Antandrus 04:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because they will show up when you do a search. So here's the scenario: you're looking on Wikipedia for your favourite politician, and you do a search, and up pops 'Foo is stupid!'. Not very NPOV, huh?Noel (talk) 13:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

America's Army[edit]

Multiple users: Revert war in progress at America's Army, well over 3 revert rule for both users. K1Bond007 20:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page while I sort out who did what. If anouther admin takes action could they please unprotect the page?Geni 20:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've blocked them both for 12 hours. (They aren't veteran users, so I'm going being slightly lenient) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:56, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
I should note that the anon IP you blocked has been blocked before by admin User:Andrevan for the same article for violating 3RR. Thanks for taking care of this though. K1Bond007 21:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lol, liar. You should note that the anon IP you blocked has been unjustly blocked as it later turned out for reverting an admin-contribution two times. It's so easy to forget parts of the truth, isn't it, James? Though, I shouldnt have participated in the edit war, I know, 'twas childish, very indeed. Anyway it is just so great James still cares about me. He's like a real father already. LOL no really, he's always there. But we should work on our relationship a bit. Soooooo.... fine. goodnight and thanks for that comment - it made me smile again, James. No, really. =) And drop a comment or two on my new user page (james knows what I mean). You must be happy too after having me caught acting stupid :) Cya145.254.135.170 00:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment, I think in this case the anon had a better version of the page (less POV). However, I would urge both to take their differences to the talk page and discuss it there. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have no preference. I merely reported it after seeing them revert well over 3 times - I had absolutely nothing to do with it (I never even read the edits mind you) and IMHO it was the right thing to do to report it or am I mistaken about what this page is for? I have absolutely no idea WTF he's refering to above either. Anyone with a pair of eyes can look through the history and see he wasn't "unjustly" blocked - EVEN IF someone were to think what he was saying had any truth then that should make him more aware of the rule and the consequences than anyone else. Today he reverted over 10 times, same with the person involved. K1Bond007 01:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne (III)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Global warming. hist

Optional: Insertion of material [diff_link_here date_time_stamp_here].

  • 1st revert: 21:44 - 18. Feb - [45]
  • 2nd revert: 21:58 - 18. Feb - [46]
  • 3rd revert: 22:49 - 18. Feb - [47]
  • 4th revert: 00:06 - 19. Feb - [48]

Reported by: mkrohn 01:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • User:JonGwynne removes in all four versions completely the paragraph that starts with "If the only variable considered is ..."
  • The first three of his reverts are almost identical - the fourth is only a slight variation and he also removes the paragraph as mentioned before
  • User:JonGwynne has to my knowledge already violated the 3RR three times (the last time was only two days ago).
  • See also: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JonGwynne
  • mkrohn 01:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
the fourth is questionable (or would be for anyone else JonGwynne is clearly gameing the system). The user has an arbcom against them at this time if I block them they can't respondGeni 01:53, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Arb com have not yet accepted the case though. User:JonGwynne has been blocked for 24 hours under the 3RR ruleGeni 01:58, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Jesuswasanarab (talk · contributions) - Considering this person's choice of username and the fact that they uploaded the goatse image, I doubt they're up to anything good. -- Netoholic @ 05:31, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Seems like a prima facie case for an indefinite user block with an invitation to choose a more suitable name and participate in an acceptable manner. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I have just discovered Rienzo's open proxy - its CheeseDreams

Someone might care to take a look at [49] as well ( 09:59, 19 Feb 2005)

CheeseDreams AC injunction[edit]

Since CheeseDreams has chosen to make her password public, I, User:Jguk have gone in and changed it to prevent further damage being done. CheeseDreams 14:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me again. I have let the ArbCom know that I will make no further edits in the CheeseDreams accounts, and if they or Jimbo do want the password, I will send it to them, jguk 14:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. If the account can still be used to edit, then it must not be banned, right? So how can this be justified? Everyking 15:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I blocked all the socks and the main account as imminent dangers - she basically gave away her password for plausible deniability. Cheers to Jguk for being on the ball. The arbcom is currently voting on a temp injunction on the matter - basically, she'll be banned for the moment and can communicate via email to user:Sannse - David Gerard 15:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That isn't the reason I gave up my password - think about it; I knew that it would be quickly blocked (I had expected it to be more rapid, but obviously you are slower and less observant than I had given credit for).

I gave Rienzo my password for two reasons; firstly I had no further need for it - my other accounts are quite happily editing unnoticed, especially since they have a quite different IP being from 1/2 way accross the world; secondly, I thought it amusing to undermine Rienzo's continual use of sockpuppets with varations on the theme of "CheeseDreams", by giving him all of the said accounts, whilst I use.

I had planned for this event pretty much since the beginning - which is why I made all the sock puppets obvious, and using the same password - it saves me effort by having them all blocked when I release the password of just one of them. The only reason to continue CheeseDreams, is to tidy up loose ends. Everything is, surprisingly, going to plan, and apart from the fact that I am going to have to run last nights observations again today due to an inconvenient bird, and the fact that george's arm is in plaster so he can't do much typing, I'm quite happy with the situation.

To be honest, I am surprised you haven't worked any of this out, but then, if a fundamentalist had any intellect they would realise how fatally flawed fundamentalism is. Nethertheless, it amuses me watching you seeking to supress truth you are too frightened to face or attempt serious argument against. Rienzo just amuses me full-stop. I also find it amusing watching you seek to try to exert some kind of authority over me.

My name is legion. ( 23:31, 24 Feb 2005)

CD is now injuncted against any further edits under any name - she is able to communicate with the AC via email to user:Sannse.

Any sockpuppet accounts are immediately blockable under the injunction; any impersonation accounts would be infinitely blockable as impersonations.


  1. Cheese
  2. Cheese -dreams
  3. Cheese Dreams
  4. Cheese balls
  5. Cheese dreams
  6. Cheese- dreams
  7. Cheese-Dreams
  8. Cheese-dreams
  9. Cheese111
  10. CheeseDreams
  11. CheeseDreems
  12. Cheeseball
  13. CheeseburgerBlue
  14. Cheesecake
  15. Cheesechick
  16. Cheesedreams
  17. Cheeseface
  18. Cheesegoduk
  19. Cheesekidq
  20. Cheesemonkey
  21. Cheesepuff1728
  22. Cheeseus
  23. Cheesewrath27
  24. Cheesey
  25. CheeseyDreams
  26. Cheesy
  27. Cheesy Monkey
  28. Cheesy UK
  29. Cheesy.mike
  30. Cheesydish
  31. Cheesydreams
  32. Cheesylake
  33. Cheesyman04
  34. CheezDreams
  35. Cheezdragon
  36. Cheezewgn
  37. Cheezewiz
  38. Cheezles
  39. Cheezycrust
  40. Cheezydee
  41. Cheezyq

(List from Special:Listusers) - David Gerard 16:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(To be honest hardly any of these are CheeseDreams, most are Rienzo). ( 23:31, 24 Feb 2005)

Willy on wheels back[edit]

He's back as User:Captin Fucko can someone help undo the page moves please. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm not used to cleaning up this junk. I've moved back just a few and I'm already starting to get overworked. More help is appreciated. Mgm|(talk) 14:50, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Seems to be all done now. --Conti| 15:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Did someone save a copy of Special:Contributions/Captin Fucko anywhere, before people started undoing the moves? If the resultant redirects haven't been already ditched, I'll do that part. Noel (talk) 15:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I found a whole flock at Special:Contributions/Xezbeth again; I'll do these. Drop off a pointer to any other location of a list of them, and I'll do those too. Noel (talk) 15:46, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Special:Newpages doesn't show any of them anymore, seems to be done. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:49, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
No, I meant the redirects. Some ordinary editors have been helping undo the moves, and they have to leave the redirects. Noel (talk) 16:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ok, this guy (gal?) is getting annoying. If i am correct, Wikimedia software has the feature to require a min number of edits before receiving permission to move pages. Currently this is set to 0. IMHO, this requirement should be increased, the sooner the better. I have started a vote proposal on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Min edit count, any comments are welcome on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count. Also, if a developer thinks the increase can be done without a vote, please go ahead. -- Chris 73 Talk 15:36, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
The other thing we could do is limit people to 5 minutes between moves if they have less than 2000 edits, or something. No new user should be doing lots of moves anyway, so the rate-limit on them shouldn't be a problem. Noel (talk) 16:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Me, I'm not sure why moving pages should be a generally permitted action. The potential for abuse, as we've seen, far outweighs (at least on Wikipedia) any positive effects. Other than archiving (which can be done other ways), in what way is allowing (say) non-admins to move pages desirable? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
some moves are trivial and useful (misspelled titles). But I agree that a (short) time limit between moves and/or a (low) threshold of edits required would do no harm. dab () 16:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I support any of the above solutions. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:17, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Me too. With normal vandalism admins are at a distinct advantage over the vandal because of the rollback feature which allows us to undo with one click what a vandal took at least two. With page move vandalism the opposite is true, we have to delete the orginal page, move the page back then delete the redirect. We rally do need to tip the balance back in the good guys favour. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:31, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I favour the solution to make rollback work on page moves. The page would automatically be moved back and the redirect deleted. That's IMO better than restricting the rights of normal users. --Conti| 18:34, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know that was possible. Yes that would be a much better solution. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Like the other solution, it's not possible yet. A developer has to implement that into the software. I think the request has already been made, but I'm not sure about that. --Conti| 18:56, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
I filed a bug report for that actually... -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Creating a redirect called A with the summary "A moved to B" is indistinguishable from moving page A to B. So a vandal could create redirects to articles, and sysops who use rollback will move the page over the redirect and do the vandal's work for him. Goplat 16:13, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's indistinguishable in the edit history, but I'm certain the software can keep track of which are real page moves and which are redirects. --Carnildo 22:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Min edit count, so the commenst are in one place. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 00:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Bahá'u'lláh. hist

Optional: Insertion of material; Not done by the user in question.

At this point the editor in question reverts a differen't section of text [52]

Reported by: Geni 18:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • Are we going for some kind of record of slowest responce time here? Geni 16:01, 21 Feb 2005
hello?Geni 22:45, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
wavesGeni 13:25, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
um ... yes ... uh ... hello? .. aaahh.. Clear case of 4 reverts within 24 hours, blocking is justified. The incident was 5 days ago, but was ignored due to a downed server and an non-functioning watchlist. I am a bit hesitant to block after 5 days, but would support it if you want to block him. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:07, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)


There have been reports on the mailing list that the IP addresses that get blocked when we block User:JonGwynne are to a major British portal. Should we unblock those IDs when they show up on the list of blocked IPs as being the same as JonGwynne's? RickK 23:32, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I tried to do this last time but the IP was not used untill after I went to bed (understanderble since the block was carried out in the early hours of the morning UK timeGeni 23:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashlee Simpson dispute[edit]

I was poking around some SNL pages and found Everyking has gotten into another Ashlee Simpson revert war on History of SNL:2000-2010. This breaks the Arbcom's parole conditions (no reverting of Ashlee). Luigi30 03:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can revert just like anybody else on those articles. They aren't directly related to Ashlee. Everyking 03:07, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They are when what you're reverting is the paragraph on the Ashlee Simpson lip-syncing incident. --Carnildo 03:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's Ashlee Simpson-related, and since the nut of the issue in your ArbCom case was your over-the-top behavior of zealously vetting All Things Ashlee, it's arguably relevant, though up to the admins enforcing the ArbCom ruling to decide how relevant.
And as long as the admins are considering that one, I'll toss in October 24 for further consideration, where Everyking is also reverting mention of Ashlee Simpson lip-synching incident. A sense-of-the-adminstrators poll, guideline, or ruling as to what constitutes "Ashlee Simpson-related articles" would be appreciated for future reference, or will ArbCom have to clarify their ruling? --Calton 03:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Will you tell me I can't revert the article Earth because Ashlee is an earthling? I do not interpret the ruling that way. It referred to Ashlee Simpson-related articles, which I take to mean articles based fundamentally on something related to Ashlee. It doesn't refer to all Ashlee-related content within articles, such as a mention as a notable date on October 24. Everyking 03:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From the ArbCom ruling:
2.2) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.
My reading of that is that you are prohibited from reverting any article in which Ashlee Simpson is referred to. This means no reverts to History of SNL:2000-2010, no reverts to October 24, and for that matter, no reverts to Red Bull (there used to be a "trivia" section stating that Ashlee Simpson liked Red Bull). On the other hand, you can revert Earth to your heart's content (within the limits of the 3RR, of course). --Carnildo 04:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, I would emphatically reject such an interpretation. An Ashlee-related article is one which fundamentally related to Ashlee, not one which may contain one Ashlee-related detail amidst a bunch of unrelated info. Everyking 04:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is clearly a violation of remedy 2.2 in Everyking's arbitration, and only an intentional misreading would lead one to believe otherwise. You should know better by now. Rhobite 04:51, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
I would say that the spirit of the ruling decrees that Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles which are directly related to Ashlee Simpson, as well as any Ashlee Simpson-related material in any articles which are not directly related to Ashlee Simpson. This is definitely a deliberate violation of the arbcom ruling. Everyking would like people to forget exactly why such harsh measures were applied to him. silsor 04:54, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Apparently our interpretations differ. There ought to be some sort of clarification from the committee, then. I should not be blocked for anything done thus far when my interpretation of the ruling is an entirely logical one. Everyking 05:00, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid there would be a conflict of interest in allowing you to dictate the terms of your own parole. silsor 08:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
That's for the ArbCom to do, not me. Everyking 09:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If the sentence you were reverting on Earth were "Ashlee Simpson lives on Earth" (disregard the fact that that is unencyclopedic), then yes, you would be blocked for reverting it. silsor 04:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

The parole is against reverting "articles related to Ashlee Simpson". As a matter of proper English construction that means that there needs to be a close relationship between the article topic and Ashlee Simpson. A mere mention of Simpson does not make an article "related" to Simpson. Just as a mention of, say, a trip by George W Bush to Europe would not make the George W Bush article Europe-related. If the ArbCom meant to say Everyking shouldn't revert material relating to Ashlee Simpson, then they should have come out and said it. But they didn't, they said reverting Ashlee Simpson-related articles - and the Community should, IMO, enforce what the ArbCom actually said, and nothing else, jguk 09:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where does the arbcom ruling say "closely related to Ashlee Simpson"? It says, "related to Ashlee Simpson", period. It's very clear what they meant, and your interpetation is not compatible with Everyking's parole. RickK 09:25, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
To be precise the Arbcom ruling was that Everyking is "...prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson..." (my emphasis). If they had meant "material", they would have said it.
Whilst the ArbCom remedy is clearly restricted to "articles relating to Ashlee Simpson" and we shouldn't give this phrase a wider meaning than it does in everyday English, it is also clear that Everyking would be well-advised to think very carefully about reverting Ashlee Simpson material - perhaps even to the extent of not doing so, but leaving a message on the talk page to invite other readers to do so. The ArbCom noted that "Everyking, outside of edits concerning Ashlee Simpson, is generally considered by the community to be an excellent editor", and Everyking would do well to reflect on that, jguk 09:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Two points:
1) I think you're splitting hairs regarding "articles relating to Ashlee Simpson": an article which includes information specifically referring to Ashlee Simpson automatically and immediately by the inclusion of said information becomes an article relating to Ashlee Simpson (as compared to, as Everyking tried to fudge it with his Earth example, merely having Ashlee Simpson as part of its category). As an imperfect analogy, note CheeseDream's restrictions on editing Christianity-related articles -- and the claim that such restrictions don't apply to CheeseDreams editing articles on Jesus himself (or Himself, if you prefer). Obviously absurd, and similiar to the argument being floated here.
1a) Everyking himself, in his defense of his actions, said They aren't directly related to Ashlee (emphasis mine), meaning he does consider them to be related to Ashlee Simpson, just not directly. However, the ruling doesn't make the fine distinction Everyking puts on it (articles relating to Ashlee Simpson), so by Everyking's own intepretation he violated the ruling and he knows it.
2) Ultimately, though, my arguments in #1 & 1a are moot except as a rebuttal to jguk and an interpretation of the mindset of Everyking: as far as interpreting the letter of the ruling and making arguments based on that -- well, it's pretty pointless, since in the American legal system, at least, appeals courts all the way up to the US Supreme Court level frequently attempt to divine the intent of the legislature(s) in ambiguous cases of interpretation. In those cases, courts have to rely upon records of the debate, etc. Here, we just have to ask the ArbCom people who voted what they intended. Period. --Calton 10:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
British courts too look at the intention of ambiguous legislation. However, where there is no ambiguity, they have no choice but to go with the words that are written. There is no ambiguity here. Similarly, CheeseDreams was correct in asserting that the article on "Jesus" was not Christianity-related. This is a simple case of English construction. I do not see how the words of the ArbCom used in their ordinary meanings can be interpreted as widely as you say they should be.
Now I accept the problem here may be in badly worded decisions from the ArbCom (I'm afraid that the new Arbitrators, whilst having many qualities, and whilst having sped up the process, tend to be somewhat imprecise with their wording of remedies). Maybe the ArbCom did mean the parole to refer to reverting all Ashlee Simpson-related material. I can certainly see that such a parole would have been consistent with the findings of fact (and would certainly, IMO, have been a better remedy than the one that passed). But it's not up to you or me to change the wording of the remedies: this remedy is clear - and it is clear that Everyking's interpretation of the remedy as worded by the ArbCom is correct, jguk 11:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You realize that the third sentence of your first paragraph is immediately contradicted by the first sentence of your second paragraph? (There is no ambiguity here versus Now I accept the problem here may be in badly worded decisions from the ArbCom). Also, by the fact we're having this argument, I maintain that [t]here is no ambiguity here is a priori false, and you're attempting to handwave around the issues to avoid ArbCom actually clarify the issue? If it's as clearcut as you say, then the ArbCom members will agree with and there was no harm in asking them; if not, then you were wrong on the claimed unambiguity and on your interpretation. --Calton 11:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. The remedy is clearly worded - so should be interpreted literally without recourse to the Arbitrators' intentions. I thought we were agreed on this point.
The Arbitrators may have intended the revert parole to refer to Ashlee Simpson-related material, rather than articles, but that is conjecture on my part. I should add that we who are not mindreaders should not block a user based on our conjectures. Nor should we look to overextend the parole, just because we might have decided the matter differently. Certainly I see Carnildo's reading of that is that Everyking is "prohibited from reverting any article in which Ashlee Simpson is referred to", which is incredibly wide - and would mean that Everyking could break his revert parole by reverting material that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Simpson, but happened to be in an article mentioning Simpson elsewhere, jguk 13:43, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking#Clarification_requested. silsor 10:32, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Following arbitrator David Gerard's advice on the RfAr talk page, I have made a formal request for clarification. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The arbcom left it open for sysops' interpretations as to whether or not Everyking is violating his parole. If a sysop feels that he has done so in an article which does not have "Ashlee Simpson" in the title, that is in accord with the arbcom ruling. RickK 20:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
As I recall, the ruling only said that what constitutes a revert is open to admin interpretation, which is a different matter. Everyking 20:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Everyking is right. ArbCom would not declare open season on an editor, and they would not react well to evidence (which I will gather if it's available) that admins were exceeding their powers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Arbcom may hear this as a group and come to a different conclusion than I do. For me the operant language in our ruling is "What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion." So if an administrator feels that Everyking has reverted an article related to Ashlee Simpson, then the 3RR penalty applies. Fred Bauder 22:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed they may. As a point of construction, what is left to adminstrators' discretion is whether any edit is a revert. Determining what constitutes an Ashlee Simpson-related article is not left to adminsitrators' discretion - and neither should it be, as what constitutes an Ashlee Simpson-related article is a matter of fact, jguk 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, the essence of the decision is: Quit messing around regarding Ashlee Simpson. Fred Bauder 01:57, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Well, for that matter, you might as well issue rulings that I'm not allowed to chew tobacco, print counterfeit money, or import endangered animals. A statement like this makes me wonder how seriously the ArbCom considered the case in the first place. Everyking 02:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We considered the matter very carefully, the questions you mention did not come up but revert wars over Ashlee Simpson certainly did. Fred Bauder 02:11, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't consider that messing around. I was restoring wrongfully deleted content while making every attempt to compromise on the various issues. How can that be messing around? Everyking 02:15, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You were doing the exact sort of behaviour the arbom condemened you before on a set of articles outside the scope of the exact wording of the original ruling. Until the arbcom clarifies their meaning, technically you're in the right, but it's a sad thing when you can't even claim the moral high ground. Why do you always have to abide by the letter and not spirit of the law? Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If you are an admin, and you feel that Everyking is reverting an "Ashlee Simpson or Ashlee Simpson related article" as defined in the clarification response, then you are allowed to block him for 3RR (According to the arbitration: What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion). If you are not an admin, and feel the same, then bring this to an admin's attention so that the admins can apply the admin's discretion, either way, to the matter at hand. Thus, any actions by Everyking that are reverts can be punished, while actions that are not, won't. --Deathphoenix 16:21, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Uh, no, if the admin's discretion is wrong, then actions that are not reverts will be "punished". And so far, every time an admin has blocked me they have done so wrongfully. So clearly there is some sort of problem that needs to be addressed. I would say that the problem is leaving the matter to admins' discretion when there are several admins who loathe me and will block me on the slightest pretext. That other admins might feel differently does me no good, because it only takes one. Everyking 18:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If you feel they are in the wrong, you can always complain to the arbcom. There is no harm in being right. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Everyking cannot revert Ashlee Simpson-related articles, not Ashlee Simpson-related material. There is a clear difference. What constitutes a revert of an article is open to interpretation, but following the scope of the ruling, if the revert is not on an Ashlee Simpson-related article, there is nothing to discuss. Johnleemk | Talk 11:11, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, if that's the problem, you've got few options, IMO. The arbitration committee ruling clearly states admin's discretion. That's the letter of the law as handed down by the committee, and the letter clearly allows any and all admins to block you if they believe you did a revert. If you feel that an admin is abusing their power by blocking you wrongfully because of a personal vendetta against you, you can still go through the dispute resolution process against that blocking admin. Your opinions may be biased, as may the opinions of the blocking admin, but the dispute resolution process can bring in neutral/outside people who can provide an opinion on matters. --Deathphoenix 19:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't imagine dispute resolution would get me very far with RickK. He doesn't seem to be a "resolution" kind of guy. Everyking 19:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think RickK is on the arbitration committee; if you make a request for comment, he's just one voice (or you can ask that he not be involved); and if you make a request for mediation, you can specifically ask that RickK not be involved. In addition, if you feel that RickK is abusing his powers of adminship (or doing anything else wrong), you can also specifically ask for a dispute resolution regarding *his* behaviour. There are plenty of people out there who can look at an Everyking vs. RickK dispute without being biased either way. The arbitration committee's ruling is quite explicit about all admins using their discretion, not just the ones that you don't have a beef with, so you're going to have to go through normal dispute resolution procedures with this, IMO. --Deathphoenix 19:48, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Senkaku Islands stolen?[edit]

User:Mdeering ("Matt", new today) seems to not like the names of some islands; he moved Senkaku Islands to Contested East China Sea Islands and seems to be "fixing" everything related. See: contribs. Davenbelle 07:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm reverting what I can, but he's listed a number of redirects for speedy deletion, so some of them may have been deleted before I got there, and I'd rather let an admin undo any page moves. --Carnildo 08:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I will join you then. Davenbelle 08:19, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Update: An admin is going to need to be the one undoing the page moves, since he put a "speedy" tag on the redirect. --Carnildo 08:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks like everything's back the way it should be. --Carnildo 08:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We seem to have gotten them all; I'll review again; I did the Senkaku Islands page -- went back two removing the del tag and the redirect before that; he and whatever anon (him?) did the move on Diaoyutai Islands which had not much history. Thanks for your help. (and confimation that this fur-sur needed doing.) Davenbelle 08:40, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
The deletion log doesn't show anything that would have been from this batch, so it looks like everything's clean. --Carnildo 08:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne (yet again)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Union of Concerned Scientists. hist

There are only three reverts there. William is lying (again).--JonGwynne 23:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The one at 23:01 is a simple edit. Please verify that fact.--JonGwynne 23:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 23:29, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Note that there are two edits by JG at 23:01. The one I've marked is the reversion.
This is the third time I have been the subject of deceptive claims of 3RR. Only one of my bans was deserved. The one reported by Marco. That one was legit. The others were the result of misrepresentations of the record.--JonGwynne 23:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 23:21, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That should read "Reported falsely" --JonGwynne 23:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • In all case the edits revert the inclusion of The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development, and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.[55] in the article text.
That's not true. Three were reverts and the fourth (the one at 23:01) was a simple edit.--JonGwynne 23:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that JG was blocked for 3RR on the 19th - see just above. He also has an RFA awaiting him, but seems to be disinclined to answer it.
  • I care not whether JonGwynne has violated the 3RR, but I am forced by my ISP to use the same transparent proxy, so would admins please stop blocking it? Thanks. - Jakew 23:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about this Jake. I'm the subject of a witch-hunt here. A handful of people don't like what I have to say so they complain about it incessantly. --JonGwynne 23:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
not a 3RR vio. However in future JonGwynne I would apriciate it if you showed at least some confidence in admins ability to make descisions and kept personal attacks off this page. We are aware of the IP problem and are trying to find ways to deal with itGeni 23:55, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I apologize. In response to your comment, I have modified my original language. I hope the new version meets with your approval. Please don't take this the wrong way but since I have been banned in the past based on false allegations of 3RR, my faith in the ability of admins is somewhat compromized. I thank you for your care on this occasion and hope that it is indicative of future handling of situations like this. May I suggest that WMC be banned for 24 hours for willfully and deliberately filing a false complaint? Perhaps this will discourage such conduct in future. Thanks again. --JonGwynne 00:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Administrators do not have the powers to do that and even if we did I would not. If you wish to object to Being blocked you can email the admin involved or the wiken-I mailing listGeni 00:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I e-mailed the admins in the previous cases and there was no response. I am disappointed to learn that you have no policy to punish people who abuse the system and no interest in doing so even if there was such a policy. --JonGwynne 00:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 00:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)) I don't understand why this isn't 3RR. All 4 edits remove the same piece of text.
the first edit din't revert to anything though so you have an orginal change +3 reverts Geni 00:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I also fail to see why this should not be a violation of the 3RR rule. In all four the following text was modified (removed/added):

  • "based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States"
  • "The following is a statement from the UCS website:<br> + - ''The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development, and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.''[]"
  • "Though, only a few of the Nobel Laureates in question have expertise in environmental science." (added)
  • "Wiesel won his Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for studying how sensory deprivation affects the development of the visual system in kittens, a discovery that had a great impact on the study of sensory systems." (added)

Judging from this >90% of the changes were done in every of the above cited edits. best regards -- mkrohn 00:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You mean except for the 23:01 edit, right?--JonGwynne 00:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
O.k. point taken. 17:28 was not a revert as it seems? -- mkrohn 00:33, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
this statement is correctGeni 01:03, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget, 23:01 wasn't a revert either.--JonGwynne 02:23, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I rather object here. The edit/revert of 17:28 [56] simply wiped out virtually all of my edits of 19 Feb. plus a bit more with only minor addition of anything. Looks like a complex revert to me. Compare my edits of 19 Feb. here combined [57]. The changes I made on the 19th were apparently mainly affecting previous edits by JG. Also, the 23:01 (the first of two simultaneous edits) referred to by WMC was a labeled revert. JGs "Don't forget" comment above is misleading and evidence of attempting to confuse and subvert the system. -Vsmith 02:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am agreeing with Vsmith here, all 4 edits are reverts, including 17:28 and most definitely 23:01! I also really don't like JonGwynne's misleading and confusing comments, especially writing between the lines of other users comments [58]. This makes the whole discussion hard to read and difficult to follow. About the 3RR: I would support a block of JonGwynne for this 3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
I admit it is boarderline particularly with JonGwynne's history of gameing the system however are a fair number if differences in what was suggested to be the first revert[59] it was also the first time JonGwynne had edited that articleGeni 04:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not quite. JonGwynne made 3 edits on Feb 8 & 9. It was mainly the content of these three edits that I found objectionable and modified on the 19th and to which JonGwynne basically reverted to with edit #1 above (17:28) -Vsmith 04:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Curps (II)[edit]

This user has been reverting all of my work without explantion. He has broken the three revert rule on several articles, including History of the United States (1988-present). I will no longer revert these articles, in order to abide by this rule. But I don't think that it is fair for this user to have an advantage from not playing by the rules just because he's an admin. GSherman 09:20, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Three revert rule again. It applies to more than three reverts, and I have only done three. It is not correct to say this has been "without explanation" since you and I have exchanged multiple messages on our talk pages. I am not using any admin powers against you, I am just editing like you. -- Curps 09:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You yourself have now violated the 3RR on History of the United States (1988-present). However there is an odd glitch in the history of that page at 8:51–8:52, showing your edit after mine for some reason. Since this is indeed confusing, I'm not calling for you to be blocked for this, although you should have kept track of the number of edits you made. Contrary to your suspicions, admins cannot manipulate a page's history in this way to change the ordering of edits, but delays between multiple servers might be responsible. -- Curps 09:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Curps is clean on History of the United States (1988-present), with only three reverts. You on the other hand have four reverts. Only a software bug mixing up the edits saved your neck. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:18, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
Nice acusation but the history is more consistant with double saving due to slow software than some new bugGeni 14:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Move vandalism, can an admin block & rollback? Jordi· 09:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done, mostly. It seems we lost Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR in the process, though. It may have been moved over Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, but I am not sure -- Chris 73 Talk 09:52, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
It seems, Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard with pelican shit/3RR/ was moved to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, not to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. But the current talk page looks like the right one to me. I am confused ?!? -- Chris 73 Talk 10:01, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
You're confused because the original Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR (created Feb 2) was simply a redirect to Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard (and now is again). Perhaps you mistook this pre-existing redirect for one of the vandal's moves. -- Curps 10:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Phew! For a moment there I really thought we messed up the edit history. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 10:28, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


I am THISCLOSE to blocking this guy, but I'm going to refrain. Could someone neutral take him in hand and get him to quit making personal attacks on me with no evidence to justify his attacks? RickK 23:31, Feb 22, 2005 (UTC)

With these attacks, I don't blame you. Did this guy attack you anywhere else apart from your talk page (which is bad enough)? Having user contributions disabled for server recovery is annoying. --Deathphoenix 00:14, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, he's accusing me of racism and POV listing of a VfD on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/La Shawn Barber. But note that the edits he made to my Talk page stemmed from the first one I made on HIS Talk page : [64]. RickK 00:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I sent him a polite note suggesting that he stay cool and let the VfD decide on the article matter. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail, but if not, an admin will have to take over. --Deathphoenix 00:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He blanked my message with the edit summary of (removed old message), but he hasn't made any personal attacks since then, so he probably got the point. --Deathphoenix 02:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Help needed in blocking anonymiser proxies[edit]

A bit of detective work by myself and others on the IP of the Nazi troll who has been around for the past week or so reveals him coming from the Tor network. This network consists of loads of proxy machines which hide the true IP of anyone who uses Tor. Every one of these proxies will need to be blocked!(All 117 of them) Please help. Put {{BlockedProxy}} as the reason for the block and indefinite as the duration of the block. Come back here and delete the ones that you blocked from this list so that people wont waste their time blocking already blocked machines. Thanks (NB I know I'm stating the obvious here, but the IP that you block is the last 4 blocks of digits. The leftmost number is not part of the IP adress it's just the number of that IP in this list)Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:48, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  1. This one was blocked by Fvw on Jan 22. I assume it's still blocked? It isn't obvious how Special:Ipblocklist works.
I'm afraid we cannot block these indefinitely any more than normal vandals. We have to figure out which ones are evanescent dial-up IPs. We really do need dynamic blocking of open proxies (*and* unblocking of ex-open-proxies) :o( dab () 17:17, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well the rest that were on the list are blocked indefinitely for now. We'll have to decide to unblock them as the need arises. - Taxman 18:53, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Bblackmoor proxy editing[edit]

This user has posted a page on his blog detailing "cheat sheet" instructions on how to auto-revert any changes made to page Open gaming (see Talk) (i.e. create account, create user, log in, go to this URL, click edit, copy-and-paste a comment and hit enter, etc.[65]) - in other words, proxy editing[66]. All changes I make have been auto-reverted by Bblackmor and random users following BBlackmoor's instructions, or sock puppets[67] [68] [69] [70] [71] potentially breaking the 3RR (if one considers proxy editors to be sock puppets). Can anything be done about this?

Apologies for not reporting this earlier, but I was searching for some confirmation that actual wrongdoing took place and then the site went down, so this has been the earliest opportunity. --Axon 11:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to a ruling by the ArbCom (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2) proxy editors are considered sock puppets for 3RR and other purposes. ( 23:47, 24 Feb 2005)
There are a few options: You can have him blocked, easiest is probably a temporary block for a 3RR, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. You can also request page protection on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If he is repeatedly adding a spam link to a site, you may request to have the link added to meta:Spam blacklist on meta:Talk:Spam blacklist. If the link is on the spam list, a page containing spam cannot be saved anymore. For this the link would have to be spam, though. Just some ideas.-- Chris 73 Talk 02:57, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
If you think it is possible, I will try for a 3RR block. The link he is adding to Open Gaming is not a spam link, although it is a self-post to his own blog so I'm not sure if it qualifies as spam. Given the above, would a 3RR block be possible? Would it also be possible to block the proxy editor accoutns as well? --Axon 10:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if the proxy accounts turn out to be Wikipedia:Sock-puppets, yes they could be blocked for that. But if they are real, independent people, they could only be blocked if they violated the rules. (And of course we will only find out which accounts are proxy editor accounts once they actually edit that article.) Noel (talk) 13:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was told by User:Carnildo, who admittedly may not be an admin, that there was a precedent for the above and that the proxy editors could be considered to be proxy edits on behalf of BBlackmoor[72]. Surely, the above behaviour goes against the spirit of Wikipedia? Any clarification would be helpful, but I have now created a 3RR incident for this so I hope I'm not wasting people's time. --Axon 13:32, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
True, I'm not an admin. If I was, I would have already given a collective 3RR block to the offending parties. I was just remembering the CheeseDreams/Tigermoon saga, where it was determined that, since Tigermoon was editing at the specific direction of CheeseDreams, it should be treated as if Tigermoon was CheeseDreams. --Carnildo 18:33, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Right, what I meant was that if an account was a true sock-puppet, it could be blocked indefinitely, simply for being a sock (intended to avoid policy), and we wouldn't have to worry about it again; but if it were a proxy (i.e. another real person), all that happens is that the proxy gets counted in with the original user for 3RR violations, i.e. you'd have to keep an eye on them. Noel (talk) 14:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've tried to add a comment the blog, but with no success. If anyone sees this happening, I would advise adding the article being edited to WP:VIP, because that is what it is. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


ArbCom violation on October 24. hist

ArbCom just clarified what they meant by their restriction on Everyking reverting "Ashlee Simpson-related articles", and Everyking is certainly aware of it.

Reported by: Calton 18:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two points. One, Everyking would be well advised to steer clear of editing anything to do with Ashlee Simpson. Two, Carlton would be well advised to stop getting into edits wars with and goading Everyking. Both users are disrupting Wikipedia. Please, both of you, stop! jguk 19:28, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Three points. One, my name is Calton, as it plainly says in my signature: not "Carlton" and not "calt", and you would be well advised to read before responding. Two, Everyking is enjoined from any reversion at all of any Ashlee Simpson-related articles-- any of them, no matter how many hairs you, jguk, split over the meaning of the phrase -- and he had THREE bites of that apple before I reported him here. This is because of his behavior, and if there's an edit war going on, it's Everyking versus the World. Three, your posts indicate that you fundamentally misunderstand the issues involved, so you would be well advised to butt out of things you don't understand. --Calton 23:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
but he isn't banned from repeated editing of an article. You could argue that is is a complex revert but I don't think it is. The disputed passage has been taken out of the article now anyway Geni 23:53, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He deleted the entry several times before the ArbCom clarification, and once that came down, he kept reverting the entry to his version of events. Yes, the last few have not been simple "click-here-to-edit-the-old-version" reverts, but reversions they've been. It boils down to Everyking having a version that satisfies him -- and only him -- and that's explicitly not allowed. Calton 23:59, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Someone else appears to have wipped it. I dislike blocking people for complexs edits and only do so if I'm really sure Geni 12:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Three revert rule violation on Open gaming. hist

Reported by: Axon 13:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


  • User:Bblackmoor has posted a page on his blog detailing "cheat sheet" instructions[73] on how to auto-revert any changes made to page Open gaming (see Talk) (i.e. create account, create user, log in, go to this URL, click edit, copy-and-paste a comment and hit enter, etc.). I believe this is a form proxy editing[74]. All changes I make have been auto-reverted by Bblackmoor and the following random users following BBlackmoor's precise instructions (or sock puppets): User:Xxjimmyjamxx, User:Ptylersmith, User:Maglibra. If it is possible, I would like a block on all these accounts. --Axon 13:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Apologies for not reporting this earlier, but I was searching for some confirmation that actual wrongdoing took place and then the site went down, so this has been the earliest opportunity. --Axon 13:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think people might be reluctant to block for something that happened 4 days ago, even though Wikipedia has been down/slow since then. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I appreciate that the delay may cause some concern. My only fear is that proxy edit reverts will restart as soon as I start editing the article. Could I just clarify that a block would have been carried out if not for the delay? --Axon 21:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Revert 1 is under a different login, so that would need proof of sockpuppetry first, but the other 4 edits look like reverts to me. Otherwise agree with Jayjig. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:41, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
          • "Proof of sock-puppetry" (or rather, of editing by proxy) is at the other end of that link, and was discussed at /incidents. Guettarda 22:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
            • User blocked for 12 hours. Using proxies to get around the three revert rule is something we seriously want to discourage. Normaly I probably would have left this.Geni 03:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More open proxys[edit]

I am an open proxy based in China, found care of an open proxy search engine - [75]

My first edits were for User:CheeseDreams (whose account has since been taken over by User:Rienzo).

I should be permanently blocked. ( 23:47, 24 Feb 2005)

I am most curious about why Jayjg doesn't want anyone to know (he reverted my mentioning it) this exists. ( 00:02, 25 Feb 2005)