Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: April 18, 2005 - April 21, 2005

Contents 1 User:Danny 2 Move wars 3 User:Chriscf 4 Kenneth Montgomery Keillor 5 User:TDC 6 Key 7 Paul Vogel back again 7.1 Could this be another Paul Vogel sockpuppet? 8 User:Georgia guy & User:Gulielmus Cumrotae 9 User:GRider 9.1 Everyking's user space 9.2 ArbCom clarification 10 User:DG/User:207.99.6.125 & User:LevelCheck 11 User:Christiaan 12 Blocked from a Talk page? 13 User:Slrubenstein 13.1 Alert 14 User:Fish Supper 15 "Possible identity theft" 16 Posible sock of user CheeseDreams 17 User:John Gohde 18 User:212.219.149.121 and User:217.43.73.105 19 Vandal - User:Denni 20 Supreme Leader of Iran 21 Copyvio images at Pope Benedict XVI 22 User:192.104.181.227 and User:192.104.181.229 23 Username BJAODN 24 Talk page spamming? 25 Image:WikiThanks.png 26 User:69.217.126.180 27 User:JonGwynne 28 Patrick Reynolds, anti-Semite 29 User:24.30.67.158 30 User:SimonP 31 Everyking's user space, part 2 32 User:¸ 33 User:William M. Connolley 34 User:Coolcat 35 Baffling blocking 36 User:Multihunter Tame 37 User:TonyMarvin 38 User:66.90.150.85 39 200.30.222.170 40 Ken Bogan again 41 Improper page protection 42 User:Kelly_Martin

[edit] User:Danny

Danny has taken it upon himself to unilaterally delete a large quantity of content from Edmeston, New York that was broken out into separate pages (see the deletion log). Danny came into IRC complaining that the pages were a violation of the goals of the project because he believes that they are an example of someone using wikipedia as a webhost. Despite disagreement from almost everyone involved, none of whom had any involvement with the creation of the articles, he simply started deleting them. I think they should be undeleted, and Danny should nominate them on VFD. There is valuable information there; it likely needs extensive refactoring and some should be ultimately moved to wikisource. --Gmaxwell 01:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

good for Danny. Those were collections of quotations, not articles. Even rewriting them into actual articles would, in all probability, constitute original research. But still, they should probably go through VfD. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can list them on Votes for undeletion. RickK 21:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

RickK and MIRV are missing the point. The question isn't whether User:Danny was factually wrong in his determination that the articles should be deleted. It is whether he violated due process by using his administrative powers to delete them with no opportunity for the creators or other interested users to comment on the appropriate WP:VFD or WP:RFD pages. As an analogy, if a police officer in the United States or most other Western countries is accused of police brutality, he cannot defend himself from that charge by claiming that the individuals whom he brutalized were criminals or that they deserved to be in prison. Be that as it may, the abuse of power is nonetheless unjustified. And so it is here. LevelCheck 03:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you feel that he has violated his admin powers then follow the dispute resolution process - Try his talk page, if that fails try RfC, the Mediation if apropriate, then if it absolutely comes to it take it to the ArbCom. The fewer steps in the process needed, the better for everyone. Thryduulf 00:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I hardly think that deleting information (which still exists, by the way, and can be brought back with a few mouse clicks) is comparable to brutalizing a citizen. (1) There is no "undo button" for police brutality: you can't heal the bruises, let alone the hurt feelings and the painful memory by any means whatsoever. (2) One case involves human beings and the actions of government officials; the other is just text in a volunteer project. I think that resorting to "due process" is a poor analogy. I've been here for 3.5 years, and nothing I've ever done at Wikipedia has been in accordance with (or in violation of) due process, because there are no courts or cops here: we're just volunteers writing articles. Get a grip, will ya? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:51, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Your casual indifference to the extent of the trauma and emotional scars left on the citizens of Edmeston, New York by that incident brings me to the very brink of aneurism. User:Danny's wonton disregard for the bitter anguish his wanton disregard for due process of wiki policy has wrought brings a chill to the very core of my being. What you may call "quotations" were the heartsongs of notable wikipedians who have bled their very souls into that page, who have typed their hands stiff to bring you their words of truth. How you could cheapen their grief and hardship at a time such as this must require a level of callousness beyond a sane mans ability to comprehend. May God have mercy, for I know no just man ever shall. Sam Spade 16:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dude, spare me the drama and just go off and have your stroke in private somewhere. "If they hang you, precious, by that sweet neck ..." -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:06, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hehehehe... don't worry, everything is safe @ wikisource.org/wiki/History_of_Edmeston. Sam Spade 20:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's humor, not drama. Sam's a very funny guy. 4.250.132.97 11:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Move wars

Between Liancourt rocks (former name), Liancourt rock, Dokto (its korean name) and perhaps with Takeshima. Now it can't be moved to the former name Liancourt rocks to which most of interlang links aim. In my personal opinion, the best but tentative solution would be that: once moved to the former place, protect from move and begin a RfC on its name. --Aphaea* 16:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chriscf

Three revert rule violation on User:GRider/Schoolwatch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Chriscf (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 03:21, 12 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:49, 12 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:40, 12 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 21:59, 12 Apr 2005

Reported by: GRider\^talk 19:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• On March 25, 2004, I initiated a project called Schoolwatch within my namespace for the purpose of constructively improving the quality of school-related articles. Since that time, a small group of rogue individuals have been attempting to vindictively disrupt this improvement process in a number of ways [1] -- Ways which include but are not limited to attempting to have the page moved [2], redirected, and even deleted. In the fairness of disclosure, please bare in mind that an arbitration case in my name has recently concluded, and User:Chriscf was quite vocal in bringing forth "evidence". With that said, school articles are just as valuable to the Wiki-project as any other topic, and the user in question should be dealt with as seen fit for intentionally disrupting the organic growth of Wikipedia and knowingly violating the three revert rule. --GRider\^talk 19:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• has there been a descission yet on if the 3RR applies to the user namespace?Geni 20:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Netoholic has been blocked for reverting on the wikipedia namespace, so that'd be a yes. BrokenSegue 22:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• true but if you dig through the arcives of AN/I and AN/3RR you find people repeatedly arguing that the 3RR does not apply to pages in the user namespaceGeni 22:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• This page is less a user page and more an evidence page or collaboration of some kind. It's similar to neutrality's evidence page which Netoholic messed with (and got blocked for). BrokenSegue 23:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It is in the user namespace and has not been deleted. Therefor it is a user pageGeni 14:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Is breaking the three revert rule permissible, so long as the violation is made within anothers userspace? --GRider\^talk 16:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That happened almost a week ago. Why are you reporting it now? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you so much for asking. As you may or may not be aware, my account was blocked from editing (7) days ago (18:23, 11 Apr 2005) for casting a vote for inclusion of a school-related article [3], a matter which will be addressed seperately. The 3RR was violated by Chriscf (6) days ago, less than 12 hours after my account was blocked. As far as I know, being blocked does not permit another user to vandalize pages of the blockee. --GRider\^talk 22:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Invalid report - this page is not an instrument of revenge. You also failed to notice this. It should also be noted that GRider's description of the page as a project for "constructively improving the quality of school-related articles" is not so much a misrepresentation as an outright lie. For a page which aims at "constructively improving the quality of school-related articles", it offers surprisingly little assistance in achieving that goal. It is nothing but a list of schools on VfD, hence it is a deletion-related page and therefore GRider has violated his ArbCom parole again. Chris talk back 00:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This is rather spurious. GRider claims that, since it is his userspace, his schoolwatch is exempt from normal policies such as Wikiquette, NPOV and WP:POINT. Yet he does want action to be taken against another user's legitimate contributions to his page. Radiant_* 12:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
• The 4 reverts did happen, I chose not to report it to this page and instead mentioned it to Chriscf on the talk page. I think that the infraction is valid, no matter what GRider might have done; two wrongs don't make a right. But after I mentioned it on the talkpage, Chriscf apologized there and took a break from editing the page. So although this infraction is valid, I think it was a mistake that should not be dealt with harshly, considering the apology and the desisting from further reverts. --BaronLarf 20:25, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do actually agree with you - policies such as 3RR should apply in userspace as well as mainspace. I find GRider's listing it here an act of hypocrisy, because he selectively wants to apply certain policies in his userspace, but not others. Radiant_* 09:56, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
• If User:Chriscf would be kind enough to apologize to me personally for "sleeping at the wheel" so to speak while repeatedly reverting a page within my userspace, I would gratefully accept his apology and offer my forgiveness. This report was made as a matter of formality to document the abusive actions made and prevent any sort of relapse. As to whether or not Schoolwatch is achieving its goal of improving the quality of school-related articles, a subject which is off topic for this noticeboard, please refer to User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Impact and redirect said discussion to that talk page. Thank you. --GRider\^talk 18:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Montgomery Keillor

This page has been wrongly deleted for supposed copyright violation. I provided permission for use of the image and text for the article to BC Bookworld. It is my copyrighted material. If you still have a problem with this, let me know and I will submit new material that I have permitted no one to use.

Kenneth Montgomery Keillor (70.69.206.159 20:41, 18 Apr 2005)

If you feel an article has been wrongly deleted then you need to bring this up at Wikipedia:Votes for Undeletion, which is where such discussions are held, rather than here. Thryduulf 21:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page was tagged as a pending delete after the listing period on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Where did you give permission, I don't see it anywhere? Leave a note on the talk page of the article (it is still there) identifying yourself as the copyright holder and that you made the submission under the GFDL, and let us know how we can contact you to verify. --Duk 21:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:TDC

Three revert rule violation on COINTELPRO (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

TDC (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:47 18 April
• 2nd revert: 19:31 18 April
• 3rd revert: 20:15 18 April
• 4th revert: 22:23 18 April
• 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=COINTELPRO&diff=0&oldid=12492578 23:43 18 April

Reported by: Viajero 20:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• According to this user's Talk page, he has been given 24 hour bans for violating the 3RR three on three previous occasions: 21 March, 22 March, and 3 April. Perhaps a stiffer sanction would be in order.

Can't find a version he has reverted to on the third revert.Geni 21:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nice way to try and trap me with a lefty pile on, too bad I am too smart for your tomfoolery. TDC 21:45, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok now I can this diff shows they are identical despite claims to the contry [4]Geni 22:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hoursGeni 22:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Key

Their is an edit war between Gulielmus Cumrotae (talk · contribs) and Georgia guy (talk · contribs) on the Key (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs), with Georgia Guy accusing Gulielmus Cumrotae of vandalism over a silly but valid edit wich he apperntly does not like, why does this akin to the Irate (talk · contribs) story reverting changes you dont like, both useres have also broken the 3rr. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This should go on either WP:RFPP or WP:AN3. silsor 22:13, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Vogel back again

I've just blocked 216.45.192.70 (talk · contribs) for a year, as it's been used to make all Paul Vogel's usual edits on all his favourite articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I lengthened the ban timer and listed the new IP address at User:Paul Vogel. — Dan | Talk 22:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My guess is that he probably isn't sitting around waiting for his ban to expire so he can play by the rules. Everyking 00:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? Are you suggesting I should have done something different? — Dan | Talk 02:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kind of. I was suggesting it was rather pointless. And if you really want to stretch my suggestion as far as it can go, I was suggesting that maybe we didn't take the right approach to dealing with Vogel in the first place. Everyking 03:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second guessing again? Well, from what I can tell about the case, you're right; he should have been banned much sooner, and the ban should have been permanent - no point in messing around with lengthening the ban timer every few weeks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, call it second-guessing; I think opinions and criticism are a good thing, so sue me. Everyking 03:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opinions, when informed, and criticism, when constructive, are valuable. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you think my opinions are uninformed and my criticism is not constructive. Well, you're right about the first, at least. But part of holding discussions about these matters is the idea of informing one another. Everyking 20:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to inform oneself before offering criticism. And if you weren't criticizing, but merely speculating that it was possible that Vogel hadn't been dealt with properly, then there's no value whatsoever in idle speculation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I'm gathering here is that you think the matter should not be discussed. Is that right, or am I wrong again? Everyking 22:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm suggesting you spend your time more fruitfully than in questioning every single ArbCom decision to ban someone without having any knowledge of the cases or experience with the individuals involved. I'm also suggesting that your newfound concern for the appropriateness of Arbcom decisions, and in particular your intimation that they are all far too harsh, will undoubtedly be seen by others as a back-door way of insinuating that you were treated unfairly by ArbCom, and therefore discounted. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I criticized punitive logic among the ArbCom before I ever got embroiled in any controversy, let alone got penalized for it. For example, when I ran for the ArbCom late last year, I made that my central point. I'll grant you that I feel more strongly about it now that I have myself been victimized, but my basic opinion has been consistent. Everyking 20:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, what you are saying is utterly stupid. ugen64 04:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ugen64, thanks for sharing. Don't let the fact that what I've suggested would happen has already happened sway you. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If by "utterly stupid" you mean "self-evidently true," then yes. Snowspinner 04:17, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Could this be another Paul Vogel sockpuppet?

66.194.40.3 (talk · contribs). RickK 23:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• I would say not. He seems too articulate and polite to be Vogel. The IP doesn't match any range that Vogel has used, either. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Georgia guy & User:Gulielmus Cumrotae

Three revert rule violation on Key (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Georgia guy (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [5]
• 2nd revert: [6]
• 3rd revert: [7]
• 4th revert: [8]
• 5th revert: [9]
• 6th revert: [10]
• 7th revert: [11]

Gulielmus Cumrotae (talk · contribs)

• 1st revert: [12]
• 2nd revert: [13]
• 3rd revert: [14]
• 4th revert: [15]
• 5th revert: [16]
• 6th revert: [17]

Reported by: Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: A silly rvert war of a term in this disamiguation. I do belive that the edits by Gulielmus Cumrotae were in good faith, and that the reversion of siad eidts by Georgia guy were not. In exmanation of both useres talk pages on the artilce their seems to be little if no dialog, though Georgia guy does accuse Gulielmus Cumrotae of vandalism, and Gulielmus Cumrotae does ask him to stop reverting his edits. Perhaps Georgia guy needs to read Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Assume good faith, also for all the vandalism that Georgia guy accuses that Gulielmus Cumrotae did to this article he never reported it to VIP but instead decied to engage in a edit war in which laned him here. Note: I have left mentions on both useres pages as to the reporting of this and have directed Gulielmus Cumrotae to consider a Request for Comment concering the actions of Georgia guy} if he wishes to dispute the reverts. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 22:39, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

both [blocked] for 24 hours Geni 22:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I left a message on Geni's talk page saying what my interpretation of Gulielmus Comrotae's vandalism derives from. Georgia guy 23:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:GRider

User:GRider has edited User:GRider/Schoolwatch, a collection of VfD links falsely claiming to be a project to "constructively improve" said articles. Instead of encouraging people to improve the articles, it encourages people to spam the VfD discussions with spurious "keep" votes. It also is notable for its lack of any tools useful in "constructively improving" articles. It is therefore deletion-related, and in direct violation of the current ArbCom judgement against the user. I believe extending this judgement to include his deletion-related user pages is justified, since the user has repeatedly refused to engage in any discussion about their activities, preferring to label as a personal attack anything that he can, and summarily ignoring anything he can't. 00:51, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it's his user space. Can someone tell me what exactly GRider is purported to have done wrong in the first place? I haven't followed it. Everyking 00:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Click here ---> Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider. --Calton | Talk 01:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might be user space, but it's also cleaerly deletion-releated, given that it is 99% VfD listings, 1% links to similar, and 0% content useful to those who wish to contribute constructively. I also believe I'm correct in saying that according to WP:UP, user space is not immune from the usual policies about disruption of process and NPOV - especially when it's becoming impossible to have a sane discussion about a schools article on VfD without the keep-trolls drowning it out. Chris talk back 01:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What, is this just about him voting keep on school articles? What's wrong with that? I used to generally vote keep on them too, although lately I've moved to a more neutral position on the matter. Everyking 01:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What, is this just about him voting keep on school articles? No. Again, read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/GRider for details. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not about him voting keep on schools, it's about him abusing the page to get other people (an order of magnitude more than would otherwise look at a VfD) to vote keep on schools without discussing the matter. Read the RfAr, and the evidence. Chris talk back 01:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean he's asking other people to weigh in on the votes? I'm failing to see the problem here. In fact, that seems like a good thing. More people means the outcome is more broadly representative of the community's wishes. Everyking 01:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read the RfAr instead of continuing to ask questions -- questions, I'm becoming convinced, that are purely rhetorical. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So is this your new thing, vaguely second-guessing closed ArbCom cases? If you have problems with decisions, I recommend bringing them up on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration or Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy. In response to your posts here, you're free to refuse to enforce the decisions against GRider and Irate, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to lobby other admins to ignore the ArbCom. Rhobite 01:55, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, Everyking's sudden philosophy of leniency towards violaters of ArbCom is purely self-serving. The phrase for that is "gaming the refs". --Calton | Talk 01:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I concur with your opinion. — Matt Crypto 02:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is that how you respond to my question: to question my right to raise the question? The issue came up, so I was inquiring about the basis of the matter. As it stands, I seem to be gathering that GRider was banned for attempting to get other people to vote. Well, as I see it, VfD is a way of attracting community input to resolve questions, so that's a perfectly legitimate thing to do. Everyking 02:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Permit me to suggest that, if you want to have any practical effect on the outcome of these arbitration cases you're questioning, you keep an eye on WP:RFAr and present your opinions to the arbitrators, who are, after all, the people making these decisions. It's not up to the administrators at all, and consequently your comments, no matter their merit, do not belong here and cannot accomplish anything here. — Dan | Talk

Well, no, I'm not really aiming for a practical effect, at least not directly. Everyking 03:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you'll pardon my confusion, what are you aiming for? To be a gadfly? In protest at your own perceived mistreatment by the arbcom? To engage several administrators in unproductive navel-gazing when we could be writing articles? — Dan | Talk 03:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Trying to understand the case myself, and raising the question as to whether we've been going in the right direction with it, because I personally have my doubts. Everyking 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This would almost certainly require a request for clarification from the arbcom, and I suspect they'd be skeptical of declaring a userspace page as "deletion related." Snowspinner 02:08, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, it is undoubtedly "deletion related". But I'd agree that it's not clear that the ArbCom had user subpages in mind (they linked to Template:Deletiontools in their ruling). Best check with them. — Matt Crypto 02:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although they do say explicitly that 'Determining what is "deletion-related" is left to the discretion of the blocking administrator.'. — Matt Crypto 02:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - in this case, I think admins need to weigh the degree to which userpages are considered anything goes. Snowspinner 03:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

According to WP:UP, userpages are no less subject to policy than anywhere else, since all the facts indicate that the page is blatantly "deletion-related". I would assume that admins at least need a sound sense of judgement to become admins. Chris talk back 03:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Snowspinner is right, you need to get a clarification from ArbCom. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we all keep in mind that GRider is banned from deletion pages for posting frivilous nominations, not for his voting practices. If he wants to make a watchlist of discussions under his user space, let him be. When there is a debate, such as this one, focusing on the person is no way to further the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

• No, he's actually banned from deletion for posting frivolous nominations, refusing to accept the results of VfDs that he didn't agree with, disrupting the VfD process, playing the system to get a favorable outcome, and refusing to discuss any of the aforementioned when questioned. His editing this page is VfD participation by proxy, and the fact that it's in his user space should not have any bearing on this. To quote WP:UP, Community policies apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere. Correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that disruption of VfD and polarising the discussions therein is against policy. Also correct me if I'm wrong in thinking that a list of VfD entries is inescapably deletion-related. Chris talk back 04:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at this through analogy. If Everyking were to make a user subpage about Ashlee Simpson, would that be forbidden? If he were to add a mention about how he liked Ashlee to his userpage, would that mean that he couldn't edit his userpage anymore? Both of these seem ludicrous claims, for the basic reason that, short of major policy violations, we pretty much let things go in the userspace on a general understanding of civility and not being dicks. Snowspinner 04:16, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that's a valid analogy though. Everyking's hypothetical piece on Ashlee Simpson isn't systematically organising users to make the article about her look a certain way. The essence of the Schoolwatch is a program to (1) improve the quality of school articles and (2) to save them from VfD. Inasmuch as any projects to improve article quality are good, this one should be made truly collaborative by taking it out of a User's namespace. The ideal course of action would of course be to petition GRider nicely to merge his schoolwatch program with the one existing in the public namespace. I have no confidence in GRider acceding to such a request, due to his practice of ignoring any kind of feedback. It's simply inappropriate for him to assert propritary control over this project given that its activities extend outside of his own user space and into other articles, and - importantly - in a fashion likely to antagonise other users. This proprietary concern means that GRider is free to revert and cry foul when any users legitimately question the aims and methodology of the project. The one-sidedness of the thing (in only accepting positive contributions) is a problem contributing to the ill-will that lingers against GRider's behaviour.

The appropriate analogy, in my view, is Wik's infamous "hitlist": whatever you may think of the principle of "user control over userspace", it can generally be seen that using it to give sanctuary to material that riles other users is going to be poorly regarded. Slac speak up! 05:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the hit list is a poor analogy, since that was just content on his userpage, whereas this is a subpage. Snowspinner 15:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Imho, GRider's schoolwatch program is both deletion related and inapropriate for userspace. If it were just a list of articles on schools then that would be fine, but it isn't that. Also look at the history of GRider's talk page, he removes any attempt at communication, often with edit summaries referring to vandalism. This indicates a complete unwillingness to discuss his behaviour with the community. Thryduulf 08:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, this makes GRider look like a dick and confirms why it is he got arbcommed and sanctioned in the first place. It's bad, he shouldn't do it, if he can come up with some other bad things to do it'll make for a great GRider 2 case. But I don't think this is something that's currently prohibitted. Snowspinner 15:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have now made a request for clarification on this matter - Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration#User:GRider/Schoolwatch. Thryduulf 08:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking's user space

I think it also has something to do with my prohibition only applying to articles. Everyking 04:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fwiw I would be happy for Everyking to have a short passage on why he likes Ashlee Simpson, or an explanation of his behaviour there, or a list of Ashless Simpson related articles or something like that (including with links to the article). However, I would sincerly not be happy with his having a POV fork of the article, or copies of deleted articles, in his userspace. Thryduulf 08:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think if you were better acquainted with the matter you'd know that the issue is not POV, but how comprehensive the articles should be. But sure, I have more comprehensive versions of the articles in my userspace. Everyking 10:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with this issue knows that your statement is patently false.

In any case, news that will make Thryduulf unhappy:

• User:Everyking/La La
• User:Everyking/Autobiography album design
• User:Everyking/Autobiography (album)
• User:Everyking/Autobiography sales and chart positions
• User:Everyking/Autobiography promotion and publicity
• User:Everyking/Pieces of Me
• User:Everyking/Ashlee Simpson U.S. tour, 2005

Some forks, some deleted articles. --Calton | Talk 11:13, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can nominate them for VfD if you don't like them. I have actually offered before to have them nominated to provide a precedent about the legitimacy of preserving deleted content in userspace. Everyking 11:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would nominating them for deletion with the primary purpose of establishing a precedent fall foul of WP:POINT? Thryduulf 12:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would, though in Everyking's defense, he only offered to have it done, he didn't actually do it. --Deathphoenix 13:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I wasn't accusing Everyking of doing that. I was more wondering out loud, I thought it would be against WP:POINT to nominate like that, but if the consensus here was that it wouldn't be then I'd probably have done it. As it is, with you confirming my suspicions, I wont be. Although if a consensus develops elsewhere that things of this nature aren't suitable for userspace then I may nominate them for VfD on those grounds. Thryduulf 14:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really decided on Everyking's usage of his userspace (I'd probably vote keep if the articles appeared on Vfd), but I don't think a Vfd listing should be seen as disruptive under WP:POINT - if there's a grey area in our policies, creating a precedent case and trying to establish consensus one way or the other seems to be a good way of clearing things up. Listing all articles at once might be seen as extreme, but a single Vfd listing to see if it's possible to establish consensus seems perfectly legitimate. -- Ferkelparade π 14:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but keep in mind that everything I do has some evil intention behind it, even if I don't know it. Everyking 15:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification of your WP:POINT comment, Thryduulf. I don't know if nominating something on VfD is the best way of establishing precedent. People nominating articles for VfD have done so when they're not sure if it should be deleted, and in other unbiased situations such as removing an article off WP:CSD. I just wonder if there's a place (such as the village pump or Wikipedia_talk:Votes for deletion) where discussing precedents for deleting may be more appropriate. I'm reminded uncomfortably of User:GRider and his Please discuss and You decide nominations... --Deathphoenix 17:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom clarification

Magic 8-ball says "reply hazy, ask again later." The Everyking ruling specifically referred to articles. The GRider one says "pages," which I was thinking in terms of relating to the Wikipedia: space pages where he was being a disruptive PITA.

But then, coming down to one word may satisfy the rules lawyers but somehow doesn't feel like a sensible and robust decision should.

The AC is not supposed to make rulings that outrage the interpretation of community norms, so the question is whether this one has done so in the case of user pages. I must admit the question of user space had not occurred to me during the vote.

I swear to God we're still trying to find a sensible way to resolve this one and aren't just punting it back to the sensible, sober and reasoned discussion forum of WP:AN/I ... your ideas on a sensible solution to this philosophical conundrum are most welcomed - David Gerard 15:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:DG/User:207.99.6.125 & User:LevelCheck

Three revert rule violation on Worst United States President in history (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

DG (talk · contribs) / 207.99.6.125 (talk · contribs) (which is a sockpuppet of DG) As 207.99.6.125

• 1st revert: [18]
• 2nd revert: [19]
• 3rd revert: [20]

As DG

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]

LevelCheck (talk · contribs)

• 1st revert: [24]
• 2nd revert: [25]
• 3rd revert: [26]
• 4th revert: [27]
• 5th revert:

[28]

• 6th revert: [29]

Reported by: Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Ths is a simple POV edit war of an artile that in it's current form i belive should either be sourced or deleted. My own opinions aside, their has been no dialog between the useres on this edit war on either the talk page of the artile or either the usere pages of the parties involved. Also as fo it being vandalism, no vandalism reports were offerd by any party involved, though each accused the other of vandalism several times in the edit summaries. I also belive that DG (talk · contribs) has used a sockpuppet account of 207.99.6.125 (talk · contribs) in order to subvert the 3rr, if an admin wish to contact me on this i am more then willing to supply evidence that would corrilate ther 2 accounts are the same user. Thouh i belive that User:LevelCheck was protecting the page from POV vandalism, it would not be fair to report the incident without listing all parties involved. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Christiaan

Three revert rule violation on Iraqi insurgency (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Christiaan (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [30]
• 2nd revert: [31]
• 3rd revert: [32]
• 4th revert: [33] (May not fit within technical time limit for 3RR violation; see comments)

Reported by: Daniel11 10:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User has past 3RR violation (see discussion of it on user's talk page, here). User has consistently skirted the 3RR violation, very much "artfully" avoiding technical violation. User is edit-warring, and has consistently been doing so. If you scroll through the article's history page, you'll see near-constant reversion by User:Christiaan. User's repeated violations have left a formerly featured article in shambles. --Daniel11 10:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel that 22 hours is a bit beyond even the most streached spirt of the 3RRGeni 14:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked from a Talk page?

Haider (talk · contribs) has contacted me, insisting that he's been blocked by person or persons unknown from editing Talk:Pashtun (and only that page). I can't see any trace of such a block, and it doesn't seem likely, but does anyone know what might be happening? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:29, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't imagine. Pashtun itself is protected (due to his actions, I might add). The talk page should not be. I am unaware of any mechanism to block someone from editing a single page. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Jmabel is right. There's no way he can be blocked from a single page. Maybe he was blocked for a short period of time and was able to edit another page after his block expired? Mgm|^(talk) 07:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. No, I could find no evidence of a relevant block. He now tells me that he can edit the Talk page again. I suspect that the problem was with him, though I can't think what it might have been. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I can think of several possibilities as to what the problem is with him, but in a stunning display of apophasis, I will refrain from listing them. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein (talk · contribs):

• 1st Revert at 20:10 [34]
• 2nd Revert at 20:24 [35]
• 3rd Revert at 20:26 [36]
• 4th Revert at 20:34 [37]

also additional reverts within the last 2 hours

• at 19:11 [38]
• at 18:53 [39]

Reported by: Fish Supper 20:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Sl was reverting edits by a new user (Fish Supper) with edit summaries "Naughty", and "Mouse error". Guettarda 21:06, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• "Naughty" was referring to Sl's blanket unwarrented reversions earlier in the day which looked like they had already broken 3RR.
• "Mouse error" was referring to Fish supper's thinking he had reverted back to the wrong version, not having realised that Slrubenstein reverted it back in the mean time.

Fish Supper 21:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Given the BT IP address, it's hard not to suspect that this is CheeseDreams. Rhobite 21:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but in any event Fish Supper (talk · contribs) and 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) are likely The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs), which would push the revert count much higher. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm in east ham (london), and Im guessing the Rev of Bru is in glasgow, as thats the only place the Church of Bru (Irn Bru) really operates. Fish Supper 22:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone I know is on BT, but we are going over to bulldog soon - its much cheaper. Fish Supper 21:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It is actually Fish Supper who has violated the 3RR (see below). Fish Supper accuses me of violating the 3RR. The first revert according to Fish Supper was actually when I reverted a one sentence change by Rev of Bru at 20:10). Fish Supper's first revert, on the other hand, changed the entire introduction, and I reverted this change only three times. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No, The first revert was 18:53 as I mention above. Slrubenstein had made 6 by the time I reported this. Which is a clear violation of 3RR.

• I believe it is relevant that I explained all my edits on the article's talk page, and Fish Supper provided no explanations for his/her revert. S/he characterizes my reverts as "unwarrented" when I provided detailed explanation for my changes. Needless to say, Fish Supper never responded to my explonation, or provided his or her own. Moreover, Fish Supper's edit summaries ("Naughty" and "Mouse Error") suggest vandalism. Clearly, Fish Supper is not concerned with the article contents, but only with reverting my work. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am concerned with the acts of bullies. Maybe I should concern myself with you more. Fish Supper 21:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the bully. All you have ever done is delete what I have written, and you have never explained your actions, nor responded to my explanations. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are the bully. You started it. You reverted what 2 other people wrote, and ignored their arguments. Don't try to turn this into a slagging match. Fish Supper 22:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I edited what others wrote which is the right of any editor. Unlike you, though, I explained my edits on the talk page, and when others explained their edits in a satisfying way, I accepted their changes. What makes you a bully is that you put no thought into your reverts and do not care about the quality of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alert

Slrubenstein has started making personal insults against me in the edit summaries.

[edit] User:Fish Supper

Three revert rule violation on Jesus (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Fish Supper (talk · contribs) alias 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert at 20:22: [40]
• 2nd revert at 20:24: [41]
• 3rd revert at 20:28: [42]
• 4th revert at 20:38: [43]

Reported by: Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This user came to Wikipedia only today, [44], [45] and may be a sock-puppet or a friend of another user. At 20:22 Fish Supper reverted a number of changes I made, back to an earlier version by JimWae.

Fish Supper accuses me of violating the 3RR. I have made more than three reversions total, today, but concerning different passages (I reverted a one sentence change by Rev of Bru at 20:10). Fish Supper's first revert changed the entire introduction, and I reverted this change only three times.

• The 3RR rule clearly applies to reversions of a PAGE, not a portion therof. It is EXPLICIT about this. Fish Supper 21:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe it is relevant that I explained all my edits on the article's talk page, and Fish Supper provided no explanations for his/her revert. Moreover, Fish Supper's edit summaries ("Naughty" and "Mouse Error" suggest vandalism. Clearly, Fish Supper is not concerned with the article contents, but only with reverting my work. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also the connection with User:The Rev of Bru [46], which would indicate even more reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note also that the Rev of Bru appears to be logged on at the same time as me, so its not really posible for us to be each other. Fish Supper 22:10, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is; all it requires is two browser sessions. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you do that? Fish Supper 22:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't do it. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How do you do that AND get two different IP addresses at the same time? Fish Supper 22:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fish Supper continues to revert any edit I make to the article. If this goes on, the effect is the same as if I were blocked from the article. Since I have always provided reasons for my edits, and sources when necessary or requested, and Fish Supper never does, this amounts to harassment. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would be a striaght forward 3RR by Slrubenstein however you are allowed to revert banned users. CheeseDreams is currently under an abcom ban. If Fish Supper is indeed a sock then Slrubenstein's actions are legit. I will open the question on WP:AN/IGeni 22:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein made 4 reverts BEFORE I got involved. - at 20:10, 19:11, 18:53, 18:15 He should then be penalised for this alone, let alone the 4+ after I got involved. Fish Supper 22:15, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are denying being that IP adress? I will leave this on to be decided on AN/IGeni 22:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I swear absolutely that I am not the Rev of Bru. I have no wish to live in glasgow. Fish Supper 22:30, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No problem; there's no evidence that the Rev of Bru lives there either. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Barr the fact of his being in the Church of Bru (going by his username). Fish Supper 22:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, it has been definitively proven that he is a member of the Church of Bru, therefore he must be from Glasgow. By the way, I'd never heard of the Church of Bru before, but you seem awfully familiar with it. Oh, and since it appears you know how to comment on Talk: pages, instead of arguing here why don't you mosey on over to the Talk:Historicity of Jesus page and start commenting there, rather than continually reverting that page while studiously avoiding the conversation regarding the article contents? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There was a thing in the press about it a while back when there was a big story about Irn Bru in Russia, but if your not from the UK then I guess you won't get the same press. I haven't touched "Historicity of Jesus", so I have no idea why I should comment there? 81.156.177.21 23:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather than taking my good advice, I see you have reverted yet again. I've blocked you for 24 hours so you can think about ways of interacting on this article that involve more discussion and less reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(a)I haven't touched "historicity of Jesus", why do you think I have

(b)Why did you just block only me? When Slrubenstein made 4 more reverts - this makes you look corrupt.

Wrong article name, but the reversions keep rolling in. Slrubenstein was at least involved in discussing things on the Talk: page; you refused to. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about (b)?

What about (b)? As I said, at least Slrubenstein was discussing his edits on the Talk: page. You, on the other hand, refused to discuss your edits, and in any event are a sockpuppet who was created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy (in this case, the 3RR). I could have banned you permanently on those grounds alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So? That is irrelevant. The 3RR policy is not "do not revert 3 times, unless you mention it in the talk page in which case you can revert as much as you like". It is DO NOT revert 3 times in one day, ever. So what about (b). Stop trying to come up with flimsy excuses and sidestepping of the issue and actually answer the question.

Your view of what is relevant and what is not is irrelevant; I don't have to answer questions from sockpuppets created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have to answer for your actions. Everyone does. If not now then somewhen.

I've blocked Slrubenstein. If FS is a reincarnation of CD, it's up to Slrubenstein to show that before violating the 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:26, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

FS is someone's sockpuppet; ultimately it doesn't really matter whose. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't. Edits by banned users may be reverted on sight. Mulitple editors think FS is CD. I have pulled the block.Geni 23:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are not prohibited.

Sockpuppets created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy are. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not The Rev of Bru, therefore I violated no policy. Unless it is Wikipedia policy that you must agree with Slrubenstein, dissent is not tolerated.?

The distinction is important in that if Slrubenstein had proved that it was, indeed, a sockpuppet of a banned user, he wouldn't be blocked at the moment. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:34, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if these are all ultimately sockpuppets of the banned Cheese Dreams; Fish Supper (talk · contribs) is in any event clearly a sockpuppet created for the purpose of violating the 3RR. Look at her edits in relation to those of 81.156.92.196 (talk · contribs) and The Rev of Bru (talk · contribs). The Rev of Bru uses up her reverts on Jesus, and within minutes a new user is created and starts reverting for her, using the same IP address that fixes vandalism on the Rev of Bru's user page. Slrubenstein could himself have banned her permanently on those grounds alone. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Rev of Bru was still editing Jesus when Fish Supper was created, and throughout - check the contributions. The timing is precisely because Fish Supper only stepped in to prevent bullying by Slrubenstein. N.b. the Rev of Bru DID NOT use up their "reverts", they only used one revert, they could still make 2 more.

There's no technical reason why a person cannot edit from two userids simultaneously, and it was quite smart of the Rev of Bru to save some reverts in reserve before you were created. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Labelling anyone who happens to agree with someone you dont agree with as the same person isnt really fair. I accuse you of being Slrubenstein, and therefore being extremely corrupt about blocking (and therefore should be blocked). Proove that you are not.

I remain unconvinced by your reasoning, although I do not deny that you are making a coherent argument. If you like, unban Slrubenstein. I make it a policy of not engaging in ban-wars. If you feel that Slrubenstein should not be blocked, make it so. :) I maintain my personal opinion, however, that the block on Slrubenstein is appropriate, especially given his Admin status. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:49, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I make it a general policy not to get involved in ban wars either. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So is that why you unbanned Slrubenstein, even though you dont want a ban war?

I didn't unban Slrubenstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would not consider an unbanning by you to be "warring". I've made my position clear by banning. You would then make your position clear by unbanning. That's one "move" each. The fact that it results in Slrubenstein being unbanned if there's a "tie" is fine as I believe policy is that if there is a dispute as to whether someone should be blocked then we should err on the side of having them unblocked. It is only when one or both of us would seek to reassert our positions (by "reverting" to a different block state, for example) that it would be warring. Thus, you can ublock, but I won't reblock, and we'll be "even". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:56, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless, I didn't unban Slrubenstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What I fail to see is why the end result of Fish Supper being banned, but Slrubenstein being free, is considered in any way either a fair or an even handed application of the 3RR policy. This points to total corruption by people such as Jayjg.

I'll repeat it a third time. I didn't unban Slrubenstein. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This isn't about the 3RR per se, it's about a disagreement in whether a specific user should be blocked. Note my explanation above on what happens in the case of such disputes. There was no such dispute about your block, Fish Supper. Everyone agrees that yours is appropriate. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, so its acceptable for Slrubenstein to push Fish Supper past the 3 revert rule by baiting Fish Supper by making 5 reverts, but not for Fish Supper to complain that Slrubenstein patently broke 3RR after Fish Supper's 1st Revert?

It's rather clear that I didn't say that, so I think it's also rather clear that a) your motives are suspect and b) your logic is questionable. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:34, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Folks, in principle I do not mind being blocked. But I also do not think anyone should be banned simply because they violate the 3RR.

The 3RR says that they should. Thats what its about.

I see the 3RR as a way to call attention to a problem. But the problem has its origins in something besides the reverts themselves. I do not know who Fish Supper is a sock-puppet of. Can someone tell me how to find out?

Ask Fish Supper?

In any case, the reason I reverted was not because I thought Fish Supper is a sock-puppet, but rather because Fish Supper was repeatedly putting false

Its your OPINION that it is false. The other 3 editors to the page supported its truth.

information into the article, without providing an explanation in the talk page, without responding to my questions about his edit, and without responding to my explanation for my edit. Now, I know there are plenty of times where two people get into a heated argument on the talk page coincident with a revert war concerning the article, and I can see the sense in blocking both parties. But in this case, there was no argument in the talk page because I was the only one making comments, and Fish Supper ignored al of them. This is an asymmetrical situation and I think anyone, especially a seasoned editor, can see that my edits were motivated by a desire to improve the article, and Fish Supper displayed not a single shred of evidence that he cares about the quality of the article; indeed, his edits reveal a desire only to be disruptive. Dante, I am not questioning your motives, but I ask you not to put the cart before the horse. Our primary objective is to write accurate articles. In edit conflicts you have to ask yourself, are both parties trying to improve the article (by the way this was clearly the case in an edit conflict between me and JimWae, and we reached a placxe of compromise), or is one person trying to help and the other, only to hurt? Please remember that our policies about editing are not ends in themselves, but means towards a substantive end. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your motives, and they are noble. However, understand that it's obvious that you were being baited by Fish Supper. Your job as a responsible contributor (and an Admin, no less) was to NOT take the bait, report Fish Supper's unacceptable behavior, wait until it was recognized and remedied by 3rd parties, and then clean up the situation. I blocked you because you chose to instead engage in a (demonstrably) pointless revert war that could only result in either you both getting blocked, or else an appearance of impropriety by YOU remaining unblocked while Fish Supper is blocked for behavior that you yourself displaed. That being said, I agree that you are trying to make the article better and that Fish Supper is trying to be disruptive, but I still don't think you went about it the proper way. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Possible identity theft"

By User:Ken Bogan ('Kenneth Patrick Bogan') of United States citizen, Kenneth Patrick Bogan. See (copyvio) notice I placed on "[his] photo," and talk page. El_C 21:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bogan is a fairly new editor contribs. He has the same user name and photograph on his user page as that of a convicted sex offender who is wanted for failure to register. The sex offender's details are on this law-enforcement website [47]. Someone else using several different user accounts has posted to User:Ken Bogan's talk page, saying that Bogan raped his girlfriend and shouldn't be allowed to edit. Bogan admits that he is the rapist. The whole thing seems weird, as Bogan (if he is the wanted sex offender) could have used another user name, and need not have posted his photograph — that he used exactly the same photograph as the one on the law-enforcement website is odd too. It seems clear that he's trying to draw attention to his ID. It occurred to me that this might be a journalist writing a story about how the community responds, or it could just be someone larking around (though I don't see the point of it). But we probably need to sort it out because of the possible ID-theft issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

lying in the uploading of the picture (claimed he had made it and released it PD). Personal attacks any very few contibutions. I have blocked the user for impersination and desruptionGeni 22:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had left a note on his talk page to see whether he could clarify first. It is (marginally) possible that he is who he says he is, though it's scarcely credible, I admit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:58, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that he was basically blocked for not being a rapist. LOL! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:41, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, that's one way to look at it. El_C 00:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if the image is a copyvio, how do we know that he isn't really who he says he is? Just because somebody claims that they are famous (or in this case a criminal) doesn't mean that they should automatically be presumed guilty of impersonation. If there's no way to prove that he is or isn't, then I say leave him alone. It shouldn't affect what he does on Wikipedia.

Maybe we could ask him to upload another picture of him that isn't available elsewhere (eg. taking a picture of himself editing Wikipedia) to confirm that he really is Bogan, if he can't do this, then block for impersonation. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a very good idea, Frazzydee. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:13, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I thought, as remote as that possibility may, in fact, be. El_C 01:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if he his who he says he is, i believe that there is no reason for him to be banned, as this isnt a popularity contest. im sure many of our members have past histories, myself included. (misdemeanors) gazeofsorrow 06:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help smiling at that. Me too! After all, the servers are in Florida, so maybe we should only ban felons ;-)Grace Note 00:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Posible sock of user CheeseDreams

It has been suggested that User:Fish Supper is a sock of CheeseDreams. I need some opinions on this reasonably fastGeni 22:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to my inexperienced view, Fish Supper (talk · contributions) certainly has a lot of the earmarks of CheeseDreams (talk · contributions). Fish Supper has a similar name to CheeseDreams, a vendetta against User:Slrubenstein, edits on Christianity-related articles, and the finger-wagging "Naughty" comment here. I'd say with some certainty that this is CheeseDreams, and even if not, the immediate dive into the 3RR page suggests a sockpuppet of some sort. Since this new account appears to be used to abusive purposes, I'd say it deserves a permablock for being an abusive sockpuppet, if not a sockpuppet of CheeseDreams. --Deathphoenix 22:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a page where you can go have an IP comparison from a developer, something like that, isn't there? Everyking 22:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No point we know that CheeseDreams is caperble of acessing wikipedia from multiple IPsGeni 22:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My hunch (not that it's worth anything) is that FS is indeed a sockpuppet of CD. Also, I've blocked Slrubenstein for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:30, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

as I sated on the 33r page I have pulled that blockGeni 00:08, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying here, are you the one who unblocked Slr? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:15, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

yes.Geni 17:20, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I didn't see you say that on the 3RR page and someone (not me) was giving Jayig flack because they thought he was the one who did it. I don't personally have a problem with you unblocking Slr, but someone sure does. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:12, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

It is there pretty close to the list of diffs.Geni 21:32, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you still want them, no. Similarities but not CheeseDreams. Don't block this user just for opposing a particular POV that CD also opposed. That wouldn't be right. Grace Note 04:27, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even if this is not CheeseDreams, a look at Fish Supper's edits shows that this user is very familiar with the inner workings of Wikipedia (going on the 3RR page as the eighth edit), showing this to be a sockpuppet. In addition, Fish Supper became involved in a conflict very early on, showing this to be, IMO, an abusive sockpuppet. Thus, I don't think this user is just opposing a particular POV that CheeseDreams also opposed, but that this user is an abusive sockpuppet (However, I would like to point out that, as a relatively new Wikipedian myself, I may not be as familiar with sockpuppets as other users). --Deathphoenix 17:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking it's not a good idea to be a quick learner regarding how things work around here. Everyking 17:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking Deathphoenix has learned quite well, and in this case, figured out exactly what is going on. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are "Fish dinners" thought to cause nightmares? If so, I'd bet money that this user & Cheese Dreams are the same person. -- llywrch 21:49, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:John Gohde

John archived nearly all the comments that he didn't agree with[48], got reverted[49]. Then John decided to make a null edit[50] for the sole purpose of launching a personal attack against snowspinner: "I absolutely give up trying to work with a bunch of assholes! Go Fuck yourself, Snowspinner. Go to hell, Snowspinner!"

Fennec then blocked John for personal attacks.

Please note that I haven't really been involved in this debate, so I might be missing something or I might have interpreted something wrong (please correct me if I did). A lot of admins are blocking for personal attacks...it doesn't seem to be in the Wikipedia:blocking policy, but it's fairly common; what is the community consensus on that? -Frazzydee|✍ 00:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can't. Some people try get it through on the dissruption clauseGeni 00:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any policy is necessary for this particular block. John Gohde is clearly out of line. silsor 00:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Why not?Geni 00:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Policy is necessary for all blocks. And don't present this like Snowspinner is a victim. Just because one party can restrain himself from profanity longer than the other doesn't make him right. Everyking 00:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the page history you will see earlier attacks on Pioneer-12, and if you look at John's contributions history you will see a pile of other attacks of late. This isn't in any way a one-off or Snowspinner-specific - David Gerard 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to enact a personal attack injunction? This seems like a better action than trying to convince people that this block is justified, when blocking for personal attacks has specifically and repeatedly been rejected as general policy. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks for the failed proposals. -- Netoholic @ 00:42, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

There's been one proposal that went up to a vote, and it was a close vote. Hardly repeated rejection. Snowspinner 00:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

So, do you acknowledge that the policy proposal(s) have shown that personal attacks are not blockable (barring ArbCom, etc.)? -- Netoholic @ 01:02, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Of course I don't. Snowspinner 02:47, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The block is quite justified. Anyone that makes such an extreme personal attack should be blocked. Stop whining about policy and use common sense. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was not "whining" about it, I was merely asking what community consensus was- for personal curiosity and to see if maybe it should be policy. -Frazzydee|✍ 01:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:212.219.149.121 and User:217.43.73.105

Three revert rule violation on The Revolution.

• 1st revert 11:27: [51]
• 2nd revert 12:03: [52]
• 3rd revert 13:36: [53]
• 4th revert 22:20: [54]
• 5th revert 09:30: [55]

Reported by: --nixie 01:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• First I think the two users are the same person, posting from work and home.
• This started a few days ago, the user overwrote an article I had written at (now at The Revolution (newspaper)), I moved it to The Revolution (radio) since the paper is much older than the radio station, and of significant interest to people studying womens rights in the United States, and told them not to overwrite articles. They then moved the newspaper article to The Revolution (newspaper) and stuck their article back at The Revolution. I warned again and as a comprimise made The Revolution a disambig. Since then they have repeatedly reverted my and other users revert/rollbacks, and broke the 3RR on the 19th. I don't think the best option is blocking the users IPS since this is the only disruptive behaviour they partake in, but protecting the page for a while may be the way to go--nixie 01:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I take back the part about no other disruptive behaviour they have also been vandalising Signal 1, a rival radio station I suppose.--nixie 01:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User is also posting from 217.43.73.139 (talk · contribs), and has vandalized Pope, and engaged in bizarre edits to Malware, and Congleton. --Viriditas | Talk 01:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • User:217.43.73.105 has also removed coments from this entry--nixie 09:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal - User:Denni

This user vandalized the user page of User:THUG Life

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:THUG_Life&oldid=12499817

He said: "Fuck you, homeboy. You is a LOOOOOOOOZER! Even your mama thinks you should have your little dinkie cut off."

Someone needs to take care of this fool! I was once banned for months after making "insulting" comments on someone's TALK page, but this Denni idiot vandalized a USER page and has also made ignorant anti-White Dawg comments. This guy is a problem that someone better fix! BrowardPlaya 01:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, hopefully Denni will apologize for that. Everyking 01:49, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that THUG Life's only edit was to vandalize Denni's user page, and that Denni blanked his comment two minutes later (see history). BrowardPlaya's contributions are an interesting read as well. —Korath (Talk) 01:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Huh. Well, I guess he wasn't giving us the full story, then. Everyking 02:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supreme Leader of Iran

This page is being vandalised by a persistent but not original vandal. Why can't they tell a joke or put up something in the least bit creative? Could someone consider protecting it just for a bit to stymie the vandal? Grace Note 03:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just rolled it back and put it on my watchlist too, so I'll try to help out with it. Everyking 03:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When did this page become WP:VIP and WP:RFPP? (not to sound mean or anything) Wouldn't these requests be filled more quickly on pages designed for them? BrokenSegue 03:54, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be a bit dim. Why can't I make an RFPP here? I know that admins read this page and action usually follows pretty swiftly. I didn't want the regular sort of protection. I mentioned it here because it isn't a content dispute and there was a need for blocking too.Grace Note 00:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're back as user:24.118.23.143--nixie 23:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio images at Pope Benedict XVI

Please help remove these copyvio images from news agencies (AP, REUTERS), and photos from unknown origin already uploaded to commons, which should be deleted. Vatican.va pictures are also copyrighted. Help! —Cantus…☎ 04:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The above user is engaging in un-Wiki like behavior over at the Pope article. His activities include 1)removing every single image in the article without discussion 2)removing copyvio tags on images that were questioned by other users 3)adding copyvio tags to legitimate images such as Vatican photos released under fair use 4)constantly reverting all changes made by others with regards to images. This, in my opinion, is vandalism. The page needs to be protected or Cantus blocked until he calms down. -Husnock 04:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yet another followup to this. A lot of the questionable images had copyright tags changed to Vatican fair use after being questioned as copyright violations from Associated Press and so forth. It looks like users simply removed the copyvio tags (I wont name names). My understanding is that a user simply cannot go into an image or article marked for copyright problems and change it back without discussion or an admin clearing it. Here is an example of what I'm talking about: [56]. My point...Admins need to check these images. A lot of them are very suspicious. -Husnock 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The best place to get images checked is at Wikipedia:Image sleuthing where there are people who are good at doing exactly that (as I understand it). Thryduulf 08:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:192.104.181.227 and User:192.104.181.229

Three revert rule violation on Citizens Commission on Human Rights.

• 1st revert 02:01: [57]
• 2nd revert 21:15: [58]
• 3rd revert 20:29: [59]
• 4th revert 07:53: [60]
• 5th revert 04:39: [61]

Reported by: --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:18, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I came to the page as it was listed on RFC. Basically one anon user is listening to no one and insisting on a POV sentence that emphatically states, "The practice of psychiatry is considered by Scientologists to be a form of extortion because it has no biological evidence to support it" instead of the consensus that the sentence frame it as the beliefs of Scientologists, "The practice of psychiatry is considered by Scientologists to be a form of extortion because they believe it has no biological evidence to support it." I left a warning on the anon user's talk page and saw several others have previously warned the user, but the user has simply deleted the warnings and continued to be disruptive. The user has already reverted again since I began this report.

• I have blocked both users for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR--nixie 07:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Username BJAODN

Someone seems to think it's hilariously funny to create silly usernames (User:BJAODN) and declare on their userpage that they are sockpuppets. I'm not sure if this is the right place to report it. Sjakkalle 09:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Weird. Also, today a User:Deletionist made some VfD nominations. This user has ~50 edits, most of which relate to VfD, and seems to have been created to make a WP:POINT. He doesn't seem abusive or otherwise counter to policy, but is it proper to create a secondary account solely for being anonymously opinionated? Radiant_* 10:19, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Nope. Blocked as obvious disruptive sockpuppet, and it doesn't actually matter who of - David Gerard 11:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Another self proclaimed sockpuppet from some weeks back was User:Sock-ster, but he has not made any edits since April 7. Sjakkalle 10:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That's becuase he was blocked on april 7 by User:Violetriga. BrokenSegue 19:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page spamming?

Can stuff like [62] get the anon banned if he repeats it, or do I just have to put up with the orange box? --SPUI (talk) 17:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He probably clicked the tab to start a new section and submitted it twice it happens. I'd let the stupid comment slide and remind him to act friendly unless he's got a history of bad conduct. Mgm|^(talk) 18:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • He's done it twice more, once a while up the page and once a bit later. --SPUI (talk) 18:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh hey, he did it again, and obviously intends to keep doing it. He's on a dynamic IP. --SPUI (talk) 07:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey cool, leaving it in (and making a few fake ones to boot) worked perfectly. I'm surprised he hasn't complained about my stupid user talk page yet. --SPUI (talk) 19:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:WikiThanks.png

FYI: This image was replaced with an autofellatio picture hence displaying the vandalism on Special:Recentchanges and other places where it is linked. I have left it protected for the time being. Inter\^Echo 19:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:69.217.126.180

Three revert rule violation on David Irving (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

69.217.126.180 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:23, 20 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:00, 20 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:37, 20 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 19:46, 20 Apr 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User seems determined to remove any links to the Anti-Defamation League from that article. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Note: I left a warning on his talk page that he was about to violate 3RR and he reverted again in spite of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:09, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

• And he's done it again at Anti-Defamation League, trying to insert David Irving's personal website. See below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:15, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

69.217.126.180 (talk · contribs) has violated 3RR again, this time at Anti-Defamation League (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Also as 69.216.247.166 (talk · contribs)

• 1st addition of material: [63]
• 1st revert: 22:15, Apr 20, 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:20, Apr 20, 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:31, Apr 20, 2005
• 4th revert: 22:50, Apr 20, 2005
• 5th revert: 23:43, Apr 20, 2005
• 6th revert: 00:02, Apr 21, 2005

Reported by: SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:48, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Range is 69.208.0.0 - 69.223.255.255 (according to the whois I ran). I'm not prepared to block that kind of range. Is there any reason I shouldn't protect the relivant pages?Geni 23:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, go ahead and protect, Geni. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:49, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Both pages have been protected for the time beingGeni 00:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:JonGwynne

Three revert rule violation on Scientific opinion on climate change (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs).

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past. JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 5:53
• 2nd revert: 20:05

Reported by: William M. Connolley 20:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• blocked for 24 hoursGeni 23:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Reynolds, anti-Semite

I have just blocked Patrick Reynolds for one week because his anti-Semitic attacks are tantamount to vandalism. Another user suggests banning him. If anyone wants to do that, I won't object. But please be on the lookout for possible sock-puppets. See [64] Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I had already blocked him indefinitely, SR, and I think your block would have canceled mine out, so I've undone yours. I hope that's okay with you. He was a sockpuppet created to violate WP policy, and was highly abusive, so I can't see the user wanting to use the account again anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:56, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

This user has only made six edits, one of which replaced the entire text of New anti-Semitism with "The New anti-Semitism is a controversial neologism which was concocted by Jews when they found that they could no longer get enough mileage from their tired old complaint of plain old anti-Semitism.", and one of which was "please go fuck yourself you arrogant Jew piece of shit". silsor 22:27, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

The holding of anti-Semitic and anti-Zionistic opinions are not violations of Wikipedia policy; however, personal attacks and vandalism are policy violations. Don't set precedent for blocking people you don't agree with by referencing Patrick Reynolds' "anti-Semitism" as a reason for his block. That's disgustingly apologistic. Adraeus 22:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with that stance, and was typing something to that effect before, but couldn't find the right words. silsor 23:00, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree strongly, there were good reasons to block him, but anti-semitism isn't one of them. Sam Spade 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:24.30.67.158

I've blocked User:24.30.67.158 (talk · contribs) for 12 hours as the user has made no useful edits, but has made a number of anti-Semitic statements on talk pages, including that Jews deserve to be hated and that people should "shun them, boycott them, mistreat them and abuse them at every opportunity." I know we can't block for anti-Semitism, but this user is simply out to cause trouble, so I've blocked on that basis. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:57, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:SimonP

20:54, Apr 20, 2005 Silsor blocked "User:Francis Schonken" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR on Republic)
20:54, Apr 20, 2005 Silsor blocked "User:SimonP" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR on Republic)
21:02, Apr 20, 2005 SimonP unblocked User:SimonP (Message received, I shall refarin from editing the article in question)

What kind of sysops are we electing these days? silsor 01:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thats why voting sucks. Voting for admins is dumb. The majority is usually wrong. Polls are evil, Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. Sam Spade 01:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You forgot to flush. silsor 01:14, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

That's right. We should just let you make admin appointments instead.

Anyway...SimonP isn't newly elected, he's been an admin for a long time, hasn't he? Everyking 01:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point. Isn't anybody going to reblock? silsor 01:26, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

He says he won't edit the article again, so that seems like a better solution to me than blocking him for 24 hours. Everyking 01:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And you think that that justifies removing a block of oneself that was put there legitimately? silsor 01:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

No, but I don't see any reason to make a big deal out of it. Everyking 01:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've reblocked him. If we don't follow policy why should we expect anyone else to?Geni 01:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please note that SimonP is just following Everyking's precedent of unblocking himself whenever he is blocked. RickK 21:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Har har. I did that one time, when the guy who blocked me was the same guy who had been reverting me. Obviously we were both out of line. You yourself have blocked me and I haven't unblocked myself, so you know what you're saying is dishonest. Everyking 08:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's moot now, but why didn't anyone just unblock Francis Schonken, since SimonP said he wasn't going to edit the disputed article any more? I suppose forcible solutions and wielding imaginary authority are much more fun, aren't they. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking's user space, part 2

I listed above the forks/deleted articles in Everyking's user space merely for informational purposes, but now I'm having second thoughts as to whether they're appropriate.

So I have to ask Everyking: what is the purpose of having those in Wikipedia space? Wikicities exists for that -- and the identical texts (sans Wikilinks) are found in your personal Wikicities Ashlee Simpson Wiki. So what possible reason can there be for those non-Wikipedia articles to be here? --Calton | Talk 01:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, personal whim or something like that, I guess. Maybe I'll use them as scratchpad versions of the article at some point or something. Everyking 01:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for Everyking not to have these in his user space. They certainly are not causing any trouble - in my opinion, we should just leave them be -- sannse (talk) 00:23, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for him TO have them in his user space -- except possibly for the bogus imprimatur of Wikipedia's prominence in search engines. They're duplicates of the Wikicities versions, so the scratchpad explanation doesn't fly either as a testbed, storage space, or edit history rationale. --Calton | Talk 00:34, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They aren't exactly duplicates. I don't conceive of the Wikicities project as having identical objectives with the set of Ashlee articles here. In using them as scratchpads I'd be working on versions suitable for Wikipedia, whereas if I worked on Wikicities I'd be designing something suitable for that project. Everyking 00:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's in Wikicities has absolutely no relevance to what's on Wikipedia - for a start, as Everyking says, Wikicities has different objectives - and no NPOV policy. And there is also absolutely no reason for me to have User:Sannse/photos (full view) or User:Sannse/translation request or User:Sannse/Dogs - except that I want them and find them personally useful. We have always given some leeway on User sub-pages, as long as a user is not over doing it - in this case, I don't see that that applies at all. This really is a non-issue in my opinion -- sannse (talk) 12:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Let Everyking keep the articles in his userspace, there's no harm done to the main articlespace and only negligible hard disk space. --Deathphoenix 18:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:¸

contribs sample diff

• Somebody please block this ID for vandalism and impersonation. Radiant_* 07:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• • Already blocked indefinitely [21:06, 20 Apr 2005 Knowledge Seeker blocked "User:¸" with an expiry time of indefinite (inappropriate username, only edits are vandalism, impersonating another user, reincarnation of User:Himself!)], see User talk:¸. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks. Would it be possible to get a sock-check on this person? I've found that his contrib history merges suspiciously with that of a certain person who doesn't like me very much. Radiant_* 10:09, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
• We could ask a developer for a sock-check, but this looks pretty much similar. I can't imagine it's not the same user or at least someone related to the earlier one. Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I do agree that , is the same user as Himself. However, by their behavior, both appear to be socks of an existing user. Radiant_* 11:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does the person who doesn't like you, Radiant!, also dislike User:RickK? That's who he picked to impersonate last time. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From the sock check, User:, turned out to be someone I don't know. Guess I'm more prominent than I thought ;) Radiant_* 10:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:William M. Connolley

Three revert rule violation on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 19:31, 20 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:42, 20 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:31, 20 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 08:59, 21 Apr 2005 (this is not a revert - WMC)
• 5th revert: 19:34, 21 Apr 2005 (this is not a revert - WMC)
• 6th revert: 20:44, 21 Apr 2005
• 7th revert: 21:23, 21 Apr 2005
• 8th revert: 21:36, 21 Apr 2005

Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• WMC's third 3RR violation this month. First three are virtually identical, fourth one reverts out some quotes that were recently added. — Cortonin | Talk 09:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 10:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) I protest: number 4 is definitely not a revert: it removes a small amount of text, and is fully explained on the talk page. Cortonins trigger finger is too itchy.
• It removes 3 paragraphs that were just added in the edit right before yours, and a revert is defined as "a change or an edit made to a page that has the effect of undoing an earlier change or edit on the same page." If someone adds something, and then you remove it right away, then yes, that's a revert. — Cortonin | Talk 20:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 21:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) It removes 3 small paras of a much larger edit, so does not constitute a revert.
• I just added revert 5, 6, and 7, to show that the part reverted out in 4 is part of a revert war. So that leaves two sets of 3RR violations, 1-4 and 3-7. Any way you cut it up, with or without edit 4, this is at least 1 or 2 violations of the 3RR. — Cortonin | Talk 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 21:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) 5 isn't a revert either. I moves one para, removes some grossly POV alnguage from another... well, just like the edit comment says. 6 and 7 are indeed reverts, and properly marked as such, but since there aren't more than 3 in a 24h period the 3RR rule doesn't apply.
• Added revert 8. So how many are you going to pretend aren't reverts? Even the ones you bothered to label as reverts put you well over the 3RR. — Cortonin | Talk 22:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 22:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Numbers 4 and 5 aren't reverts. There are no 3-reverts-in-24h. Rv 8 (which is really rv 6) doesn't alter that.
• 3, 6, 7, and 8 are all marked as reverts by you, and are all in under 24 hours. — Cortonin | Talk 22:25, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • (William M. Connolley 22:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Ah yes indeed. I excuse myself: the wiki clock and my system clock are 1 hour off (which I now think explains my previous bans too) so I thought I was OK with #6 (which you are calling 8). Well, I'll accept what the admins decide.

blocked for 12 hoursGeni 04:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coolcat

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Coolcat (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 09:43, Apr 21, 2005
• 1st revert: 09:44, Apr 21, 2005

(1st revert in two steps)

• 2nd revert: 09:59, Apr 21, 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:09, Apr 21, 2005
• 4th revert: 10:11, Apr 21, 2005

Reported by: Davenbelle 10:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This proposal to 'rank' editors has been soundly rejected; see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rankings/old.
• User will not listen to the consensus of the other editors. Davenbelle 10:47, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• which version did he revert to with what has been listed as his first revert?Geni 14:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was counting the number of times he removed my post re 'still rejected' and the 'Yet Another Ranking Scheme section'. The closest earlier version would seem to be this version (diff); it's closer if you consider this removal of text, too; long-span diff. — Davenbelle 17:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

He has (finally) moved the page to his userspace, where he can award himself imaginary titles to his heart's content. Is this still relevant? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure; the 1st revert above may not quite count. In his userspace I guess he gets to play little-tin-god over his pet Wikiproject. I note, however, that he has removed the VfD notice from the page. Bad kitty! — Davenbelle 23:29, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The incivilised and rude posts by User:Mirv with his "Penis Lenght Mesurement" to determine ranks is the reason I was forced to move it to my name space. Other "sarcastic" comments make the article unworkable, thank you for destroying everything. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. (Actually the table of ranks by length wasn't mine, and I doubt I was the first to think of the comparison—I was just the first to express it.) Maybe now you'll realize how futile and misguided this ranking idea was. I can only hope. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Davenbelle is obsesed with me, approach with caution, check his contributions if you dont believe me. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 10:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Baffling blocking

I tried to edit a Wikipedia article last night (GMT) and I got a message saying my IP was blocked for vandalism and that I had been warned. I haven't vandalised pages, I haven't been warned about doing so and we had been unable to access the Internet at home for months due a software fault with our web browsers and operating system. I think my home IP address is 80.3.160.4. I tried searching for this IP address in the blocked list but couldn't find it. My email address is kingal86bulk@yahoo.co.uk. Kingal86 11:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Multihunter Tame

This username was used almost entirely for idly removing tags from articles (bored kid, looks like, and the email below seems to confirm it). Average Earthman and I cleaned up most of it, then I blocked the name indefinitely as a vandalism account. But I just got an email from the user in question asking to be unblocked. So I've unblocked to give them another chance. Here's the email in question (name and IP elided):

"i know i shouldn't do all the vandalising of stub pages which i did, but i needed to kill some time while i was doing this. If you unblock me, i will make sure that i won't do it again. i promise you that. and as an added bonus, i will make some worthy contributions to the wikipedia site. i hope this plea is good enough to get you to unblock me as i really enjoy this site and i don't want to lose that chance of being part of a great community of knowledge bringers such as yourself and others. yours faithfully, Multihunter Tame a.k.a [name] i.p address: [address]."

- David Gerard 14:43, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quiet day at the White House? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm always for second chances, but be sure to keep an eye on the guy. Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to applaud that. I think we should always allow a user who has strayed a chance at rehabilitation. If he bites you twice, he can have the whole book, innit. Grace Note 01:05, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:TonyMarvin

Three revert rule violation on Ward Churchill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). TonyMarvin (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:02
• 2nd revert: 17:13
• 3rd revert: 17:37
• 4th revert: 17:50
• 5th revert: 17:58 to 18:20
• 6th revert: and now starting again here: 18:22

Reported by: Viajero 16:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at the diffs and this doesn't seem to be a 3RR violation, though it's clearly edit-warring. I'll keep an eye on it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:04, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This user refuses to accept the concensus reached by various users on the Talk page (zen-master, Kelly Martin, Grace Note, Cberlet, Rama, Viajero, a.o.) and insists on restoring his own version of the text, done in steps, with just enough variation, so that his "reverts" appear not to be technically reverts.

• Viajero and sockpuppets including Kelly Martin, Grace Note etc. have seized editorial control of the Ward Churchill and in so doing have inserted unencyclopedic language, made repeated unjustified reverts. The page should probably be protected again as little real progress is being made.
  • I am not a sockpuppet of Viajero. Kelly Martin 18:52, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

• My attempts to cite Viajero/Grace Note (his sock puppet) for the same offense has not been successful. I don't know if that's because Viajero deleted it or because (more likely) I didn't get it right. I was only aware of this 3RR page by looking at the list of Viajero's edits. This is hardly fair, he might have pointed it out in our discussions. I have been careful not to revert because I think that deletes a whole lot of changes at once, I much prefer making individual changes. I would ask also that the Ward Churchill article be protected before it descends into anarchy. TonyMarvin 16:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that Viajero is reverting to a version that includes emotive and inappropriate language including "kicking off" "lambasting" and a gratuitous reference to Bill O'Reilly. I have at length discussed all changes on the Talk page and invited and encouraged and responded to debate. Viajero and sockpuppets have not. TonyMarvin 16:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• In fact looking at the above links, they are not reverts at all. What is Viajero going on about ? TonyMarvin 17:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• LOL. I've been accused of many things, but this really is the first time anyone has accused me of being a sock! I'm thrilled. Look, Tony, you're not discussing things on the talk page and not being listened to. You're yelling that "O'Reilly must go" and then reverting. I disagree with Slim that you are not breaking the 3RR. I think you are. You're doing the sneaky, technical revert thing. Okay, I don't want to see you blocked, because that will just make you think that there's a conspiracy to silence you because there isn't. What I want you to do is put a list of the things that concern you on the talkpage, discuss them in good faith with the other editors involved, including their hosiery, and not get involved in a painful and protracted conflict. Look, one of the editors involved even began a process to avoid editwarring by putting the intro on the talk page and letting us fight over it there! A very good idea actually, because it leaves the article stable. Come on, Tony, you want your concerns heard so use the right road to expressing them. Revert-warring will just end in people's not hearing you at all.Grace Note 23:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:66.90.150.85

Three revert rule violation on Purple Heart Anon User User:66.90.150.85 has violated the Three Revert Rule on Purple Heart by placing personal questions inside the body of the article. Was asked not to do this on his talk page, but continued to do so. Is now on about the 5th revert [65]. Clear page vandalism -Husnock 18:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 200.30.222.170

Three revert rule violation on Augusto Pinochet (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 200.30.222.170 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 02:35, 21 Apr 2005
• 1nd revert: 04:28, 21 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:35, 21 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 15:58, 21 Apr 2005
• 5th revert: 16:15, 21 Apr 2005
• 6th revert: 17:52, 21 Apr 2005

Reported by: Hadal 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• This user has plagued the Pinochet article for quite some time now, by relentlessly injecting his/her POV. Hajor, Cantus, Tony Sidaway, and I have all reverted him today. This user is already aware of the 3RR due to a mistaken block just five days ago. This user is possibly the same person as User:Ruopollo, judging by this revert today: [66]. -- Hadal 18:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 23:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Bogan again

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost#The plot thickens. --cesarb 20:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

blocked as sock of a banned user.Geni 21:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• He may be a sock of a banned user, but was he banned within policy in the first place? Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I feel a bit uneasy about this too, but there's no doubt something weird was going on. I left him a note on his talk page when it first blew up, explaining there was a concern that he might have stolen someone's ID, and that I'd like to help him sort it out; and I said for reasons of privacy, he should e-mail me and we could talk about it. He never did, so he can't have been that bothered. He made almost no useful edits. He posted once or twice to the talk page of the supposed neighbor who was hounding him saying: "Stop telling people I'm a rapist," so he was spreading it as much as the neighbor was. Then giving his full name, including middle name, where he lives, and his photograph on his user page: very few editors do that, and you'd think wanted rapists might think twice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • Total troll bait. As the editor who raised this matter to the attention of both the board and Keb Bogan himself, I was nonetheless in favour of clarification (and, bottom line, technically, it didn't matter which of his accounts was blocked, so long as the ip wasn't) from him. Something as simple as another picture that isn't registered by a law enforecment agency. But he failed to produce it, and at any rate, the subject seems mute for now. El_C 09:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • very obvious troll, I think the prank-to-serious probability in this case must be near to five million to one, we don't even need a devil's advocate for this, imho. dab (ᛏ) 09:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • having said that, the "KB temporary" explanation sounds somewhat credible. Let him either post a custom mugshot (say, one where he balances a loaf of bread on his head :p), or edit anonymously under any old handle. dab (ᛏ) 10:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Improper page protection

See WP:RFPP#Unprotect_Metro. Cecropia has protected four articles he was personally involved in an edit war on. --SPUI (talk) 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Didn't he start a discussion to see if they should be merged? I don't see how protecting them for a few days is a problem. If they really describe the same thing, there's no reason the merge shouldn't go through. I'd say be patient for awhile and see if the problem solves itself. Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kelly_Martin

Three revert rule violation on Ward Churchill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: Time
• 2nd revert: Time
• 3rd revert: Time
• 4th revert: Time
• 5th revert: Time
• 6th revert: Time
• 7th revert: Time
• 8th revert: Time
• 9th revert: Time

Reported by: TonyMarvin 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This link shows Kelly Martin announcing to one of her sockpuppets her plans to revert anything written by TonyMarvin

• It shows nothing of the sort, and none of those editors are sockpuppets. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Only three of these edits are reverts and one of those is a rerevert because I reverted to the wrong version; there are therefore only two reverts within that time frame. I specifically refused to revert after the second reversion to avoid running into the 3RR; obviously there was no shortage of editors willing to revert the ongoing bad faith edits that led up to the protection. Yes, I made more than three edits to that article in a 24 hour period, but that's not what 3RR prohibits. Furthermore, 3RR (as I understand it) does not apply to reverting vandalism and other bad faith edits; I contend that TonyMarvin's edits to this article have been in the nature of bad faith edits. The reversions are clearly supported by consensus, as is evidenced by repeated reverts by multiple other editors prior to the page being protected. Finally, I have no sock puppets (unless you want to count my former user, User:Kmartin, which I simply stopped using because I didn't like how it was capitalized, and which has not made an edit in quite a long time; I'm not even sure what the password is anymore). I suspect (but obviously have no proof) that the sockpuppets who launched the edit war that led up to the page's reprotection belong to TonyMarvin, based on the content of those sockpuppet's user pages, edit comments, and talk page comments, although it's possible that the sockmaster was simply someone working in concert with TonyMarvin.

• I believe the reverts of Kelly Martin to be outside the guidelines permitted. It should be noted the Ward Churchill article has been subject to repeated editing wars, prompted by Kelly Martin's non-consultative style. Is there a way of investigating the connection between Kelly Martin, Viajero, Grace Note and the other users guilty of extreme POV promotion. It is their misconduct that led to the article being protected for the second time in a week! TonyMarvin 23:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The links don't show reversions of the same material. Also, for future reference, instead of writing "time" after the diff, it's helpful to include the time and date of the edit, so that admins can see over what period the edits took place. As for the sockpuppet query, I'd say it's pretty clear that these are all legitimate editors, though a sockpuppet on the other side of the edit war today meant the article had to be protected. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:28, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Slim, how do I put the time in? and how do I show the reversions of the same material? I believe investigating all the sockpuppets and users acting in concert is essential for the integrity of the article. While obviously experimental in nature I would like to pursue this inquiry through. TonyMarvin 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TonyMarvin, what you call extreme POV promotion, I call cleaning up POV vandalism. The article required protection because of the actions of sock puppet accounts and yourself. The talk page is for actually debating and discussing; listing the same thing over and over again to make it seem like you are interested in debate and trying to trick people into believing your extreme POV and suggestive word choices are valid doesn't count. There is near consensus that the current version is neutral, the only active discussion on the talk page is over minor items, especially when compared to the content you and the sock puppets are trying to add. zen master T 23:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Zen-master, be very clear. I have no sockpuppets. You have made edits in suspiciously close lock-step with Viajero, Grace Note, Kelly Martin and probably some others. Then there are vandals that seem to come and go. I am very much out on my own. I have no sockpuppets and it seems no friends in wanting a neutral article that discloses all pertinent facts. TonyMarvin 23:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to note that the three-revert rule applies to pages not specific material. You may not revert a page three times. We should not even be arguing about that anyway. Let's try to sort our differences out by talking them out, not by quibbling over who is reverting what when and how. What does that solve? Getting each other blocked doesn't actually resolve the issue. Grace Note 01:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)