Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive32

Contents: June 25, 2005 - June 29, 2005

Copyvio on protected page

The page Moses Kalankaytuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been copied from this site, and the site owner has complained. The page is currently listed on WP:CP, but the page itself is protected, so it isn't possible to stick a copyvio tag on it. Could someone take care of this? --Carnildo 03:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I marked it as such as is policy. This link is Broken 04:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is posting the request on the same site and same directory as the original article not enough proof for immediate removal? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have been watching this page with interest since my run-in with Rovoam (talk · contribs) (see above). Tabib (talk · contribs) is now claiming that WikiAdm (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet for Rovoam and so his claim of copyright status should be ignored. I get the impression this is an issue that is not going to go away easily just by the deletion of the page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 13:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fox News

There has been an anon editing that page and a large amount of wrinkles/reverts appearing. There has been a proposal on the Talk page to move back to the 24 Jun 13:23 UTC edit and protect the page until this can be sorted out. I'd like to do it, but would like to consult with some other admins before acting single-handedly. If you can, please comment on the Talk Page of said article. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:11, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is not appropriate for you to make an agreement to revert the article to a specific version and then protect it. This is a clear violation of the Wikipedia:Protection policy. Cross-posted on Talk:FOX News. Rhobite June 28, 2005 05:09 (UTC)

User:Helicoid

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

• First insertion [1]
• 1st revert [2]
• 2nd revert [3]
• 3rd revert [4]
• 4th revert (partial) [5]
• 5th revert (of another edit) [6]

Reported by: Guettarda 05:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) (Last diff corrected 16:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)) (Ok, I'm an idiot. I think it's fixed now)

• User was warned about violating the 3rr [7], and has also engaged in personal attacks. Guettarda 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours (I disregarded the last diff., though, as it didn't seem relevant). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, a revert is a revert, even if it's a revert of totally unrelated material...it's three reverts per page, so I thought it was applicable. Guettarda 14:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Guettarda, uh just to point out for the future, you accidentally cited the diff with "diff=0" (which is a dynamic link that points to the most recent edit of the page), rather than a static diff. That would explain the "irrelevance". I get confused by it sometimes as well. -- Natalinasmpf 16:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Oops, sorry, thanks (corrected). Guettarda 16:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, no — now it's unrelated to Helicoid. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • The anonymous editor in the last edit has rather the same editing style - ie. sudden removal of anything that makes aetherometry look bad without discussion, possibly a sockpuppet of Helicoid. Of course, that's just my thoughts. From what it looks like, from some of the comments on the vfd page, some of the aetherometry proponents are "calling their friends/relatives over" to revert the page, or to vote "keep" on its vfd. -- Natalinasmpf 18:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • I'm an idiot. Maybe I got it right now :| Guettarda 23:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR is indeed very broad — to my mind, much too broad. I can see good grounds for ruling out too many reverts of the same material, because there are very few occasions on which that might be justified; there are far more occasions on which a number of different reverts on the same page might be justified, though. As blocking is at the discretion of the admin involved, I generally use my discretion to black only when the reverts are of the same material.

Having said all that, my original comment wasn't very clear — sorry. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems like 209.29.93.65 (talk · contribs) could be a sockpuppet of Helicoid, looking at his or her editing style. -- Natalinasmpf 08:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:209.29.93.65

This user itself has violated the three revert rule at least thrice in itself:

1st revert:[8] 2nd revert:[9] 3rd revert:[10] 4th revert:[11] 5th revert:[12] 6th revert:[13]

Ridiculous too, and over grammar, and continues to attack users over the basis of grammatical edits, the reversions itself not conforming to Wikipedia:Manual of style. -- Natalinasmpf 08:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

IP 172.134.132.223, 172.149.84.231

Three revert rule violation on George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.134.132.223 (talk · contribs), 172.149.84.231 (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: --MONGO 11:52, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Anon was politely requested to participate in recent Rfc on the same issue and refused, commenting only during edits. Anon using mutiple IP's claiming it is due to his dial up service. Anon was also politely requested by at least 2 persons to create a user name but has yet to do so. User talk:172.149.84.231 It is also possible that this anon is also the same one that vandalized my user page [18],[19]. --MONGO 11:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If its decided that I did, I'll certainly take my 24 hour block, but I do ask that those who consider this check the history, and perhaps with Slim Virgin as she has some knowledge of the situation. You may find the opposite of whats being claimed. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Also, could you please post the dif's, I believe thats whats asked for, as these were edits, not reversions. Thanks. -bro 172.149.84.231 12:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1. I can't see that these count as reverts; three of them differ only in details, but one is significantly different.
2. There is no need for anyone to open an editing account. There are advantages for them, and it can make their lives easier, but it's entirely up to them, and they're not doing so is irrelevant to this issue. I might add that people editing from accounts used primarily for disruption are in no position to attack anons for being difficult to take seriously.
3. In any case, I can't see that 172.134.132.223 was warned about the 3RR beforehand.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we are discussing the material and it is summarily the same. Your unnecessary personal attacks as to my motivations are not what I would expect from someone entrusted to be an Admin...so, in keeping with your predisposed bias, I responded in kind on your user page.--MONGO 13:18, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I must admit to knowing about the 3RR. If my edits are considered to be reverts, I must then ask if the deleting of sourced, relevent content due solely to my not having created an account is vandalism. If this is the case, I don't believe my edits would count towards the 3RR. Regards. -bro 172.147.73.11 23:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it does not count as vandalism (and so your reverts do count against the 3RR). "Vandalism" is (annoyingly) just about the most over- and mis-used term on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism for our definition of what counts as vandalism. Noel (talk) 16:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the article you linked: Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. Since the bad faith nature -was- made explicit in admitted reverting based solely on the status as a nonlogged in user, it certainly does fit the definition. -bro 172.168.246.192 01:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be akin to someone stating that they do not like your username, and that they would revert your edits until you change it. If that doesn't fall under the vandalism definition, I suggest it would be a good idea to revisit it. -bro 172.168.246.192 01:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look at that line you just quoted: edits that do not make their bad-faith nature explicit and inarguable. Since I clearly do not agree that they are bad-faith, they are by definition arguable, and therefore by definition they don't qualify, right? Noel (talk) 03:14, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you hold the standard to be that no one argues it, it's useless just considering the person accused will dispute it. Putting that aside, I do find it odd that you don't consider blind reverts of anon users to be bad faith. Oh well, it is at least undeniably Wikipedia:Wikicrime, though I don't believe thats official policy. Hope you don't run into someone who doesn't like your name. :D -bro 172.165.17.51 28 June 2005 04:13 (UTC)

Again, there were no blind reverts and there certainly isn't vandalism on my part. Let me explain why...there is a standing Rfc on the exact passages you are editing. You were cordially invited to voice your opinion and comment there before you began editing the section...this would have made your efforts appear to be ones made in good faith. As Mel stated above, you certainly do not need a user name, but without one, regardless of your form of a username "bro", it is very difficult for others to keep track of your edits. The article is heavily vandalized and working outside of the norm as expected by the Rfc along with a lack of a username does not help you build a "name for yourself" good or bad, especially in a highly visited article such as this one. Furthermore, it is simple to track any IP right through the service provider to the exact computer and even the person or entity that pays for the service. Remember this when you utilize the web.--MONGO 30 June 2005 03:31 (UTC)

Ah, it seems you are still accusing me of that vandalism of your page. I would like to invite you to provide your evidence for such. I know quite a bit about TCP/IP myself, and would -love- to see your evidence. Your claim that you have a 'more accurate' way of showing where the vandal ip, and my ip's originate, if true, would keep you from branding me as the vandal. Nonetheless, I eagerly await the results. -bro 172.138.4.162 2 July 2005 08:07 (UTC)

Once you create a username and use only that to log in and edit....Interestingly, you now claim to know a lot about IP's, but I see below, you claim you have no knowledge of this. So which is it? Oh nevermind...you just go ahead and do whatever you want.--MONGO 2 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)

Actually, what I said below was that I didn't know where the tools were to track the location of the IP's, which immediately after I did find, and did myself. If that is 'claming to have no knowledge', then your comment wouldn't be absurd. Alas, thats not the case. Do you need some ice for that ankle sprain? That was a killer backpeddle. Good to know. -bro 172.162.182.69 3 July 2005 01:25 (UTC)

172, the link you provided is to an amateurish IP locator...be careful when you use the web.--MONGO 3 July 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Which would be why I asked for your 'professional' evidence. -bro 172.139.155.130 Wikipedia:Accountability--MONGO 4 July 2005 04:38 (UTC)

Swing and miss. Also, be a little more careful with your edits, you mangled my previous signature line. -bro 172.139.155.130 4 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)It was intentional...take this to my user page as your starting to look like a troll...do you have anything of substance to add to anything...that may be enlightening to anyone? Doubtful..Virginia Tech sure is Hokie...don't you think?--MONGO 4 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)

Wait, MONGO, you deliberately munge someone's signature line and then you call HIM a troll? --Calton | Talk 4 July 2005 10:46 (UTC)

Hah, you just outed yourself MONGO. More than a week ago I told you that I lived in Blacksburg, which, I'm afraid isn't totally true, and now you try to use that to show some kind of 'evidence'? It's now clear that I can't take you seriously. As for why not take it to your talk page, when you delete my comments there, and call them vandalism, I tend to not trust you to carry on a civilized conversation. Toodles. -bro 172.157.33.19 4 July 2005 22:04 (UTC)

In regards to the user page vandalism, it does seem that I share the same ISP as the vandal. Unfortunately, so do millions of other people. I believe it is possible to tell at least the area where the IP orginates, though I personally do not know how. If anyone does, I would appreciate your weighing in. Thanks. -bro 172.147.73.11 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

About IP location, this webpage (http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/city.ch) does resolve both the vandal, and my IP's to sterling, va. While I am in blacksburg, va, the tool isn't going to be all that accurate. I suppose the only thing I can refer you to is to look at my edits and communications with users and decide if you believe I did this (I didn't). -bro 172.147.73.11 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you refuse to develop a simple user page and use only that for your log ins and contributions, no one can track you since every time you dial up, you are assigned another IP. People often do this to avoid the 3RR rule. The IP link you provide is significantly less accurate than the one I have at my disposal...reagrdless, if you create a username and no more vandalizing edits from your multiple accounts to my user page occurs, then you will have restored some faith on my part that your intentions are ones made in good faith.--MONGO 00:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the place for the discussion, I've responded on your userpage. I'll only respond here in regards to the now repeated accusation of vandalism. There has been none by me. The only accusation you've bothered to even link to, I have addressed. Your deletion of my comments on your talk page with the heading of "Sockpuppet and Vandalism" when there was nothing of the such does not reflect well on you. Other editors can see your actions there. -bro 172.147.73.11 00:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Ombudsman

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

• 1st revert: 17:00, 24 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:50, 24 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:59, 25 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 13:34, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Edit summaries for these reverts include "anon has not established that his/her edits are in good faith". If Ombudsman cites the assume good faith policy to others in his edit summaries, and instructs others that they need to review it, then he has an obligation to comprehend and follow it himself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm it is a violation and the USer is still reverting. I'm too involved to block.Geni 00:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ombudsman, good choice on a user name. I wish I'd thought of it. 172 05:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not block User:62.253.96.42 (NTL proxy)

This is one of MARMOT's IPs, but please don't block it. The respectable and unfortunate User:UkPaolo uses it, and has already been blocked several times, and has had to scramble to get unblocked. Bishonen | talk 20:56, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an NTL cache proxy, and should not be blocked for more than 15 minutes. People, please take good note of the ranges on the right side of Special:Blockip. Read the instructions under "Read this part!", please. It's important. If you are an administrator and see a block in this range, undo it and inform the blocking administrator of the issue. If you must block to deter furious editing, make it a short block. 15 minutes; an hour at most. Any more and you'll probably affect innocent people. I know MARMOT is annoying and the fact that we can't permanently block him is doubly annoying, but that's the way it is. JRM · Talk 22:28, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

15 minutes is a good start. Use a message like "Blocked to prevent ongoing vandalism from User:MARMOT; we apologise for the inconvenience." Check after fifteen minutes to see if it starts again. NTL proxies have as much potential to be an ongoing pain in the backside as AOL ... NTL is the second-largest broadband provider in Britain (after BT) and the largest cable provider. Oh joy. - David Gerard 22:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could we run a squid on one of the wikimedia machines that requires authentication before use and can only access *.wikipedia.org? That way we could give the affected editors a way of editing while their proxy is blocked until the blocking system has all the bells and whistles necessary to avoid this kind of collateral damage (which isn't going to be soon, I gather). It wouldn't help the first-time editors, but the regular contributors could at least keep working during blocks. --W(t) 22:37, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

A solution might be to, when it's a known NTL proxy, extract the real IP address from it, and use instead of the connection IP. I found [20] and [21] about it. However, there's the problem that it would be getting the IP from an untrusted proxy. --cesarb 23:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We're already doing the same for User:Waerth's ISP I think. --W(t) 23:05, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

GAP Project

I'd like some advice on what to do with this. Has the alleged copyvio been confirmed or proven wrong? It passed about two weeks on VFU and has no sufficient support to undelete - yet the article has been restored anyway. Radiant_>|< 22:18, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Then deleteagain I'd say. When in doubt, follow procedure. --W(t) 22:39, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

There's been a pretty substantial re-write. I haven't compared it that carefully with the source, but it's rather different from what it was. Guettarda 23:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Since nobody is really sure whether or not this is copyvio (on the talk page, CP or VFU), I've deleted it again. It's better to err on the side of caution. Radiant_>|< June 28, 2005 09:17 (UTC)
  • I've restored a stub version which is definitively no copyvio. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 09:24 (UTC)
    • Coolcat has made quite a few modifications since he restored the article. The images are all either USDA or assert fair use. Changes that have been made to the article shouldn't be copyvio - you can look through the history and see the sections changed. If you can't find the source, do we assume its copyvio? There are copyvios in the history, maybe even some in the article, but we don't usually delete copyvios from page histories, and if we had to take out every article with slightly dodgy bits we'd cut half our articles. Guettarda 28 June 2005 12:57 (UTC)
      • The answer to that is that I don't know, and after lengthy discussion on its talk page, WP:CP, WP:VFD and WP:VFU, neither does anyone else seem to be certain. Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:32 (UTC)

Quick question on this: People are forming battle lines over a tiny bit of text on an article that has pretty weak justification? 1) If the author of the suspect passage is working on it, then that author could conceivably write the material in a new way that would end any possibility of copyvio (but isn't) 2) Without a clear VfU, people are reinstating an article (which is a policy violation) 3) In general and everywhere, we should be conservative on issues. The presumption is good faith, but the assumption is always also that things unproven are presumed untrue, because we're a reference work. We shouldn't be allowing doubtfulness in the name of being nice. If it is good faith, then cite, rewrite, recast. Why fight? I've used myself for information, but my brain came up with the original formulation, and it can damn sure come up with a new one. Geogre 5 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)

Yes, there was a copyvio, see the talk page. It was the same text reviewed during the article's second copyvio listing. I think Coolcat made a good faith attempt to re-write the article but accidentally included some of the copied text. I've made a proposal to resolve this page, see WP:CP or Talk:Southeastern_Anatolia_Project#Clarification. --Duk 02:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The article has been re-written and restored after the third copyvio delete. --Duk 20:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Purely hypothetical LJ post from Skyring

http://www.livejournal.com/users/skyring/82954.html - I've left a note at the bottom on what would most likely happen in the hypothetical circumstance he outlines - David Gerard 22:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All I have to say is that I am horrified by the rollback of Skyring's quality edits to the article he links in that entry. I haven't been following this matter closely but that sets off loud alarm bells for me that this user is being severely mistreated. Everyking 09:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well turn off your alarm, because he's only telling half the story, at best: he was being rolled back as a knee-jerk thing, given a) the vast amounts of BS/original research he was peddling on various Australian government pages made anything he wrote about government functions immediately suspect; and b) he was specifically altering the edits of his chief antagonist in his tireless battle to unilaterally declare Australia a republic. The rollbacks were ill-advised but understandable under the circumstances. --Calton | Talk 11:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I see something like that, I see personality feuds taking precedent over information and quality articles. The edits that were rolled back were quite good by anyone's standards. Everyking 20:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ek, if you spent less time playing WP's collective conscience, you might actually notice the piles of bullshit people have to wade through. It is unavoidable that now and again a good edit is reverted. In such a case, it should be enough to complain on talk, and people will apologize to you. dab (ᛏ) 20:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see how, based on this, it looks like Skyring is being persecuted. He makes good edits (good by any standards), gets reverted; tries again, gets reverted again. Maybe Skyring has done some stuff to be punished for, but if so, that right there tells me that at least one person on the other side needs to be punished as well. Everyking 02:00, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...based on this... Sure, if you're selective with your evidence, leave out context, and spin it dishonestly, you can justify pretty much anything, as certain international events of the past couple of years demonstrate. And it's not a question of punishment, but an application of the Stopped Clock principle: a broken clock may be right twice a day but that doesn't mean you ought to believe it.

Basically, he was behaving like a jerk; and since Adam made some mistakes because of that, Skyring's decided to continue being a jerk by gloating. Simple as that. --Calton | Talk 02:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What actually happened is simple. Skyring has been stalking and abusing users who dared to stop him doctoring articles to claim Australia is a republic, etc. He has driven one person from Wikipedia. Others are afraid to make comments openly on talk pages in case he stalks them too, and have resorted to AIM and emails. He devoted over 102 edits in a row (bar two)[22] to stalking articles I had in any way entered, even if I had only fixed a text box, leaving abusive [23][24] or snide messages on many of the pages.[25] (He even proposed a VfD minutes against an article after I had edited a page!)

As some users wrote:

... he briefly tried wikistalking me too after I put up the harassment evidence, but didn't follow up with the personal attacks. I'm not sure why it hasn't come up in the voting on the current case. --nixie 06:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

...I am also puzzled as to why he has decided to harrass you and nixie but has left me alone, given that I have a longer history of disputes with him than you do. However, I will support anything that will shut him down. Adam 08:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, Pete Skyring, your VfD nomination was, to quote you, pure crap. You should —and I am confident that you will— be sanctioned for it. El_C 10:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I offer you my sincere apologies for having failed to follow through and watch over this, Jtdirl. El_C 11:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All of this was because I stopped him doctoring Australian articles to write in POV crap (eg, Australia is a republic. Its governor-general is its head of state. Its queen isn't. An Australian High Court judgment meant the exact opposite of what the judges said it meant. Academics shared his wacky understanding of constitutional law even when their quotes said they didn't. Constitutional monarchies are republics, yada yada yada.) Whereas he used as evidence a quote from a minor lawyer and some TV pundits and endless misquotes out of context, I quoted laws, letters patent, attorneys-general, state documents, governors-general etc. He did not like it that everyone (and I mean everyone. Not a single person agreed with him) on the talk page (and a lot of people edited it) said he was wrong.[26] So he personally targeted me for abuse[27] and targeted others for abuse when they told him to stop. [28]

For example if I wrote about the Irish president's honour guard, he suddenly became interested in it too. If I touched Donald Regan, so did he. If I wrote about a crown, he'd change it. If I put in a template, he'd leave a message saying it was wrong, if I wrote about the European Constitution, he'd add in a snide comment about Ireland knowing that I am Irish, etc, with edit summaries like 14:33, 13 Jun 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Adam Carr (Low quality of Irish editor) and A common pattern for this editor to produce poor English)

When I refused to keep wasting time discussing his endless attempts over 5 pages, a RfA, etc to justify his arguments (everyone also just gave up reading his 'I'm right. You are all wrong. So are the courts, academics, attorneys-general, etc etc' diatribes) he began his harrassment and stalking to try to force me to talk yet again to him.

I was advised by email by some admins to respond to his following he around to each page as I edited it to do as was done in the past when similar individuals stalked users by reverting all his changes in the list of articles where he had been following me around, something that had been done in the past to other wikistalkers. I did. I and others whom he was stalked reported him to be ArbComm, who were already in the process of banning him from some pages for a year. (Where, BTW, according to an admin who checked it, he seems to have produced a sockpuppet to defend himself.)

He did as the admins in the emails expected. He screamed, threatened, proposed the VfD[29],

1. (cur) (last) 04:53, 19 Jun 2005 Skyring (VfD. Trivial material covered elsewhere.)
2. (cur) (last) 04:11, 19 Jun 2005 Jtdirl

And he left abusive messages on talk pages and users' talk pages. As the admins had predicted,and as they said had happened before in similar cases the blanket reversions stopped him stalking (at least for a while, though he did try to continue stalking as an anonymous IP, something he had already threatened to do). He then reverted to bullying type by writing lies on an off Wikipedia site, while conveniently not telling his readers of his abuse, his threats, the fiction he tried to enter onto pages and his stalking of others who dared stand in his way.

Others have said that if he tries stalking other users again they will again blanket revert everything he does until he stops. Hopefully the ArbComm will soon get around, finally, to banning the troll, something they should have done ages ago anyway. I'm afraid Everking's idea that Skyring "is being severely mistreated" is wide of the mark. It is the victims of his abuse and stalking that were being "severely mistreated", by him and to be blunt, by the slowness of the ArbComm in tackling him when they admitted there was a major problem. Previous trolls and stalkers like User:DW, who also were reverted on sight initially (no matter how good the edits) before being permanently banned, were dealt with far more speedily under the old system for dealing abusive trolls and stalkers.FearÉIREANN^(talk) 02:25, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, if someone was stalking me by making good edits in my wake, I think I'd be all for it. If anybody sees me editing an article and notices anything else—typo fixes, content additions, formatting changes, factual corrections—that they can positively do to it, by all means, feel free. Automatically reverting someone regardless of whether the edits are good or bad? What? I don't even know how to respond to that. It seems like our ideas about Wikipedia are from different universes. Everyking 02:56, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Presumably you agree that Skyring's rudeness and personal attacks are out of line, so the only disagreement appears to be the manner in which a difficult editor should be treated. Even if Jtdirl or other editors erred in rolling back Skyring's accurate edits, surely Skyring himself is partially at fault for his history of editing in such a grievously biased manner as to bring suspicion on the accuracy of his future edits. — Dan | Talk 03:17, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'm not defending whatever else he may have done, in the Australia dispute and so on. But it's not hard to see that the edit in question was a good one. Even a cursory glance makes that obvious. So it's not a question of suspicion, is it? We all know there's a president of the US but not one of the UK, we don't need to be suspicious about that. It seems to me more like it was decided that Skyring would not be allowed to edit no matter what, and so he was rolled back unconditionally. But he's not under a ban (at least he wasn't at the time this place), so we can't do that, and even if he was, I think we'd have a personal obligation to take a second or two to discern whether or not the edit was a bad one, or even possibly a bad one. It hurts articles to apply that kind of indiscriminate logic. Everyking 03:42, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it is quite standard to ROS (revert on sight) edits of trolls, irrespective of the quality or otherwise of their edits. In cases like DW, articles started by him after his many bans were deleted on sight, irrespective of the quality or otherwise of content. I was simply acting as advised by admins and, as they expected, a policy of RoS stopped him in his tracks. He faced the choice of continuing to stalk people and have all his work wiped, or stopping stalking and having his edits judged on their merits. Everyking's reaction suggests that he has never had to deal with people like DW, Skyring and others aren't real contributors but just use their position on Wikipedia to bully, abuse, threaten and stalk other real Wikipedians. If he had, he would know that RoS has worked to stop extreme behaviour by trolls pending their eventual banning, and will in extreme cases be used by real wikipedians to deal with extreme trolls in the future. It is only ever used in extreme cases and is not used against the 99.9% of honest and genuine users. It is puzzling however that Everyking is so silent against Skyring's behaviour on Australian pages, where he tried to enter his POV opinions as fact and dismissed the concerns of every other contributor, his harrassment of me and Petaholmes, his behaviour against others, or the fact that one user that I know of, and probably more, quit Wikipedia rather than face his barrage of bullying. He seems more concerned with the hurt feelings of the bully than the experiences of his many victims. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 28 June 2005 17:54 (UTC)

Well, I guess we just don't agree about this "revert on sight" stuff. I'm more interested in content than in these feuds, so it matters not one bit to me who makes an edit if it's obviously a good one (if it's only possibly good, then you'd have a case: it might not be worth the energy to research and verify it). It seems to me if you or I were one day deemed trolls others could go along and delete all our hard work on that basis, which is kind of a scary thought. Damnatio memoriae. Everyking 29 June 2005 13:17 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of being "deemed" trolls. You and I don't stalk other users, going to every page they edit to leave abusive messages in edit summaries. You and I don't doctor articles to add in claims that are demonstrably untrue, and insist when 20 people + come to the page that we are right and everyone else pushing a POV. You and I haven't been threatened with a year long ban from some articles by the ArbComm. You and I have not driven genuine wikipedians people away from Wikipedia. You and I have not had our behaviour universally condemned everywhere by everyone. You and I have not threatened to get around a ban by coming onto on Wikipedia anonymously to continue harrassing individuals. You and I do not write a tissue of lies about users on off-Wikipedia pages. People can disagree. What they cannot do is behave as Skyring has done. He is not labelled a troll (by me and others) simply because of disagreements. He has been so labelled because of his conduct, conduct which has seen other users, like DW, Lir and others banned. Prior to the creation of the ArbComm he would have been banned outright far more quickly, but perhaps because of the workload they are slow at reaching decisions, which means that people can act in a bannable way for weeks if not months before they get around to issuing an injunction. In the time I have been here I have seen as few as four or five cases where RoS was used. In each case it was to deal with an extreme user and in every case they were banned (in all cases that I can think of, permanently banned) with an order to revert and delete everything they did when they reappeared. Only in the most extreme cases, with the most extreme user, acting in the most extreme manner, have people used RoS. Neither you nor I, nor 99.9% of people here, qualify. People like DW, Lir and Skyring, because of their behaviour, did.Slán. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 29 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the pathetic little Linux Fanboys (including among many admins)

Hello all. The title says it all. Wikipedia seems to be infested with pathetic little Linux Fanboys, many of them admins, who in their own miserable little minds are "protecting the honor of Linux" by monitoring all Linux related articles and editing out whatever they dislike. Please as an example review the history of the Linux article and see how they revert and ban people who have contributed information to the article that is CORRECT AND RELEVANT. This is truly pathetic.

Regarding your edit summary: they are even reverting my post here. this is really unbelievable. This had a purely technical reason: you were posting in the footer section. This page contains a notice which reads "DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE to add new subsections in this section. Please use the appropriate sub-page. New subsections added here may be completely deleted without warning. Thank you." I hope this makes it slightly more believable. JRM · Talk 22:55, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. Although I just double checked and I don't see your explanation to be the case for my post. In fact, I reverted back to my old post, to which you responded. I suppose if my old post was problematic, you also would have reverted or corrrected it, right? At any rate, I don't want to move the focus on that subject, I think it is rather important that this subject be discussed on the admins' board, because the PLLF's who are also admins, clearly abuse their admin power on Linux articles, including heavy-handed treatment of contributors and bans and other unfair practices.

If I look at Linux, all I see is consistent reverts by different IPs who all use the phrase "pathetic little Linux Fanboys". Going further back, I see even less complimentary terms hurled around. This should stop—we have a policy against personal attacks. You can think about people any way you like, but calling them names is not productive.
In response to the constant reverts, CesarB protects the page, which is the right thing to do (Wikipedia:Protection policy). If I then look at the talk page to see where the discussion on this obviously disputed issue is being conducted, I see... nothing. A single comment where people are, again, called "pathetic little Linux Fanboys". There is no discussion, there are just reverts.
I suggest using the talk page to discuss exactly why you think everybody else is wrong in removing the information you posted, and also assuming good faith by not supposing everyone who disagrees with you must therefore be a "Linux Fanboy". I do not, in any case, see any abuse of administrative powers. The talk page is there to resolve disputes. Use it. JRM · Talk 23:21, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Update: I'm afraid I had to delete your shiny new PLLF article. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, in particular: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and does not contain neologisms, particularly not those used to support insults. You'll want http://www.urbandictionary.com for that. JRM · Talk 23:21, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise!! CesarB *IS* a PLLF (Pathetic Little Linux Fanboy). Of course he should be quick on deleting my article on PLLF. He never explained why he is reverting CORRECT AND RELEVANT information from the Linux article. Is Ken Thompson, the creator of Unix not qualified to comment about quality of Linux? If he had praised Linux, his comments would have been all over that article. Why should you guys delete ken Thompson's comment about Linux out of an article about Linux in Wikipedia? What is the excuse for that?

Ken Thompson isn't the creator of UNIX. AT&T Bell's Labs deployed UNIX. Before you start making unsubstantiated claims, get your facts correct. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:39, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. We have told you time and time and time and time and time again to use the talk page. You wanted to add your version, and it wasn't acceptable. We said that it (the quote) was meritable, but you added your own personal version over 15 times. If you were willing to compromise, the editors would be fully ready to listen. Instead you decided to make personal attacks! Not smart, man, especially when you direct these personal attacks against administrators. Not smart at all. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

And if you try one more personal attack against a user, I will block you for a week. Do you understand me? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of what I said above I blocked the originator of the latest personal attack for 24 hours. We don't need to put up with this kind of thing. Mackensen (talk) 00:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin and I swear to BSD. *sticks out tongue* Inter\^Echo 00:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can we just delete this? I never designed this board to be a punching bag on administrators. I see no admin action that needs to be taken here, other than perhaps to tell that poster to refrain from making personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go on. --cesarb 00:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By all means do, even if the anon in question had observed wikiquette, it's still a content dispute or a complaint against admins, which as has been discussed on talk doesn't belong here. --W(t) 00:27, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

What you designed this board for is irrelevant, you non-admin you! :-P However, it's pretty obvious there was no serious questioning of admin powers going on here; just someone who had to vent a little puerile anger. Now that that's been done, I see no reason to keep it around. If mr. PLLF returns, we can file it under Incidents. JRM · Talk 00:31, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

User:CJ2005B (I)

Please see this entry on the Wikipedia:Policy enforcement log. I'd just like to know if my actions were appropriate. Thanks. --khaosworks 00:13, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I thought it was a bit too lenient, until I noticed it was an AOL IP. Don't see any problems with the block. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, he's back, and he's vandalised my user page and talk page again. Someone please deal with him this time round because (as Ed rightly pointed out) since I was involved in a content dispute with him, I don't want to be seen as a bully. --khaosworks 10:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • I've blocked him for 24 hours after he wouldn't stop vandalising some user pages and ignoring warning I placed on his talk page. Evil Monkey∴Hello 11:23, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

IP 65.190.2.200

• 65.190.2.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Three revert rule violation on Paperback Writer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 65.190.2.200 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:40, 25 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:43, 25 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:19, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: Cbing01 02:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• Claims that he/she is reverting to a better version of the article, but in fact is reverting to an earlier vandalism. Has been reported on the appropriate page for that as well. In addition, the reverts are destructive to the improvement process of the article, as he/she is removing the new format of Single infobox. Cbing01 02:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Philwelch

This user has removed the article's dispute heading on Puppet state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which is a response to his original research, four times. His last edit erases the dispute heading, calling it "vandalism." [30] 172 04:11, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My "original reserach" was originally posted by others. I've taken it upon myself to mark the relevant section as unverified and start the work of verifying it, while 172 would prefer to destroy the information entirely for reasons I cannot ascertain. After deciding to leave the article entirely, he felt like putting up a dispute tag, which was a redundant "parting shot". I've taken it upon myself to remove his vandalism. — Phil Welch 04:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

your defintion is not the wikipedia defintion of vandalism. At most POV pushing is all you can acusse 172 of. You have reverted outright 3 times and nearly 4 times. please try not to do it again.Geni 09:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:172

Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:27, 25 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:30, 25 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:10, 25 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:54, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: J. Parker Stone 05:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Please supply diffs, not history versions. And while you're at it, explain why your 4 reverts are not a violation of the 3RR. Guettarda 05:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have made 4 edits within the past 24 hours, but one of those [31] is not a revert. J. Parker Stone 05:49, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

172 has made 4 reverts in ththe last 24 hours although not all of them are to the same version. Blocked for 24 hours.Geni 11:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I only count three reverts over that period by 172. Besides, there appear to be four parties reverting the page, so the obvious solution is to protect it, not start looking for someone to block. Unblocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

That is 4 reverts they are within 24 hours I would suggest you count with more care in future.Geni 12:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They aren't of the same content, and there are intervening edits. I count very carefully, thanks much. I would suggest that 172 remain unblocked, so as to facilitate a compromise. The article is protected, blocking 172 accomplishes nothing. Mackensen (talk) 12:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

reverts are per page not per version. Nothing on the WP:3RR suggests otherwise. 172 knew the rules and it is not a first offence. I understand that if you remeber the last time he was blocked you may not want to repeat the experence but we'll survive.Geni 12:38, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've confirmed that there were four reverts within a 24 hour period. I've blocked for 20 hours (24 less the 4 hours he was already blocked). Carbonite | Talk 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism rampage on af:

If anyone has admin permissions on af:, could they please check in - there's a vandal on the rampage mass-deleting content from articles. See http://af.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spesiaal:Recentchanges and http://af.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spesiaal:Contributions&target=195.85.154.162 . -- ChrisO 10:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone

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

• 1st revert: 05:17, 26 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:04, 26 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:32, 25 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 04:29, 25 Jun 2005

Reported by: Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'd like to clarify this report. These are not four reverts in 24 hours. These are four reverts in a hair under 25 hours. I see no reason to fetishize the 24 hour aspect–Trey Stone is clearly revert-warring and that sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. (Note that the 3rd revert is still a revert even though there's a one-word difference. The rest is the same.) Before another administrator blocks, I'll note that 172 is already blocked for a violation of the 3RR (which I disagree with, but I appear to be in a minority of one on the matter). If Stone is blocked (and it would hardly be the first time for him), then it will be 24 hours before we can start resolving the dispute on Fidel Castro. The article is protected, and will remain so until the dispute is resolved, as the parties involved have demonstrated that they can't handle having the page unprotected. I really wonder if blocking does any good at all in this situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone shows a pretty clear history of breaking and gameing the rule.Geni 13:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

blocked until 08:26, 27 Jun 2005. Geni 14:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:70.48.250.150

Three revert rule violation on Scanderbeg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.48.250.150 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:39, 25 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:03, 25 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:35, 26 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 14:48, 26 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 16:54, 26 Jun 2005

Reported by: IskanderBey 15:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I am kind of late with this, sorry as I am new and still havn't gotten used to the site much yet. I would like to report abuse in the Scanderbeg article. The person, no name, just an IP adress constantly changes the page at his will and does not even bother to try and debate his nor does he try to bring the proposed changes in the discussion page first, on top of this, nearly all of what he has written is assumed and not at all from a neutral point. He ignores the evidence I brought against him and constantly repeats himself. Also, I believe he is working under two different IP adresses 70.48.250.150 (t c) and another 65.95.60.89 (t c)}. However I have only used the 70.48.250.150 (t c) IP address. IskanderBey 15:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mezmerize

Could someone throw a bucket of cold water over this? Blocks, a protection, pixie dust, whatever takes your fancy. --W(t) 23:45, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

I protected the page. Since it's on Mike's version I asked him to support his version. Hopefully this will blow over, but I'm not holding my breath. Guettarda 23:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blocked IP

I just tried to edit the Blue Oyster Cult page since there is incorrect information on there ie:

"They are currently in the studio with producer ChromiumSteel working on a new album."

This is probably the work of pranksters or vandals, and is not true much as I wish it were even without producer 'Chromium Steel', that's a reference from BOC song Golden Age of Leather for those who didn't know.

Anyway my IP is blocked because someone called Erwin Rommell has used it for vandalism. I am NOT Erwin Rommell, I am just a devoted BOC fan and a moderator on a BOC fans site (check Catholicschoolgirl out at www.bocfans.com) so I deplore spamming, trolling or vandalism especially with regard to my favourite band. If you can't unblock my IP could you at least see that the page is edited to take out the erroneous information.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholicschoolgirl (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 Jun 2005

Well, you wrote this, so can't you just as easily edit the article the way you want? Everyking 09:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking the same. Anyway, I removed that note about Chromium Steel for you. Shanes 09:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Shanes. As for why I couldn't edit it myself well it seems I can post or edit here in this section but not on the page I WANT to edit since I get the 'IP blocked' message as soon as I click 'save page'?? You tell me, you're the administrators. This is the message I get:

"Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Erwin Rommel". The reason given for Erwin Rommel's block is: "blanking user pages; ignoring warnings not to do so".

You can email Bumm13 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list (http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l). Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

Your IP address is 195.93.21.40. Please include this address in any queries you make."

Thanks again. CSG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catholicschoolgirl (talk • contribs) 09:40, 26 Jun 2005

Hmm. Are you using AOL? Looks like you have an AOL IP address. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 12:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

whois traces to AOL I've cleared the ip block. The name block is still in place it explains the user haveing difficulty editing different pages.Geni 12:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't follow that. Why would any block (or blocks) allow editing of pages in one space, but not in another? Noel (talk) 20:23, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's because of the stupid way that AOL dynamically assigns IP addresses: addresses are assigned from a pool of proxies on a per-connection basis. This means that you get a new IP address for each page you download, so you may be getting a blocked address when trying to edit one page, and getting a free address with another page. Further, AOL assigns addresses from the entire /8 address space it's got, so you can't range-block one person without range-blocking all of AOL. (Not that that's neccessarily a bad idea, but...) --Carnildo 21:03, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand; thanks for the explanation. Noel (talk) 03:38, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have quite a few good editors from AOL, don't we? Everyking 22:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yep :-( Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 22:26, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Christafari

Can someone check this out. I tried redirecting to Christafari but cannot figure out what is going on. Perhaps I am mistaken, Image:Messian dread - christafarianism 2004.pdf by User:Dubroom, SqueakBox 20:46, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's redirecting ok but I think the pdf should be deleted. For one thing it says on the first page "This essay may be freely copied and distributed only in it’s entirety, provided that no money is asked (also no “production or shipping costs”)." This is not OK for here where we allow commercial distribution of Wikipedia articles. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 20:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I figured something was wrong, and it sounds like a speedy delete candidate. Can an admin please go for it. If the ;person puts it somewhere else on the net we could link to it, SqueakBox 21:00, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

A quick web search reveals it to be from here http://www.dubroom.org/download/pdf/ebooks/messian_dread_-_christafarianism_2004.pdf Unless anyone has any objections I think we should speedy delete and add the above as a link. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 21:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the right decision to me. Guettarda 00:47, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done! Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 28 June 2005 05:05 (UTC)

[user:DUBROOM.com] As uploader I apologize for not knowing the texts can be used commercially and therefore the upload did not support this... Thank you for preventing that from hapenning...

Helicoid

Could admins check Helicoid (talk · contribs)'s behaviour at Talk:Aetherometry? He is unable to post a comment without a scatter of insults, and to my mind his behaviour is going beyond simple aggravation. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:33, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:CJ2005B (II)

This user is threatening me here, SqueakBox 00:04, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

He is now making death threats hereSqueakBox 00:12, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

He also keeps vandalizing SqueakBox's user page, see diffs:[[36]], [[37]], [[38]], [[39]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtkiefer (talk • contribs) 00:18, 27 Jun 2005

The Watcher (talk · contribs) appears to be reverting in the same pattern (and has the same atrocious grammar. Denies it, but I strongly suspect The Watcher to be a sockpuppet of CJ2005B. --khaosworks 00:25, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, SqueakBox 00:32, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Both users are currently blocked for 1 week.Geni 00:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Evading his block

Based on the contribs I am 99% sure he has resurfaced as Agent003 (talk · contribs). Identical interests, SqueakBox June 28, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

HELP!

Administrators on duty: I am an AOL user registered here under User:WBardwin. The proxy server AOL assigns me is also used, apparently, regularly by a vandal. I get blocked regularly, both yesterday and today. Please see the most recent discussion on my talk page. Now, however, it appears that 207.200.116.9 - the proxy number - can edit, but I as WBardwin get bumped out of my user category whenever I try to edit. Please fix this! I assure you I am not the vandal, but a responsible user. 207.200.116.5 01:26, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the block.--nixie 01:34, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also help

I blocked the cancer vandal IP range 2 days ago and a user has asked me to unblock. I tried and cannot. Something strange is happening as I have logged in twice as alteripse, but when I move to the administrative pages the skin changes back to default and I am no longer logged in although I can edit this. Therefore I had no "unblock" option when I went to the page listing blocked users and addresses. Can someone please unblock 195.93.21.104 as soon as possible please?

I don't know whether my access problem was a known bug or if I was doing something the wrong way. I am not at my usual computer and will try again later from there. Thanks. 159.14.171.39 28 June 2005 15:21 (UTC) (alteripse)

195.93.21.104 looks like its another AOL address. I'll unblock it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 28 June 2005 15:29 (UTC)

I assumed good faith (ie. your not an anon pretending to be an admin) and unblcoked the IP. As a side note, I spoke with someone on commons who was having the same problem. THey couldn't log in and when they finally did it would log them out on the next page reload. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:30 (UTC)

I was having that problem on Sunday but it seems to have fixed itself now. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 16:15 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the unblock. I am back to my usual machine and have not had any problems with being logged out by page changes. I gather the big software switch has had some side effects? alteripse 28 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)

James Voirin VfD

I've moved this here per Carnildo's suggestion over at WP:VP policy.-Splash June 28, 2005 19:04 (UTC)

Ok, I nominated James Voirin for deletion, on the grounds given in the VfD. Now, the article has been expanded since the beginning of the VfD but, Goldstein307 (talk · contribs) just closed the debate with a Keep when the voting was 7d, 2k. That is a clear consensus to delete. There was discussion of whether he was sufficiently notable or not, but the voting is very clear indeed, as are the reasons given for the 7 delete votes.

Is there a procedure for contesting the closure of a VfD on that basis? I've let Goldstein know on their talk page.-Splash June 28, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

You might drop a notice on WP:AN. --Carnildo 28 June 2005 18:28 (UTC)

How many of the votes to delete and keep were made after the rewrite? If, for example, both the keeps were made after the rewrite, those votes tend to have more weight because the previous delete votes were made before the rewrite, and therefore may not have voted with all of the information neceesarily on hand. If the VfD gets reopened, maybe you or the person who rewrote the article should contact the people who voted before the rewrite (keep or delete) to reconsider their votes. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 19:08 (UTC)

There's also WP:VFU if you think the vote was conducted improperly. · Katefan0^(scribble) June 28, 2005 19:13 (UTC)

I don't think VfU is the right place, since it was kept, not deleted.-Splash June 28, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

I was mistaken - all the non-VfD edits were made before the VfD began; the article was not revised once voting commenced. This makes me even more sure the closure to keep was inappropriate. .-Splash June 28, 2005 19:16 (UTC)

As one of only two individuals to vote keep on the article, Goldstein307 shouldn't have closed the VfD—if only to avoid any question of a conflict of interest. I have rolled back his closure, and leave the article disposition up to a neutral admin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

It appear rather obvious that Goldstein307 (who is not an admin) completely went against the vote and took it upon himself to decide that the page should be kept. There was only one other keep vote besides his own (vs 7 to delete). All votes were after the rewrite. I'm going to close the VfD as it should have been and delete the page according to process. If Goldstein307 (or any other user) believes that I am in error, please bring it to VfU.Carbonite | Talk 28 June 2005 19:24 (UTC)

Yeah, with no rewrite, the correct thing to do was to go with consensus and let someone else decide. It's perfectly okay to close a VfD where one voted, as long as one follows consensus (whether the same as or different to one's own vote). --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 19:29 (UTC)

Thank you all for your help. That was an impressively quick response. -Splash June 28, 2005 19:33 (UTC)

User:65.182.172.13

65.182.172.13 (talk · contribs) has reverted the page Chicago-style hot dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) multiple times today and has exceeded the 3 revert rule. The user appears to be using sock puppet connections to have slightly different ISP numbers each time (such as 65.182.172.106 (t c) and 65.182.172.115 (t c)). --Alabamaboy 28 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)

User:7121989

I don't have anything against sex, but these images this user is uploading are IMO pretty clearly porn and not made for the educational value. Should I ask the user to source and tag their images, or can I start removing them? - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

Remove them. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 21:41 (UTC)

• BTW, I'm about to go to bed. I'd appreciate it if someone else kept an eye on him. - Mgm|^(talk) June 28, 2005 21:41 (UTC)
  • I have left a message on the user's talk page warning them about uploading pornography. -- Francs2000 | Talk 28 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)

He came back and immediately began uploading more pornographic images and linking them into his favorite articles. I have now given him a one day ban to show that, yes, you can be blocked for doing that. Geogre 5 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

User:Enviroknot's injunction

It appears that Enviroknot is violating his Temporary Injunction on editing anything other than Talk or arbitration pages. See [40] after the 25th. --Calton | Talk 29 June 2005 07:44 (UTC)

• I've put a warning on the user talk page; I'll monitor his contributions and block if he does anything else. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 07:59 (UTC)
  • So, his next contribution was a charming little note on my talk page. As I am the target of this, I am reluctant to block. Can someone else please handle this? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 12:54 (UTC)

I had warned Enviroknot in the past about his hostility and disruptive behavior in the past. I'm giving him a final warning now and will block if he continues in this vein. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 13:05 (UTC)

He was warned several days ago and again earlier today. I've blocked him for 12 hours for blatant disregard for the ArbCom's injunction. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 13:12 (UTC)

Thanks. But for the fact that his edit was aimed at me, I'd have blocked him myself. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

I don't think you needed to be that cautious. Until the warning, you'd no previous involvement; if their response was clear abuse (i.e. not a judgement call as to whether it was or not), there's not much else one can say, is there? Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 14:39 (UTC)

I just like everything to be ultra-transparent. The last thing I'd want to do is to feed his sense of being put upon: "I tried to reason with that Filiocht person and all he could do was block me." Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:49 (UTC)

I think it's cool that you did that; it's sensible. However there seems to be a very strong consensus that this guy is one of the silliest trolls we've ever encountered. He's tried tricks that would work in a more troll-friendly environment. He's been caught red handed but he still insists he's innocent. Giving him warnings is better than blocking at this stage because it enables us to gather more evidence. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 29 June 2005 22:32 (UTC)

I agree that warnings would be more productive, in the short term at least. Filiocht | Talk June 30, 2005 12:40 (UTC)

User:Kurita77

the true artist of sockpuppetry does one harmless edit first [41], and seamlessly continues his dispute only with his second edit [42] . Except it's strange User:Kurita77 with his second edit quotes and fully supports Enviroknot, and with his sixth edit educates users about policy. The conclusion is left to the gentle reader. dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 15:04 (UTC)

Good catch. This is obviously a sockpuppet, as demonstrated by the use of strikeouts, bolding and section headings in his second edit. Kurita77's first edit was about 15 minutes after Enviroknot was blocked. It's already well known that Enviroknot has an affinity for sockpuppets. I'd like an IP check before blocking, but I think there's little doubt that Kurita77 == Enviroknot. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I asked David Gerard for an IP check, but then noticed that he doesn't have this ability under MediaWiki 1.5. I've gone ahead and blocked Kurita77 permanently. If any admin truly believes that Kurita77 is not Enviroknot, please unblock. In my opinion, this is another case of a troll annoying good editors and gaming the system. Thanks. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 15:50 (UTC)

are you serious? not even DG can look at IPs now?? On 1.5, socks check out you? that's not exactly my idea of progress :\ dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Hopefully, it's a short-term issue (he says on his talk page "I don't presently have CheckUser access in the new software"). I didn't notice the message at the top of his talk page until after I left the request. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 16:01 (UTC)

Kurita77 emailed me:

Carbonite refuses to answer my emails. Nobody is responding to me. Why are you calling me a sockpuppet? I have done nothing wrong. I have acted within wikipedia policy as sent to me by Spangineer. He sent me all the information on how to edit and how to format things in Wikipedia. It's all listed right there. Please. I just want to edit in good faith.

I do think he is gaming the system, but I would like to put this case to everybody's consideration. he appears to claim that he read through policy so quickly that he can act like a seasoned edit-warrior within 10 minutes of his first edit. If anybody has reasonable doubts this is Enviroknot, feel free to unblock him. We are not the arbcom after all, and only supposed to deal with obvious cases. dab (ᛏ) 29 June 2005 17:10 (UTC)

It's not the first time an apparently new user edits like a seasoned Wikipedian. I think there's good reason to stay suspicious.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

I posted this to the mailing list. This is why I blocked him:

Here's a synopsis of Kurita77's contributions at Wikipedia:

1st edit: His first edit was made within minutes of Enviroknot being blocked for violating the ArbCom injunction.

2nd edit: Quoted Enviroknot and struck-out many of BrandonYusufToropov's comments. Kurita77 used also editing features such as section headings and bold text.

6th edit: Began lecturing Brandon on "No Personal Attacks". Again struck-out several of Brandon's comments.

10th edit: Again lectured about "No Personal Attacks".

16th-18th edits: Uploaded an image of "Eyeshield 21". Added a disambiguation link to the Eyeshield article. In an email he sent to me, Kurita77 claimed that this article brought him here.

20th edits: Posted a message on Brandon's talk page referencing several Wikipedia policies and instructing Brandon to "calm down".

22nd edit: Posted a question on AN/3RR (regarding personal attacks ).

All of the above happened in less than 3 hours. It's crystal clear that Kurita == Environknot. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee will probably ban all sockpuppets of Enviroknot permanently and allow him to edit only under his own account. It is possible mistakes will be made. All we ask is a good faith effort. Usually he is pretty obvious, as in this instance. Fred Bauder June 29, 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Here's the nail in the coffin:

According to email headers, Kurita77's IP is 66.69.141.11. Sound familiar? That IP is listed on the ArbCom case page as one of Enviroknot's IPs. This IP traces [43] to cpe-66-69-141-11.houston.res.rr.com. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

This is EnviroKainKabong's Roadrunner IP address. He posts from there and from the business school at the University of Houston, or else he uses open proxies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) June 29, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Response

It appears that I have one chance to respond so I am responding.

1st edit: His first edit was made within minutes of Enviroknot being blocked for violating the ArbCom injunction.

Why does this matter? I was unaware that editing at certain times of day was proscribed. I certainly couldn't have predicted that I was editing right after someone was blocked. In fact it looks like you guys are blocking people all day long.

2nd edit: Quoted Enviroknot and struck-out many of BrandonYusufToropov's comments. Kurita77 used also editing features such as section headings and bold text.

I thought it was a good idea for the page. Even BrandonYusufToropov seems to agree with that idea. Wikipedia policy says to BE BOLD about making edits. I was doing that. I didn't know Wikipedia was a persecute-new-users society.

6th edit: Began lecturing Brandon on "No Personal Attacks". Again struck-out several of Brandon's comments.

10th edit: Again lectured about "No Personal Attacks".

Aren't editors supposed to help other editors? Aren't we supposed to remove personal attacks as per Wikipedia policy? Aren't we supposed to inform other editors when they're doing something outside the bounds of policy?

16th-18th edits: Uploaded an image of "Eyeshield 21". Added a disambiguation link to the Eyeshield article. In an email he sent to me, Kurita77 claimed that this article brought him here.

It did. I was referred here by a friend who noticed that they had an article on the manga but none on the anime. I got my feet wet and got comfortable making edits before trying to make a whole new article. Is that a bad thing?

20th edits: Posted a message on Brandon's talk page referencing several Wikipedia policies and instructing Brandon to "calm down".

Is it wrong to ask someone to calm down when they're engaging in heated discussion and flinging around personal attacks? I find it very funny that he removed the comments from his talk page. As if he couldn't be bothered to read Wikipedia policy.

22nd edit: Posted a question on AN/3RR (regarding personal attacks ).

I posted the question because I wanted to be sure I wasn't breaking the rules. Would you rather have me just wait until I was blocked before asking?

According to email headers, Kurita77's IP is 66.69.141.11. Sound familiar? That IP is listed on the ArbCom case page as one of Enviroknot's IPs. This IP traces [32] to cpe-66-69-141-11.houston.res.rr.com. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 17:58 (UTC)

I told you - and you REFUSED TO POST IT HERE - that my area's been having trouble thanks to my idiot neighbors putting in a pool and messing up the cable lines. I think it's changed again. I'm not sure.

I don't know what this Enviroknot person did and I don't think I want to know. I came in here in good faith. I took the time - TWO DAYS - to read the policy pages and how-to-edit tutorials before I made my account and started in, because I didn't want someone coming in and attacking what I made for poor writing style.

Instead I got attacked just for being here and making legitimate comments.

Please, for the love of god, SOMEONE show some common sense and give me back my account. I haven't done anything wrong. Kurita77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.133.72 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 29 June 2005

P.S. I just checked. Yes, my IP address changed again with this last outage. It's now 66.69.133.72. I have no idea how long it'll last, probably only until that nitwit with a backhoe decides to risk electrocuting himself again. Kurita77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.133.72 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 29 June 2005

And what, pray tell, does the fact that your neighbors have messed up cable lines have to do with your using the same IP as Enviroknot? It's a lot of smoke you're blowing, but I'm not seeing any fire here. What's the connection? Are you saying that your klutzy neighbors have forced you to share Enviroknot's IP? How did they manage that? --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:10 (UTC)

You sound like someone who has been on Wikipedia for a long time. Do you want to make us believe that you're a newcomer?--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)

I am a newcomer. I took the time to read the documentation available here before editing because I didn't want to make an ass of myself. Please give me back my account. Kurita77

Sorry, but I strongly doubt that anyone could assimilate that amount of Wikpedia lingo that fast.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)

Lingo? What lingo? The tutorials teach you how to make a link. The rules pages are pretty clear if you take the time to read them. Indenting is as simple as putting a colon before your line. What have I done that is advanced? If after two days of reading the pages you couldn't edit halfway decently I'd think something was wrong with you.

Please. I have done nothing wrong but I am being treated like some sort of criminal for "knowing too much." Why are you doing this? What is the problem with you people? Kurita77

The way you talk about your situation reveals that you are very familiar with about how things are done in Wikipedia and what things are called. LOL, I am not sure I would produce that amount of correct Wikipedia terminology.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)

I have no idea. I didn't even know this page was here until Carbonite put that insulting "warning" on my user page and blanked out what I'd put on it. Kurita77

FYI, I am a linguist and everything you write convinces me that you have a long experience of Wikipedia. You won't fool me, sorry!--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 20:14 (UTC)

If you're a linguist then you could tell me what it is I've said. But you won't. You're actively refusing to. What the hell is wrong with you? Do you get some sick enjoyment out of tormenting new users? Is this some assholish initiation rite or something? Kurita77

Now, as to your question, the reason why I believe you to be a longterm wiki-user is that you get every single term right (a newcomer would have a more varied set of expressions), and you know a load about Wikipedia. Kurita77, instead of getting angry, and if you're innocent, why don't you take a wikibreak until all this is over? If you're a newcomer, Wikipedia should not be so important to you as it seems.--Wiglaf 29 June 2005 20:26 (UTC)

"Kurita77", I might note also shares Enviroknot's calm manner, measured language, and admirable social skills. --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:10 (UTC)

...not to mention similiar responses to being challenged, as in [44] and [45]. --Calton | Talk 30 June 2005 04:18 (UTC)

User:69.209.x.x and User:69.222.x.x

Three revert rule violation on Apartheid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) most recently by 69.209.206.36 (talk · contribs):

• 09:55, 29 June 2005
• 09:08, 29 June 2005
• 08:39, 29 June 2005
• 07:56, 29 June 2005
• 07:44, 29 June 2005
• 07:34, 29 June 2005
• 07:03, 29 June 2005

Reported by: dewet|™ 29 June 2005 08:15 (UTC)

Comments: This user seems to be using dynamic IPs from Ameritech in Chicago — also see 69.209.193.213 (t c), 69.209.222.92 (t c), 69.221.63.132 (t c), 69.222.253.40 (t c) and 69.222.251.201 (t c) for the most recent examples, although the trail is fairly obvious from the article history. This article was unprotected today, after the previous round of edit warring with this user. Since then, he has already reverted it seven times so far, and this has been going on for at least two months now. Against concensus of over 10 regular editors, he refuses to budge and keeps on inserting his POV. I have reported this here before, during one of the previous rounds. This user has also sockpuppeted as AmYisrael (t c) (who was reported here and warned), TeamRevertViolation (t c), SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon3Rrules (t c), SlimVirginjayjgJpgordon (t c), FYI (t c) and Azure1 (t c), among others. dewet|™ 29 June 2005 08:15 (UTC)

He's reverted 9 times now. Jayjg ^(talk) 29 June 2005 16:24 (UTC)

Well, we can't block two /16's in a major metro area with many users on them, unless there's some dire need. Last time this user/page was up here, I protected it but TonyS lifted the protection almost immediately. Tony, this time, let's try it my way - I have protected the page, please leave it protected. Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 16:57 (UTC)

User:Bobbybuilder and User:GrandCru

I know that this is also a dispute/edit war-- will file dispute.

Three revert rule violation on Kuomingtang and Democratic Progressive Party for both editors.

Bobbybuilder (talk · contribs), GrandCru (talk · contribs): [History of Kuomingtang article], [History of Democratic Progressive Party article]

Reported by: Penwhale 29 June 2005 08:26 (UTC)

Comments: GrandCru (talk · contribs) insisted that KMT is pro-communist which is absolutely not true. That was a major error, because his statement cannot explain the Chinese civil war.

GrandCru (talk · contribs) deliberately deleted the criticism towards DPP. The covered up version is just illogical looking at the current chaotic Taiwanese politics. GrandCru (talk · contribs) also claimed that DPP's formation was because a bunch of people are against the communism. That statement is also not true. DPP is a left wing party in the formation, and many founding members were even sympathisers of Taiwanese communists prosecuted by the KMT-ruled government then.

I reverted his works because those are just his POV without providing anything to back those up. By reverting his words he even accused me of being a communist. That's how biased he is. bobbybuilder 29 June 2005, 19:55 (UTC)

• I never insisted that KMT is pro-communist, just communist leaning - and it certainly is more communist than DPP. At any rate, I have ceased editing those two articles in a self-imposed cooloff period. Bobbybuilder, however is still reverting.--GrandCru 30 June 2005 01:11 (UTC)

By keep on reverting to his version, I do think he was insisting that KMT is pro-communist. "it certainly is more communist than DPP", that shows how malinformed GrandCru (talk · contribs) is, he didn't even understand the formation of DPP. Of course I had to continue reverting, even the other people GrandCru (talk · contribs) called for help can't agree with his extremely biased POV. This matter can put to rest at the moment, but I do hope someone else can also moniter those two pages in case people like GrandCru (talk · contribs) appear again and write baseless accusations. bobbybuilder 30 June 2005, 19:12 (UTC)

User:TJive

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

Article history

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]

Reported by: BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Comments:

• First up, I need to express an interest, as I have involved myself on Talk:E. E. Cummings. There are only 3 reverts; a fourth is needed before the rule is broken. Secondly, this reporting is being used as a weapon by User:Blankfaze in his ongoing effort to insist on British English (BE) spellings on this US subject-matter article. User:TJive's reverts are all to the American English (AE) version. My own view is that AE is more appropriate for this article, but that is beside the point. What really seems to be at issue here is Blankfaze's stated willingness to get involved in conflict to defend his position. I would ask this user to assume good faith here and look for another way of resolving this difference of opinion. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 09:56 (UTC)
  • For the second time, this is not a "US subject-matter article". BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)
    • What's next - you're going to claim that Horatio Nelson is not a UK-subject-matter article? This guy was born and lived in the US - how much more US-subject-matter can it get? (And note that I spell colour, harbour, honour etc with a "u", if you want to know where I'm coming from.)
      Plus to which, the last version before you started editing the article was in US spelling - note the "summarized". Looking at the history, I wonder if you're becoming somewhat possessive of the article, given the number of edits you have made. It's fine to be an fan of the man, but don't go overboard... (Like some other people we can think of, neh?) Noel (talk) 29 June 2005 17:06 (UTC)

• Sadly, policy is with TJive on this one. He should not be blocked. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 10:03 (UTC)
  • Why "sadly"? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
    • Because I prefer Blankfaze to TJive. But we must follow policy. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 14:40 (UTC)
• As Filiocht noted, this isn't a 3RR violation since there isn't a fourth revert. Also, I don't believe that Blankface should have used the rollback link to revert TJive (on two occasions). American English does seem to be more appropriate for this article and certainly can't be considered "vandalism". If the matter can't be resolved on the talk page, it's time for an RfC. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 10:04 (UTC)
  • I've suggested Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal on Blankface's talk page. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 10:11 (UTC)
    • I should also note that the "first revert" was not a revert as I went through the actual article and discovered some other words that I had missed on a previous edit, though this may qualify as being close enough. --TJive June 29, 2005 11:14 (UTC)
• I must be losing my mind. I thought it was three to break. Hah. This insomnia of mine is taking its toll! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)
  • What I mean furthermore is that anyone should feel free to take this item off of this page, as it's irrelevant w/o a 4th revert. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 13:55 (UTC)

Blankfaze has reverted the page to the BE version again, with the edit summary "combattez la bonne bataille" ("fighting the good fight"). Can someone who is not involved make a call on a version and protect this page to prevent a revert war and give time for the participants to calm down? Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:15 (UTC)

I myself am perfectly calm. However, I'm not sure this is the place to request protection, which I dislike generally, anyway. --TJive June 29, 2005 14:18 (UTC)

I'm not fond of protection, but this seems destined to turn nasty without some sort of cooling off period. I'd protect the page myself if it were not for the fact that I've become involved. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 14:20 (UTC)

Blankfaze has now broken the 3RR and shows no sign of stopping. He should be blocked, perhaps just for an hour, to make him cool down. Page protection is undesirable. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 15:10 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I have not broken 3RR. I have three reverts in the last 24 hours. My last 4 reverts have been at 14:56, 29 June 2005, 14:07, 29 June 2005, 18:44, 28 June 2005, and 14:08, 28 June 2005. As you can well see, my fourth revert came 24 hours and 48 minutes after the first. Trust me, I am not going to break 3RR. I will time them carefully. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 29 June 2005 15:25 (UTC)

Given this, I think protection is infinitly preferable. As I have only edited thie page to revert some unrelated vandalism, I will protect in 10 minutes if nobody else does it first. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:16 (UTC)

As Blankfaze has not actually broken the 3RR, and as he has given me an undertaking not to do so, I say lets wait until tomorrow and see what happens. Filiocht | Talk June 29, 2005 15:26 (UTC)

Blankfaze if you had continued that pattern I would have blocked just as I would have block anyone else who was gameing the rule. I have blocked people for breaking the rule by as little as three minutes. Why should a few minutes make so much difference?Geni 30 June 2005 00:22 (UTC)

I don't get this gaming the rule business. There has to be a cutoff somewhere and the cutoff is 24 hours. You cannot block someone for, say, making four reverts in 24 hours and three minutes. You'd have no policy to stand on. We have rules for a reason. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 30 June 2005 00:30 (UTC)

At the most basic level game would consists of adding a single bit of punctation. This is trivial to do so the rule would be utterly useless if we went for an ultra scrtict interpritation. So we must allow for some coverage of gameing the rule. So the question becomes how much? Some admins do it simply be comapreing the amount of the change but there are sometimes legit reasons for make lots of simular edits. Personaly I look at a users past history to see if there is a pattern or in your case they admit what they are doing. Of course in your case if you were against a halfway skilled or deterimed edit warriour you would already be up in front of arbcom with people pointing out parrelles to the Everking case (and there may have been a simular case involveing DR Zen) so the three revert rule is the least of your worries. People are blocked for gameing the 3 revert rule all the time. It seems to be acceppted practice.Geni 30 June 2005 00:58 (UTC)

It's protected and tagged. Hopefully things can be trashed out in talk. By the way, Blankfaze's timing his edits carefully is making use of a loophole to game the system, which is violating the spirit of 3RR and is just as bad. --khaosworks June 29, 2005 15:31 (UTC)

I concur with Khaosworks' assessment. Timing reverts to avoid breaking the letter of the 3RR is still decidedly disruptive. Blankfaze has been here long enough to know better, and I would not be inclined to defend him if he were to continue to game the system in such a manner. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 29 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)

User:Kurita77 on talk:Jihad

I am unsure if I have just committed a violation, but would like advice. How does 3RR pertain to enforcement of Wikipedia: No Personal Attacks and Wikipedia: Remove Personal Attacks policy when a user continually un-strikethroughs the removed personal attacks?Funnuraba! Ya-Ha! Kurita77(talk) 29 June 2005 15:39 (UTC)

we accuse one of the users involved of being a sockpupet in order to make sure the question remains purely hypothetical (ok so the answer within the rules of the three revert rule is that it does apply).Geni 30 June 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Can't figure out your system

This anon (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=80.58.4.42 contribs) used bad language, etc. in a slow motion edit war POV pushing battle. I don't know the correct name of the "policy" this violates, but I don't see any signs on his part of wanted to make an accurate and neutral article. -- Uncle Ed (talk) June 29, 2005 20:26 (UTC)

• Ah, that would be Wikipedia:Avoid personal attacks. I do believe that "Ed, you fucking moron, this terrorist is now laughing his ass off that he has found a stupid admin to support his position. Moron, just take a quick look at the history logs. You fucking idiot." is a personal attack. I'm going to block him now. Ta. - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:10 (UTC)
  • No need to. See the block log: 06:47, 30 June 2005 Mikkalai blocked "User:80.58.4.42" with an expiry time of 3 days (persistent reverting and foul mouth recently). - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 07:11 (UTC)