Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: April 22, 2005 - April 27, 2005

Contents 1 Watchlist request 2 Anonymous user vandalising Open Gaming 3 Referral from Admin RickK re User JEZ 4 User:Jooler 5 Arbitration case - 172 6 User:Maveric149 7 User:JonGwynne (I) 8 User:Zenupassio 9 User:Coolcat 10 User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (I) 11 Administrator SlimVirgin's Abuse of Power 11.1 User:TonyMarvin 12 What's the best approach? 13 User:Jhballard 14 User:Lantog 15 User:JonGwynne (II) 16 User:Gabrielsimon 17 Time Cube vandalism 18 Can I get a sockcheck? 19 User:64.12.116.197 20 User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (II) 21 Request for IP address check 22 User:Chriscf 23 User:217.70.108.3 24 Curps' and AndyL's possible inappropriate use of admin power at The Matrix 25 A self-proclaimed sockpuppet? 26 User:ChiveDreams 27 Falling Up (band) 28 User:Aaronescott 29 User:GRider 30 User:Gzuckier 31 User:SPUI 32 Sock check 33 User:Xiong 34 Javier Solana 35 User:Gabrielsimon and User:DreamGuy 36 User:Grace Note 37 Kim Bruning 38 User:Tony Sidaway and User:Harvarder--a request for review 39 User:Marco Krohn 40 User:Smell Etitis 41 User:JonGwynne (III)

[edit] Watchlist request

Could a few people please add Anti-diabetic drug to your watchlists? I can't imagine why someone has selected it for almost daily porn-link spam (medical breakthrough: porn improves pancreatic function!), but it's happening. Thanks. Joyous 13:18, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Man, they scooped my research again! Just kidding; I'll keep an eye on it too. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous user vandalising Open Gaming

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to note this, but an anonymous user editing through 68.10.113.7 and 137.246.197.36 (possibly User:Bblackmoor) is repeatedly vandalising the Open gaming page and deleting whole sections without discussion on the talk page first, requiring user's to continuously undelete. This is being done periodically every few days. Can anything be done about this? --Axon 14:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the correct place is Wikipedia:Vandalism in progressGeni 15:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Referral from Admin RickK re User JEZ

An Admin named RickK posted in response to my complaint to him about a User named JEZ. RickK told me this was the place to post a complaint about a user's general behavior. I was requesting RickK that a user named JEZ be banned, as explained below. If there is some other procedure to follow, please let me know. Thanks.

SummerFR 21:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request to Block User "JEZ"

Hello RickK,

I am writing to make a request that you block user JEZ. I do not know the actual procedure for requesting this, as I am new, but I will follow whatever procedure you have. I am making this request for the following reasons:

1) JEZ failed to make a good faith effort to engage in discussion over his alleged unhappiness with an article I was writing.

2) JEZ then engages in "sneaky vandalism" of this article, as such term is defined by wiki.

3) I then reported the "sneaky vandalism" and an Admin restored all the deletions made by JEZ's sneaky vandalism.

4) JEZ, by that time, had engaged in two cover-ups of his sneaky vandalism - (a) by subsequently posting his "reasons" for a selected number of edits, not even attempting to justify the most contraversial edits and deletions in his pretend-post-discussion; and (b) by then accusing me of starting a "flame war" with him requiring him to contact admins, after I had already contacted admins due to his sneaky vandalism, informed him of that, and posted a definition of sneaky vandalism on the article discussion page.

5) Since the time of the Admin decision to restore all text altered by JEZ -- and, by the way, much of that text changed by JEZ was not even written by me, but by other people who previously worked on this article, and had discussed it and reached consensus on their text -- Jez has engaged in personal attacks against me.

6) These on-going personal attacks, in retaliation for my correct and accurate accusation of his sneaky vandalism, and him being caught, and an Admin restoring the text, are in retaliation against me. He is posting on his talk page, repeatly, that I am an "idiot" and a "shrill fool" and complaining to an Admin that he needs to register his "displeasure" with me because I am a "shrill fool." At no time does he acknowledge what he did was wrong, and at no time has he sought to apologize to me. Instead he is compounding his initial bad faith, sneaky vandalism and cover-ups.

This person JEZ is, I believe, what is known as a "political hack" as his sneaky vandalism did not reflect his alleged objections to the article, and concerned old text, not "recent" changes, as well as text that informed the reader with material and interesting facts.

The article subject is JEB BUSH. The administrator who restored the article is MATANI2005. The administrator on whose discussion page JEZ has attacked me is JOY STOVALL, or JOYOUS.

I can provide other information if you need it.

Thanks for considering my request to ban JEZ. I was actually planning to let this all go, but his personal attacks against me have led me to now ask you to ban him, so that I can continue to write and edit in peace and in cooperation with others who have a genuine interest in sharing knowledge about the subject of the article.

SummerFR 17:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PS Prior to JEZ's sneaky vandalism, this article had already been read by an Admin (Joyous) who had no objection to the article save the location of one link. I believe JEZ saw her favorable comment posted to me on my page, and, purposely did not disclose what he intended to change in his sneaky vandalism, knowing the article had already been found acceptable to an Admin. SummerFR 17:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC

[edit] User:Jooler

Three revert rule violation on Rockall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jooler (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: Jonathunder 22:55, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Comments: To copy and add slightly to what Biekko wrote on the talk page: Like countries argue about tiny irrelevant rocks in the middle of nowhere, Wikipedians argue about single sentence picture captions. The big deal here is whether the caption of the map should say "The designation (U.K.) is disputed" or "Ownership is disputed". I don't see why it matters but Jooler contends that a dispute about these brackets is something separate from dispute about ownership. Users ClemMcGann, Red King, Biekko, and Jonathunder have all reverted Jooler's edits on this. This issue does not need to get out of hand and we should be able to resolve it without flagging the page as disputed or protecting it. I invite all the involved editors to please try and reach an agreement on this rather minor point and ask of them all to refrain from editing the caption until some sort of a agreement is reached. I would also like other Wikipedians to have their say on the issue.

Unfortionately, this attempt to stop the continuing reverts has not been successful. Jonathunder 23:54, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

This is unfair. I have made three attempts as using a compromising set of words but user:ClemMcGann keeps reverting to an unweildy set of words he is the one reverting to the same thing and he has broken the 3RR - See talk for a fuller explanation. Jooler 08:51, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In all ClemMcGann reverted my edits and two others users' edits about 12 times. Is he listed here???? 15:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration case - 172

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to 172. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 23:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Maveric149

Three revert rule violation on Template:Spoken Wikipedia. Mav keeps either reverting to a version of the template without the [[Wikipedia: link or reverting to a version in which it's external:

• First at 8:43 [6] (to the version without the link [7])
• Second at 12:22 [8] (to the version with an external link [9])
• Third 13:41 [10] (to the version without the link [11])
• Fourth 14:21 [12] (to the version with an external link [13])

Each time, Mav has commented on the talk page, but has not waited for input from others before carrying out the changes. There is no clear consensus on the talk page for his version. Demi ^T/_C 23:52, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

It's not completely clear if those are all reverts, but if not they seem to be gaming it. He doesn't like the way it is, so he starts by changing it incrementally. Someone else reverts back. He then changes it more, and now his didn't count as a revert but the person reverting it has fewer reverts left. Is this as bad of a loophole with the 3RR as I see it as? --SPUI (talk) 00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really if it clear someone is gaming the rule they are likey to be blocked as if they had done more than 3 straight reverts.Geni 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's clear, they just aren't all reversions to the same version (with respect to what's in the bottom link of the template). Demi ^T/_C 01:05, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Ah, I missed how the second one was a revert. For reference, the others are first third fourth; it appears that the only changes between these revisions were added by others along the way, making them all partial reverts. Looks like a pretty clear 3RR vio now. --SPUI (talk) 01:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since there's been no action on this notice, I thought additional clarification might be useful. To that end, I've provided links to the version being reverted to as well as the reverts. Demi ^T/_C 03:00, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

OK - this is absurd. I'm happy with the compromise and there is no longer any edit war. Everybody has cooled down, so why would there need to be a timeout for anyone at this point? Rules are made for reasons - blindly following them for their own sake is.... well you put in your own adjective. --mav 22:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I still think a better discussion would have been facilitated by a different approach (one not involving repeated reversions) it certainly isn't my intention to conduct a prosecution here. Cheers to you! Demi ^T/_C 00:58, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

[edit] User:JonGwynne (I)

Three revert rule violation on Temperature record of the past 1000 years (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 and violated this one per day limit on 20 Apr. (above). JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• Phrase insertion: [14]
• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]

Reported by: Vsmith 01:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The first was his original change in which he added the phrase indirectly reconstructed to the image caption. The reverts are not labeled as such, but are indeed reverts as he continues to game the system with small repeated edit changes. Vsmith 01:37, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong. Unlike you, I label my reverts as such.--JonGwynne 20:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne requested I look at this and I have unblocked him. This is really a stretch of both the 3RR and the ArbCom. On the ArbCom side, limiting him to one revert a day may be reasonable up to a point; but the decision is incredibly broad: any article dealing with global warming for an indefinite period. Even murderers typically are let out someday.

To his actions: I saw someone making a sincere effort to explain his insertion and look for a wording that met the objections to his insertion. The different insertions, complained of as reverts, were not, IMO.

To the substance: I find it quite reasonable to have the single word "reconstructed" in the caption. A caption is supposed to be descriptive yet concise. When you show a chart of such detail, it is important to let readers (like me) know that we are looked at assumed and not actual data. The fact that the data is a reconstruction is not insignificant. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you have added this to the wrong blockGeni 03:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? Where should it go? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

on the one nearest the bottem (the third). I'm not sure he was even blocked for this one.Geni 03:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, sorry about that. Maybe if a user has several actions going at once, there could be a way to list them all in the same block? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

they are not going on at once. There are five days between this report and the latest oneGeni 03:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zenupassio

This user vandalized COINTELPRO and is now trolling (see his contribs, especially those to user talk page, and his edit summaries). He redirected 2003 Invasion of Iraq to 2003 Liberation of Iraq, for example. ugen64 04:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Please note ugen64 claims to be 14 yo (this comment left by Steinerb 17:28, 23 Apr 2005)
  • So what? ugen64 is a respected member of the Wikipedia community. Are you? RickK 23:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

He started blatantly vandalizing (for example [17], [18]) so I blocked him for 24 hours. Antandrus 04:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And he proved the fatal flaw in your blocking tyranny by returning within moments. Steinerb 17:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Blocking someone for vandalism is not tyranny. What is your problem with what was done? RickK 23:06, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing a marked rise in extreme rightwing POV pushing, past two or three days. I suspect that some regular is running a sock campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably the result of a mention by Rush Limbaugh that Wikipedia is a "leftist" encyclopedia. RickK 00:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Here are some of the sockpuppets of Steinerb: Beinerts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Springmourning (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Springmourning0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Springmourning01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Springmourning05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (only contribution deleted), Springmourning44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Springmourning77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Springmourning99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). It is possible--even probable--that they are all sockpuppets of the same user -- Zenupassio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who returned after I blocked him as Nomorecorruptcops (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Nomorecorruptcops2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). I'm sure there's more--I haven't been following all that closely today. Antandrus 23:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand that a fellow by the name of Rush Limbaugh, who it seems has some kind of extreme rightwing talk show on the radio in the USA, recently mentioned Wikipedia and, according to the account I heard, described it as a leftwing encyclopedia. I wonder if recent POV-pushing activity could be related to that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Coolcat

Three revert rule violation on Nanjing Massacre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Coolcat (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:30, 22 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:43, 22 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:58, 23 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 08:50, 23 Apr 2005

Reported by: Stereotek 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Coolcat has been insisting on moving all the pictures in the Nanjing Massacre article to the 'Japanese atrocities' section, and has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hrs. to archieve that goal. Stereotek 07:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Update: 5th revert: 09:32, 23 Apr 2005 Stereotek 07:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 18 hours. silsor 07:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Looking at the page history, Stereotek, you also reverted 4 times in 24 hours, marking each edit summary with "rv". You're blocked for the same amount of time. silsor 08:03, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (I)

Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 06:07, 23 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:05, 23 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:28, 23 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 21:14, 22 Apr 2005

Reported by: MikeJ9919 08:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• A small excerpt from a revert war over the use of the title 'His Holiness'

After being listed here, User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has continued to revert to his version. Jonathunder 18:49, 2005 Apr 24 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator SlimVirgin's Abuse of Power

• SlimVirgin blocked me recently for a variety of reasons:

• These reasons are bogus in the extreme, could be send to apply to many other editors but were exclusively applied to me

• SlimVirgin was enforcing the will of a group (probably sockpuppets) who have agenda pushed in the Ward Churchill article to the point that it is protected and marked with warnings as to its neutrality etc. It has been the battleground of competing groups of sockpuppets who have either added false claims against him or removed all claims against even if reported in the mainstream press and well sourced.

• SlimVirgin (without warning) purported to block me for 24 hours for breaching the 3RR rule (which he'd earlier found that I hadn't breached!), unspecified edit warring and a false accusation of 'sockpuppetry'. He provided no reasons beyond this, no facts in support of it, proposed no process other than if you don't like it email me. I believe that offer was intended to improperly force a bargain over the content of the abysmal Ward Churchill article. I am - I should say was - a new user so I am not aware of how things are meant to work but I can smell a deceitful abuse of power and this is one.

• The consequence of this is that I will not be editing at all. Let Wikipedia become owned by the online equivalent of the opinionated angry freaks that call up Rush Limbaugh. Perhaps though the next time SlimVirgin blatantly abuses the blocking power he has been trusted with, he will be scrutinized. It is wrong for someone who has demonstrated a strong agenda (without even contributing to it!) on an article to selectively block editors who are not acting within that agenda. He is unfit to administer anything. He should be removed from any position of trust. He has abused it and undermined Wikipedia. TonyMarvin 11:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:TonyMarvin

In response to Tony Marvin's complaint about me, he was clearly warned, and furthermore appears to be engaged in sockpuppetry that is causing considerable disruption. Details as follows:

For the record, I know very little about Ward Churchill, have no POV about him, and haven't edited the article, except to revert the sockpuppetry yesterday and protect the page. TonyMarvin (talk · contribs) has made 224 edits, most of them to Ward Churchill, a controversial native American academic. Tony's edits have included POV and unencyclopedic contributions: his suggested intro kicked off with the claim that Churchill may not be an American Indian, and that he's being investigated for fraud, ethnic impersonation, and plagiarism. [19] Even Saddam Hussein's intro manages to say something neutral about him. During the 12 or so hours leading up to his block, Tony reverted numerous times against the wishes of several editors, and was reported by Viajero for a 3RR violation at WP:AN/3RR at 16:41, 21 Apr 2005. [20]

Regarding Tony's claim that I blocked him without warning:

• 1st warning to User talk:TonyMarvin 18:07, Apr 21, 2005
• 1st warning to User talk:Kelly Martin 23:55, Apr 21, 2005
• 2nd warning to both on Talk:Ward Churchill 01:09, Apr 22, 2005
• Kelly Martin stopped, TonyMarvin didn't; therefore Tony was blocked for 24 hours. I left a note on User talk:TonyMarvin, asking him to e-mail me if he felt the block was unfair, but he didn't. 04:47, Apr 22, 2005
• I unblocked Tony after around 13 hours as a gesture of goodwill. Note left on User talk:TonyMarvin 00:26, Apr 23, 2005

Regarding the suspicion of sockpuppetry, the page had been edited by several sockpuppets between Tony's first warning and his block. After he was blocked, four sockpuppets repeated his editing pattern and were blocked for having been created to violate 3RR. The page had to be protected and still is. Another four vandalized the talk page, one of them called Slamvorgin (talk · contribs), who replaced the page contents with a personal attack against me. [21]

For the record, there are three remaining accounts suggestive of a link to TonyMarvin, who have also been engaged in disruptive editing. A new account set up yesterday UDoN't!wAn* (talk · contribs) has placed on his user page the contribution lists of nine editors he seems to want to keep an eye on, seven of whom were involved in opposing Tony's edits to Ward Churchill: Viajero, Kelly Martin, Grace Note, zen master, Rama, Cberlet, and myself, involved only to protect the page and block TonyMarvin and the sockpuppets.

This morning, 12:03, Apr 23, 2005, Chunkyhoyo (talk · contribs) was set up. Six minutes before this, TonyMarvin made his last edit, in which he announced he was leaving WP because of me. Chunkyhoyo's user page lists the contribution histories of the same Ward Churchill-related editors that UDoN't!wAn* lists, and s/he has started to make some of the same controversial edits [22] as another new and problematic editor LevelCheck (talk · contribs). LevelCheck was set up on April 15. S/he has made almost no useful contributions, and has been warned for vandalism, disruptive editing, and creating POV categories (e.g. Category:People often considered to be evil). S/he is currently the subject of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LevelCheck. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:19, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• "SlimVirgin blocked me recently for a variety of reasons:" Instead of calling them bogus, I'd like to hear why he thinks he's being blocked. Still, complaints should be taken up with the blocking admin first. Discuss! If you don't respond to an invitation to appeal a block by e-mail, then how is SlimVirgin supposed to respond? I'll give SlimVirgin's evidence closer scrutiny, but I think (s)he was acting in accordance with policy. Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

• I am not a sockpuppet. Check my IP against that of User:TonyMarvin if you doubt it. LevelCheck 00:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What's the best approach?

Mr Tan (talk · contribs) has been making frequent and often sweeping edits to various pages, most notably Zanskar and Tsushima Islands. Many of his edits are problematic with regard to content, but that's a matter for other pages. The problem with which I'm concerned is his English. It's appalling. It's so bad, that there are times when I really can't work out what he's trying to say, making the only option deletion. Moreover, he's convinced of his own linguistic abilities, to the point of "correcting" other editors' English and making quite strong attacks on their grammar, style, etc. He seems absolutely impervious to criticism. I don't normally comment on another editor's English, but instead quietly correct it; in his case, I've found it necessary to do so, with increasing bluntness — nothing gets through. He's started claiming that he's using Singaporean English, hence my problem (and that I'm using American English, or Irish grammar...). I suppose that his behaviour is just about bad enough for an RfC, but it's marginal, and anyway I'd rather not take that route if I can avoid it. There seems to be no other approach, though. Advice would be welcome. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If he has been warned but refuses to comply, I would temp block him to give a message that we mean it. - Inter (as 82.148.169.188 15:43, 23 Apr 2005)

I've had a look at some of his edits. He doesn't seem to be acting discourteously or breaking policy. You told him that his actions were vandalism because you apparently dislike his use of English and you disagree with his use of {{gcheck}}. I don't understand why. This is a classic content dispute. Resolve it in the usual way and stop threatening him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid that this is nonsense; I can only assume that you were looking at the wrong User. One needs only look at Talk:Zanskar, in which he repeatedly berates (in broken, barely comprehensible English) another editor for poor English, blanks the Zanskar article and replaces it with a voting form with links to the original version and his version, etc. I was brought into this precisely because his behaviour had led to an RfC on Zanskar. But if you don't think that page-blanking as part of an edit war is vandalism, there's little more that I can say. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think if his behavior is as you represent it that might require a RfC. Having poor English is hardly something we can blame somebody for (although I suspect I'm not alone in wishing that non-native speakers who have difficulty writing comprehensibly in English would simply contribute in their native language's Wikipedia instead), but being hostile towards those who try to help them and improve their work, and even berating others for poor English, is pretty bad. Everyking 12:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact he insists that English is his first language, which is possible I suppose (though it's even worse than the average undergraduate's). He's apparently taken an editing holiday, so I'll wait until he returns before I decide on what action to take. I'd like to avoid anything as formal as an RfC, but perhaps that will be necessary in the end. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outstandingly the worst English I've seen here for some time, with an attitude to match. Let's just hope he stays away, frankly. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:20, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

English has been spoken in some Asian countries for hundreds of years, long enough for the language to diverge significantly from English used in the West. I agree that if he's behaving abusively and not responding reasonably to attempts to communicate with him then the next step (RfC) is appropriate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that there are other forms of English; over the past twenty or so years I have had many friends and colleagues and have taught many students from Singapore, Malaysia, etc. I'm also able to tell the difference between alternative styles of English and bad English. For Mr Tan's latest "correction" of an article, see the admittedly minor yet telling example here. Are you claiming that changing a correct English sentence to one lacking a main verb or subject is just Singaporean English? I've no idea why you want to belittle or dismiss the problem like this, but it doesn't demonstrate a particularly helpful approach to the Wikipedia community. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That Mr. Tan is disruptive seems obvious. Whether it's malicious disruption or simple lack of competence is not obvious. I'd personally advocate an RfC - their usefulness in dispute resolution may be marginal, but they do tend to show how crazy a user is. Snowspinner 14:04, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've finally felt forced to got an RfC. We'll see if it has any useful effect on his behaviour. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jhballard

Three revert rule violation on Joan of Arc (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Jhballard (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: Revision as of 02:02, Apr 23, 2005 (Plus minor additions)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 14:39, Apr 23, 2005 (Plus minor additions)
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 15:35, Apr 23, 2005
• 4th revert: Revision as of 15:55, Apr 23, 2005

Reported by: Noisy | Talk 16:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User seems unable to accept that other users may have additional benefits to bring to the page. Has been reverted by at least three users. This seems to be the only page that the user edits, and therefore it is "owned".

The comment is false. I enjoy every bit of information that can be added to the page. Noisy's reverts deleted text I added, which benefits the page. I've requested for Noisy to discuss changes on the talk page many times in the past few weeks, but this entry of the 3RR is the only comment he has made on the talk page. Noisy has violated the 3RR, but I chose to try to dicuss it with him rather than block him. I've added other content to other pages; this one is just of a more active interest -- it's my family not my page. - Mr. Ballard 18:11, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lantog

Three revert rule violation on Queer theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lantog (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:55
• 2nd revert: 18:44
• 3rd revert: 19:08
• 4th revert: 19:24
• 5th revert: 20:27

Reported by: AlexR 17:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Lantong maintains that the article states that John Money is part of queer theory - which the article does not. Hence he keeps removing that paragraph; in the past he also insisted of removing other bits of the article [23]. He also claims to be an "expert" on the subject (don't we know that phenomenon) and clearly voices his intention to make this article his personal property: " I cannot begin expanding, until it is settled -- if not by "consensus" than by fact ...". Seth Ilys did not want to block him, see talk page, but I disagree; given his past behaviour, he needs to see a STOP sign before things get worse.
  • I left him a warning on his talk page and on Talk:Queer theory. He has clearly violated the 3rr, but as he has at least started talking, I felt like blocking him would only escalate the situation, and so I did not. Anyone other admin, of course, may, under WP policy. - Seth Ilys 17:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I did not want to criticize Seth Ilys, I merely disagree. No offense intended. -- AlexR 18:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've offered on numerous occassions to engage AlexR in dialogue ... requesting quotes, texts, specific references to the use of a reputed "serious researcher" Dr. John Money in relation to queer theory. So far, none have been offered. AlexR has used his admin status to bully not only myself but others, see his talk page for some illustration. A good bit of my editing involved moving paragraphs from one section to another to allow more flow to the article. I admit to removing content involving Dr. Money, as well as prostitution, as none of these subjects have been made to connect to queer theory through use of any specifics. Further, as the talk discussion shows, the use of Dr. Money as a source for the article remains offensive.--Lantog 18:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not an admin. I have not bullied him, nor any other. He refuses to address any points made, instead cluttering the talk page about his seemingly infailable status as an "expert". Oh, yes, and he reverted a 5th time. -- AlexR 19:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lantog has been blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR rule. Burgundavia 20:07, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:JonGwynne (II)

Three revert rule violation on Attribution of recent 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; and been banned just recently for a similar vio. JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 16:30, 22 Apr 2005 (this removes 1/2 a para)
• 2nd revert: 20:28, 22 Apr 2005 (removes the whole para, hence a revert)
• 3rd revert: 20:08, 23 Apr 2005 (same as 2, hence second revert in 24h)

Reported by: William M. Connolley 20:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Partial removeal is not the same as complete removal of a paragraphGeni 03:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gabrielsimon

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

• 1st revert: 18:25, Apr 23, 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:26, Apr 23, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:46, Apr 23, 2005
• 4rd revert: 21:02, Apr 23, 2005

Reported by: DreamGuy 03:12, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• the revert at 22.26 isn't a direct revert.I'm not sure about this one Geni 03:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • None of the reverts listed occured at 22:26 (you mean 20:26?). I'm confused, it seems like an obvious 3RR violation except perhaps that Gabrielsimon thinks this is vandalism. BrokenSegue
    • 16:10, 23 Apr 2005 is also a revert
    • I don't see how he could honestly believe it's vandalism, as the text I restored was the original text and had been there for a while, it wasn't something I added to be snarky or anything. I'm sure he called it vandalism because I've been removing his vandalism to my talk page and decided to accuse me of doing what he was doing elsewhere. All the examples above are direct reverts. DreamGuy 04:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • no 02.26 (GMT) it the one lable 20.26 (down with time zones). there are a couple of other changes there as well as the deletion. Geni 04:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • He made a couple of changes that I reverted along with the main one, but his next act was to revert to one of his edits. The fact that he reverted to one without those other changes he also did doesn't make it any less of a revert. All of the reverts above do the same thing: go back to an earlier version where he had removed a point he disagrees with. DreamGuy 04:50, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)
      • I know this that is why I said I was not sure I need to cheack a few things. Geni 05:35, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon blocked for 10 hours. Geni 05:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time Cube vandalism

There is several-times-daily "Time Cube–related" edit-warring by an anonymous IP using multiple dynamic IPs. The following articles are affected so far:

• Greenwich Mean Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Coordinated Universal Time (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Time zone (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

It would be useful to have more admins add these pages to their watchlists. -- Curps 09:58, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added them. Think it's Gene Ross himself, or a (gasp) follower? Signed, Nature's Harmonious Four-Day Rhobite 02:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have temporarily protected these three pages in hopes of discussing this issue. This is my first protection; if I was in error, please remove the protection. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Can I get a sockcheck?

Could I get a sock check on User:Moral Clarity? The user page, POV edits and editor antagonism, suggest a sock of the banned users user:Cap. Freedom and user:Captain Liberty, both banned on April 17. I have banned the user for now. --nixie 10:00, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a tick...did you block this user for being a possible sock? Should users be presumed innocent until proven to be socks? I'm lowering their ban to 24 hours until they're proven to be a sockpuppet...if they ever are that is. If the user warrants a block longer than 24 hours, feel free to do so, but I don't think that an infinite block is appropriate for a suspected sockpuppet. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not to seem rude, but you didn't even look at the User pages! All three are mirrors of the same "article" about what the US must conquer. Word-for-word duplicates. If that isn't sock-puppetry, then it's idolising. Master Thief Garrett 00:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gee, that "invade every country on earth" manifesto looks familiar. It even has the same typo ("prusue"). —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're right- that was definitely a mistake on my part, and I apologize for my carelessness. I'm so sorry about that. -Frazzydee|✍ 02:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Block them for less and them some kindly RC patroller has to deal with this jerk again. This account obviously belongs to the same person as the other two or a copycat trying to be disruptive, I'm reinstating the longer block until someone proves otherwise.--nixie 01:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: By chance, a broken User link took me to a potentially suspicious new user, Freedom. The User page merely says "i prefer freedom" and the user has made NO contributions since signing up in January. It may be perfectly coincidental, but the freedom comment reminds me of this whole redneck idea JoeM has. And I have a habit of agreeing with my gut feelings. Someone should maybe keep tabs on them, it could be a sockpuppet our friend has created but hasn't gotten around to using yet. Or it could just be me being a xenophobe! Master Thief Garrett 02:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like a sock-check too, if poss... I suspect that User:Starky is a SP of User:NoPuzzleStranger - earlie this month NPS was online at consistent times every day except one, when Starky came online (his one and only spate of editing) to back up NPS and start adding to the reverts that NPS had reached the three-time limit on... Grutness|^hello? 01:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.12.116.197

Three revert rule violation on Joan of Arc.

• 1st revert: 17:22, 24 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:33, 24 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:29, 24 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 19:31, 24 Apr 2005

Reported by: Mr. Ballard 03:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The anonymous user has failed to discuss the changes even when the page is under dispute as specifically ask for discussion. The reverts appear more as a personal attack to undo information that may benefit the page, like mere citations and other forms of popular names for Joan of Arc. I've pleaded not to revert the references section that contain the citations many times over the past week. The anonymous user tends to specifically target my changes, as well as others. The reverts, like the IJAS link, appear to be quick and without thought compared to its intended fix.
• Moved this above "Report New Violation", as per instructions --MikeJ9919 04:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (II)

Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 04:09, 25 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:48, 25 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:56, 25 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 18:46, 24 Apr 2005

Reported by: MikeJ9919 04:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Another apparent revert war, this time over Benedict's membership in the Hitler Youth. This is the second apparent 3RR violation by Lulu on the same article.

[edit] Request for IP address check

128.237.231.116 (talk · contribs) has just appeared in order to vandalise, but the first example ([24]) suggests some knowledge of Wikipedia; could someone check to see it this is in fact a registered User, please? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Chriscf

From the talk page - Ta bu shi da yu 00:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as it isn't a 3RR violation.

For what reason was the documentary evidence of Chriscf violating 3RR deleted before being resolved? This seems very suspicious. [25] --GRider\^talk 16:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that one of your edits removed the evidence of User:Chriscf from the 3RR board. See this diff. With this move you incorrectly made a "Chriscf" subpage of Administrators' notebook. The diff you linked to simply removed a red link. Carbonite | Talk 16:59, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, for what reason was the subpage deleted? --GRider\^talk 17:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After it was archived (here), the blank subpage was deleted. The subpage really shouldn't have been created in the first place. Keeping the information here on 3RR or moving to the incidents pages would have been more appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 17:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The subpage was not blank unless doneso by a vandal, this needs to be looked into further by a neutral third party. --GRider\^talk 17:35, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The subpage was blank because all of its information was archived (by an admin). No vandals were involved. The issue with Chriscf happened over two weeks ago. I think it's time to let it go. Carbonite | Talk 17:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where is the archive of this blanked page available? And the question was never answered: Is it acceptable to violate the 3RR if the user is unable to report it in time because he is blocked? I was unaware there was a time limit to report 3RR violations. --GRider\^talk 18:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comment several lines above for the link to the archive. There isn't a policy with regards to a time limit, but it doesn't seem reasonable, in my opinion, to block a user for a 3RR violation from two weeks ago. The fact that you moved the information off of the 3RR page leads me to believe that you no longer considered it a 3RR matter. Seriously, is it really worth persuing this? Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comment does not provide a link to an archived copy of the blanked subpage, the subpage that the report of Chriscf's 3RR violation was moved to. Please provide a link to an archived copy of the subpage before it was blanked to allow this issue to be appropriately resolved. And yes, in light of the persistent behaviour by said violator, it is worth pursuing. --GRider\^talk 18:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My comment above, from 17:14, 25 Apr 2005, does provide a link to an archived copy of the blanked subpage. I have confirmed that the archive contains the complete Chriscf 3RR discussion. The last comment in that discussion was from Radiant at 09:56, Apr 22, 2005. Perhaps another admin will want to investigate blocking for an old 3RR violation, but I've had enough of this. If you are concerned with Chriscf's behavior, please file an RFC and refer to the archived discussion. Carbonite | Talk 18:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The archived copy looks to me to be identical to the subpage. In what way are they different? And why did you create a subpage in the first place instead of using the standard noticeboard pages? — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The subpage was created so that it could be easily referred back to, I hope this helps. Can you please provide me with a link to a copy of the subpage in its complete form before it was blanked? --GRider\^talk 18:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

GRider, I don't understand: what is wrong with the link that Carbonite provided? It looks to me to be a copy of all the contents of the subpage. I'll check again, but they seem identical to me—I'm not sure what else you are looking for. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Knowledge Seeker, I suppose I will refer back to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive17#User:Chriscf. Unfortunately this page does not preserve edit history, which was another reason the subpage was created. The larger question still remains: "Is it acceptable to violate the 3RR if the user is unable to report it in time because he is blocked?" --GRider\^talk 20:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not acceptable to violate the 3RR. I have blocked User:Chriscf for one hour. Carbonite | Talk 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am sorry that the edit history is no longer available. I suppose you have to choose which features you want when deciding where to post. If the edit history is very important, then posting it on the regular pages is probably a better idea, as even when it is archived, the history will remain. If preserving the page and the edit history is important and you want to retain control of it, then perhaps it should be created in your user subspace, as long as you're linking to it anyway. With regards to 3RR, I disagree with blocking a user long after the violation. I view blocking for 3RR (which I actually have never enforced) and vandalism as control, not as punishment. This case is a bit unique as GRider was blocked for a week. Perhaps the thing to do in the future, were this to recur, is to e-mail some administrators and ask them to block, or at least to post it on the 3RR page on behalf of the user. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:217.70.108.3

This IP spammed the wikipedia:about page with links. I followed him here from another wiki where he did the same thing. (24.222.9.242 18:51, 25 Apr 2005)

[edit] Curps' and AndyL's possible inappropriate use of admin power at The Matrix

There is a content dispute at The Matrix and various other movie-related pages about whether to include a particular external link. AndyL has waded into the dispute in a partisan way by reverting to his preferred version and then immediately applying page protection. I believe this is entirely inappropriate. I unprotected but he has now protected again.

He is also in the minority in this content dispute, since no less than 6 people including admins have been reverting the singlehanded attempts by User:Mista-X to add (spam, in my opinion) these links to the various movie-related pages, and until AndyL got involved, Mista-X was singlehandedly reverting to his version against opposition from multiple other users.

See Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review and discussion at User talk:Mista-X, and AndyL's comments at my talk page. His comments at my talk page contain some strange rationalizations: I didn't revert the article prior to protecting it. I protected an earlier version... (!) This is true technically, since in fact he applied protection at 16:59 UTC, added a "protected" template at 17:01, and reverted the article to a prior version at 17:35.

The protection was extremely premature in any case, since discussion were taking place at various users' talk pages (since that is where Mista-X left his various comments), but the partisan way in which it was done was inappropriate. I hesitate to get into an admin war by unprotecting the page again, but perhaps some other admin might do so after assessing the situation. It was not appropriate for AndyL to abuse admin powers in this way in a mere content dispute.

In the face of interim consensus, the page should go to the status quo ante, and those who wish to change it should gracefully back off and seek a wider consensus through RfC or voting. This is the Wikipedia way. -- Curps 20:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps unprotected my protection using the excuse that "AndyL's user page says he is on wikiholiday until May 1; not appropriate to protect page under these circumstances" which seems to be a rather slim justification for lifting a page protection prior to there having been any discussion on the related talk page. There is no policy saying an admin on holiday cannot protect a page nor justifying quick reversal of said protection because of that. In any case, a perusal of my edits would make it clear to anyone that I was not on wikiholiday, in fact. Curps simply wanted the page unprotected and seems to have found the slimmest of pretexts for rationalising an unprotection prior to any discussion on the page's talk page of the edit war in question. AndyL 20:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You protected the page at 16:59, added a "protected" template at 17:01, but then reverted to your preferred version at 17:35. If you protect a page, you should not turn around and edit it yourself. You should not abuse your admin power if you are a partisan participant in a content dispute (particularly when the interim consensus is against you). -- Curps 20:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Background: Mista-X (talk · contribs) has been adding external links to a fair number of movie-related pages; across these various pages, a total of 6 other users have reverted him (including some admins). One of these pages was The Matrix. AndyL has now joined the content dispute, taking Mista-X's side. Protection was premature in any case, since there was active discussion taking place (at user talk pages rather than Talk:The Matrix, since that is where Mista-X left his comments. -- Curps 20:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There would have been no incentive for going to the Talk pages had I protected the version you prefer and in any case, since the external link in question is not a violation of wikipolicy there's no reason to protect the version excluding it. I had intended to protect the earlier version to ensure Talk was used but erred and then corrected my error. That does not justify your editing a protected article.AndyL 20:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The person who edited a protected article was in fact yourself (and you were the one who protected it). I believe the justification you cite for doing so is a rationalization and doesn't hold water.

In any case, the discussion which was previously scattered across user talk pages (because Mista-X left his comments there) is now at Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review. The page remains protected, but I think upon reflection you will agree that your 17:35 post-protection revert was perhaps not a good idea; I have applied your own 17:01 version. I will leave messages at the various user talk pages where Mista-X exchanged comments, and invite them to centralize the discussion at Talk:The Matrix as you suggest. I believe we can come to a consensus in the usual Wikipedia way. -- Curps 21:07, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As for "joining the debate" my comments were intended to facilitate and then to justify the protection. To whit:

On what basis do you disagree? What is the justification for removing the link besides the fact that some people disagree with the page's content? What policy, if any, does inclusion of the link violate? Given that there are external links to articles that discuss the Matrix from philosphical and Jewish viewpoints what is the objection to having a link to an article with a political take? AndyL 17:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mista-X has stated that he is neither a member of MIM nor a MIM supporter. The reverts, as far as I can see, have been carried out without any discussion in the Talk pages which seems to me to be a violation of wikipedia policy. Further, the reversions don't seem to be based on any wikipedia policy but simply on the fact that some editors dislike the links. Certainly the argument one editor put forward that they are POV is not a justifiable reason as all film reviews are, by definition, POV and that in any case there is no policy against POV external links. If editors are reverting without justification then the problem is with the reverting editors. All I would like is a discussion of the arguments in favour and against keeping the external links rather than a mindless editwar. If agreement cannot be reached than the parties should seek mediation, not enforcement of a majority view through superior firepower. AndyL 19:42, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above comments are related to the content dispute, not to any alleged abuse of admin power. Therefore, this is not the place to reply. See you at Talk:The Matrix. -- Curps 21:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are a response to your contestable claim that "AndyL has now joined the content dispute". In any case, if you wanted to contest the version protected you should have brought it up here, not taken it upon yourself to revert a protected page.AndyL 21:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again, the person who reverted a protected page was you, and you reverted it after you yourself protected it (timeline: 16:59 you protected, 17:01 you added the "protected" template, 17:35 you reverted). You did the very thing you are trying to accuse me of... in complaining that reverting a protected page is an abuse of admin power, you are actually damning yourself. You can either protect the page, or do an ordinary edit (revert), but not both in that order. It was appropriate for me to undo the latter (either by unprotecting or by returning to the original 17:01 protected version). Your doing a protect-then-revert clearly indicates that you were joining the content dispute, and your supposed justification (you had to revert in order to permit discussion to take place on the talk page) simply doesn't make sense at all. -- Curps 21:53, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"You can either protect the page, or do an ordinary edit (revert), but not both in that order."

Wrong. When one is protecting a page one is under no obligation to protect the latest version. It is quite common not to do that, in fact. Look at the protection log.

"Your doing a protect-then-revert clearly indicates that you were joining the content dispute,"

No, it indicates that I was correcting my mistake. If you wanted to contest the version of the page that I protected you should have brought it up here, not taken it upon yourself to revert a protected page. As I said, I was intending to protect the version that would ensure the parties involved went to talk. Protecting your version would not have done that. AndyL 22:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protecting a page is surely sufficient to garner a dialogue on its content, IMHO. Slac speak up! 23:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not for the editors who agree with the protected page.AndyL 23:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, you have failed to adequately defend your initial unprotection of the page. An act made with a dubious justification. AndyL 22:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're both in the wrong, really:

• AndyL: Admins should not protect a page because of a content dispute and choose which version should be shown - articles should not be edited while protected.
• Curps: You violated the 3RR and, while I understand your part the edit war, you should not be doing that especially on a protected article.

Hopefully the discussion at the talk page can resolve this. violet/riga (t) 18:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page because of an edit war that wasn't being discussed on the talk page though I agree I should have left the article alone once it was protected. AndyL 20:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

However, if Curps felt I was in the wrong he should have taken the matter here rather than unilaterally act to unprotect the page and do so using the dubious pretext that my page said I was on wikiholiday. AndyL 15:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A self-proclaimed sockpuppet?

I'd like a sockcheck too. I came across a user, Newnoise, who says on his User page that he's a puppet! I couldn't resist asking him who he really was, and he generously gave a clue here. Now I'm not saying that's grounds for warning or anything, nono. I myself can't identify the user from the hints he gave, but is this the legendary Iasson back from the dead? Or something? Just thought someone should keep an eye on him... Master Thief Garrett 21:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:ChiveDreams

It appears that User:CheeseDreams is back. I suggest that people keep an eye on their edits. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It also appears that people are reestablishing the Jesus and syncretism article. This should have been merged into History of Christianity, as was stated in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. Basically that syncretism article (which is a POV piece) is now a subpage: see History of Christianity/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism. It awaits someone to try to merge the article into History of Christianity. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

ChiveDreams blocked indefinitely. Snowspinner 21:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falling Up (band)

This article is listed on VfU. It is repeatedly being undeleted despite the valid VfD vote. Undeleting an article before the VfU vote has run its course is exactly the same thing as deleting an article before the VfD has run its course, and the admin(s) who keep doing it should be treated exactly the same as I would be treated if I started deleting articles before the vote was over. I will not deal with this article after the VfU vote has completed its proper time, and after the person who undeletes it follows proper VfU process and relists it on VfD. But until such a time as everyone has had a chance to vote on the undeletion, I plan on continuing to delete the article every time it's undeleted, since this is an improper procedure. RickK 23:49, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

This article was improperly speedy deleted. As such, I've undeleted it until it undergoes VfD. This isn't really all that hard to understand. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:51, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was not improperly speedy deleted. It was speedy deleted as a recreation of a VfD'd article, all of whose votes were for deletion, all because the article was about a non-notable band. RickK 23:55, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Your second sentence is accurate, your first sentence is not. It was speedy deleted AS a recreation of a VfD'd article, but it ISN'T. That's the problem, Rick. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, if a person thinks that, even though a VfD vote was to delete, they want to keep an article, all they have to do is add a couple of sentences, and it becomes an entirely new article, and cannot be speedy deleted, but must go through the VfD process all over again? RickK 00:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

So, if a person thinks that, even though a VfD vote hasn't happened, they want to delete an article, all they have to do is delete it and claim it falls under speedy criteria, and then the article must go through the VfU process? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:08, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see you can't come up with an answer to my question. I, however, can come up with an easy answer to your question. The VfD has happened. If you want to keep this article, just let it go through the VfU process and we'll all be happy. Of course, if, after the VfU process, the vote is to undelete, then it still has to go through VfD again. RickK 00:14, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I see you can't come up with an answer to my question that's based in reality. Be as clever as you like, Rick. The VfD hasn't happened. The article that you've deleted 3 times today has never undergone VfD. Oh, and just FYI, I don't want to keep the article. I couldn't care less about it, and it should probably be deleted... but through the proper channels, of course. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:16, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note: (sorry if I've put this in too many places) The old and new article are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK#Response for all to see. --SPUI (talk) 00:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, RickK keeps insisting that the article was deleted because it was a non-notable band. As pointed out several times, the VFD votes for delete were because the article didn't establish notability, not because the band itself isn't notable. CryptoDerk 01:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Temporarily undeleted and protected for the VfU request. There. Snowspinner 15:13, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aaronescott

This gentleman has had a bit of a tumultuous introduction to Wikipedia. He created an article Aaron Scott which was promptly (and rightfully) nominated on VfD. He then replaced the content with "DELETED BY THE ORIGINATOR." which I interpret as a request for deletion. It really isn't necessary for this to go through VfD; I was going to delete but then I thought it would be better to move it to the his user page. Problem is that the VfD notice says "Please do not ... move this article while the discussion is in progress." I don't want to violate any rules, but just want to use common sense. I am therefore closing the VfD and moving the article to User:Aaronescott. If anyone objects, please note it here or on my talk page, and reverse my changes if you feel it appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Aaronescott also vandalised my User page in a minor way (see here). He also vandalised Master Thief Garrett's user page (here and here and here). It seems that, in part, this vandalism stems from his not knowing how to use talk pages, but he seems to be learning. Dsmdgold 01:46, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with closing a VFD on a obvious vanity if the name of the article and the user show they're the same. Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:GRider

User:GRider is prohibited from editing any deletion-related page. At 23:15 25 Apr 2005, he edited Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. See diff. Since I was involved in a discussion with him today, I believe another admin should impose the block. The ArbCom ruling states that he should be blocked for up to a week. He has already been blocked once for violating the ruling. Carbonite | Talk 02:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:RickK has already blocked him for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 02:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With this edit at 21:09, 27 Apr 2005 GRider violated his arb-com injunction for the second time in three days by moving Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yucai high to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yu Cai Middle School. Thryduulf 22:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24. Snowspinner 22:22, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It is quite clear now that GRider has no intention of following the ArbCom ruling. I've blocked for 1 week (maximum permitted by the ruling). Carbonite | Talk 22:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I thought the ruling capped at 24. A week is much better. Snowspinner 22:58, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gzuckier

Three revert rule violation on Yale University (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Attempting to stop editing of a section on strange homicides. Gzuckier (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:48, 26 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:49, 26 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:17, 25 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 13:07, 25 Apr 2005

This comes on top of numerous previous reverts, and is threatening to start a revert war bigger than the current one.

Reported by: Harro5 07:41, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm only seeing 3 direct reverts. The 2nd edit takes away information which doesn't appear to be disputed, nor reverted. Inter\^Echo 09:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• HELP!!! Excuse me if this is lengthy, but it's getting out of hand and I'm wondering if I'm completely off base. On Yale University I added a section on murders of random students, the effects on Yale admissions, and how Yale handled the most recent such crime, in response to a suggestion on Talk:Yale_University#Famous on campus tragedies by User: Patrick Grey Anderson who felt it was relevant, and with explanation in Talk:Yale_University#Famous on campus tragedies of my thinking as to relevance. User:Harro5 apparently got inspired and added a similar segment to a lot of colleges which were then deleted from most of them, random murders of students by townspeople not being a big feature of life at MIT or for their admission process, for instance. See here and User talk:Harro5, as I wasn't in on it or privy to all the details.
  • On April 24:
    • anon user 4.22x.X.X deleted the entire Yale_University#Miscellany section from the Yale article, with only explanation being an edit summary Other high profile crimes - Not necessarily high profile; "significant" violates NPOV; deleted redundant material on the Jovin case, which already appears in the article on Jovin. Note: deleted entire miscellany section, not just the high profile crimes section.
    • 14:40, 24 Apr 2005 I partially restored it, deleting some of crime section in consideration of user 4.22x.X.X's "suggestions", with edit summary why it was important for yale that this not be 'random murder', i.e. the piece I did not delete as 'redundant'.
    • User:Harro5 deleted entire miscellany section again, with only edit summary For reasoning see here, said link being where it was decided not to include his edits to MIT page, with no suggestion that he or others should remove similar section from Yale.
  • On April 25:
    • 15:48, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary wondering how deletion was supposedly somehow due to MIT's suicide rate., the target of the link which given in the edit summary of the deletion.
    • user 4.22x.X.X deleted entire miscellany section again, with only an edit summary. Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. For reasoning see here, same irrelevant link as before. Note accusing me of vandalism for restoring his unilateral edit, or bilateral if you include User:Harro5
    • 21:17, 25 Apr 2005 I restored miscellany section with edit summary reverted big chop by self-appointed VandalAvenger who appears to believe that the talk:MIT article forbids the yale article mentioning bladderball. I admit to getting annoyed, being called a vandal and all, but I still don't see link to MIT suicides as great justification for deleting section on Yale bladderball, frisbee, golf course, etc. with no other discussion.
  • On April 26:
    • user 4.22x.X.X deleted more specifically high profile crimes section again, with only explanation repeat of edit summary: Removed Vandalism from User: Gzuckier. Note again accusing me of vandalism for restoring his unilateral/bilateral edit. At least the rest of the miscellany section was spared this time.
    • 03:07, 26 Apr 2005 I restored crimes section, explained thinking on User_talk:Harro5#Message_regarding_.22random_comments and in Talk:Yale University for user 4.22x.X.X.
    • user 4.22x.X.X leaves message on User talk:Harro5 complaining that I have "added no justification or argument to the discussion", have "an attitude of not wanting to discuss the issue in a serious manner" and request that User:Harro5 report me for three revert rule violation. Note 1: I have justified the section when I wrote it, on User talk:Harro5, and on Talk:Yale University; whereas User:Harro5 and user 4.22x.X.X have done nothing but post links to Talk:Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology#Deaths_and_suicides and call me a vandal. Note 2: I took pains to NOT violate the three revert rule, and did not.
    • User:Harro5 deleted high profile crimes section again, with only edit summary rv. added gzuckier to the Three Revert Rule violators list.
    • User:Harro5 attempts to report me for three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Administrator notes that I did not make three reverts within 24 hours.
    • User:Nunh-huh (spontaneously without contact from or to me of any kind) restores section, with edit summary:there's no reason to delete this material.
• So am I totally offbase here? Gzuckier 19:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  This is not the place for this. I would suggest you put up a Request for comments on this situation. It is more appropriate there. If you want mediation, that can also be arranged. Inter\^Echo 20:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:SPUI

SPUI has gone insane. Watch out for him. --SPUI (talk) 08:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 second. Snowspinner 15:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Please see these edits: [26] [27] . RickK 05:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

That's like the pot calling the kettle black Rick blocked me for nothing (although I agree SPUI is a troll he's the lesser of the "problem") [28]--198 05:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would not characterize either user as a "troll"—both have made vast amounts of positive contributions to Wikipedia and I would be sorry to see either go. Perhaps "temporary lapse in judgment" would be more appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SPUI is an admitted GNAA member, but, I do agree maybe calling him a troll is too strong a word...--198 06:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see...for a GNAA member, he has improved Wikipedia by quite a bit. May I ask where he admitted it? Are you sure he isn't joking? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a GNAA member, but I haven't been active or in their IRC channel for several months. --SPUI (talk) 07:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WE ARE BR0G OF DYSLEXIA. YOUR ARSE WILL BE LAMINATED. - David Gerard 09:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sock check

Please could someone check Raving Loony (talk · contribs) for being a sockpuppet of someone, probably Iasson? Some of their postings, particularly the one above, seem familar. Their first edit was to correct the precise version of List of ancient Greeks used by Iasson/Faethon on the pre-Arbitration evidence page agiainst Iasson. Their 2nd, 3rd and 4th edits were to WP:VFU debates, and the only pages unrelated to deletion or Greece edited have been here and Money - another article Iasson contributed to. Thryduulf 11:42, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bang! (Sock shot on sight) Snowspinner 15:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Could you toss in a block on User:213.16.155.80 while you're at it? --Calton | Talk 15:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why? Snowspinner 15:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Careful on that one - that's in a forthnet.gr DHCP dialup pool (which makes it plausible it's Iasson), so watch for collateral damage - David Gerard 23:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bang! Hey, was this user making disruptive edits per se? If not, shouldn't it be checked by a developer, and not just left up to one admin who thinks he is the law? Everyking 16:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The general attitude towards people who act like banned users and subsequently get banned is "Well, don't act like a banned user then." Snowspinner 16:05, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom case against Iasson (or its request for clarification, I forget which) explicitly stated that all socks of Iasson (who is banned for 15 months) could be shot on sight. Thryduulf 16:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, well you don't know it's a sock until you get a developer to check. Everyking 16:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have you even looked at the evidence at the top of this page? Thryduulf 16:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The evidence suggests it. But I didn't see any proof. Everyking 16:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing certain pages isn't a bad thing in itself. We don't punish people for editing the article on money just because some banned user also used to edit that article. Everyking 16:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. We punish obvious socks who resemble banned users. Please stop making straw men - it's unproductive. Snowspinner 16:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

My point was that resembling a banned user is not a bad thing unless one is resembling the banned user in a bad way. Everyking 16:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a very bad thing - it suggests that arbcom rulings can be skirted and ignored. Snowspinner 16:29, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No. Resembling a banned user is not the same as being one, and emulating a banned user would only be a bad thing if one was emulating that user in a bad way. I consider it much worse to think that you can instantly block whoever you like without any proof of wrongdoing, and then declare "Bang!" There is something very, very wrong with that picture. Everyking 16:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erm, how can emulating a banned user ever be done in anything other than a bad way? Raving Loony was resembling Iasson's editing pattern - i.e. trolling about deletion and public accounts in exactly the same style of phrasing as Iasson. Why is it you feel that Snowspinner and RickK always act improperly? Thryduulf 18:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Say the banned user wrote good content about something or other, and a new user was behaving similarly to that. In any case, of course I see what the evidence suggests; I don't feel like looking into it, but I'm not all that concerned about the individual case. What concerns me is that Snowspinner can throw down a block without any proper justification beyond his opinion that it's a sock, without getting a developer check, and then declare "Bang!"—I guess he imagines himself as an old sheriff who shoots first and asks questions later. I know I'm supposed to just nod my head and accept that his actions are beyond reproach, but somebody ought to say something. Everyking 19:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. It isn't just his opinion that its a sock. I posted the evidence in this section, Calton and I have been discussing it above, linking to more evidence. Deathpoenix's comment also suggests he agrees (although I haven't checked the timestamps of his comment and Snowpinner's block).
2. I trust him to review the evidence before acting.
3. That others haven't protested suggests (not conclsively I agree) that they also trust Snowspinner to review the evidence.
4. He is acting on the explicit authority of the ArbCom
5. This isn't like shooting someone in the Old West, blocks can be undone, killing someone can't
6. If you can't be bothered to look into the evidence how can you claim Snowpinner didn't act in accordance with it?

• I can't speak for Snowspinner or RickK, but if I were on the receiving end of your comments, I would be feeling pretty harrassed by now. Thryduulf 20:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• If the user in question was making good edits to the encyclopaedia then nobody would care if they were doing so in the style of a banned user, Jimbo Wales, or J. Random Editor. Thryduulf 20:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Just to clarify #1 above, you can change "suggests he agrees" to "he agrees". :-) --Deathphoenix 20:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Say what? Harassment? I criticize abuses of sysop power when I see them. If you want to talk about harassment, take a look a Snowspinner, with his promise to watch me like a hawk and "come down on [me] like a hammer". Everyking 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since, according to you, enforcing ArbCom decisions = abuses of sysop power, that comment above coming from you, someone under ArbCom discipline, seems to be a case of "gaming the ref". --Calton | Talk 03:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think one might naturally expect a victim of abuse to be more vocal in opposing it. It is easy to fool yourself about it if you haven't actually experienced it. Everyking 03:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course. And if I ever actually meet one of these victims, I'll be sure to advise them to act accordingly. --Calton | Talk 21:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem as it appears to me is that you see abuse of sysop powers where nobody else does, and seem to consider RickK and Snowspinner as incapable of excercising any admin powers without abuse. Thryduulf 21:57, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's false on both counts. RickK makes plenty of good decisions. I don't criticize him when I agree with him. As for Snowspinner, he seems to make abusive use of his admin powers more often than not. It seems pretty much all his activity on Wikipedia involves harassing people, and I can't really endorse that. That he has a certain mentality and acts a certain way isn't my fault. Everyking 23:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, you spend a tremendous amount of effort trash-talking Snowspinner, and notably little providing any evidence that would convince a third party for assertious such as "he seems to make abusive use of his admin powers more often than not". Get a list of diffs and put together a case if it's such a problem, or quit it if it isn't actually enough of a problem for you to bother doing so - David Gerard 09:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to the ArbCom against him, because I have no faith whatsoever that the ArbCom would be fair and neutral in judging him. When the ArbCom feels like changing its practices to acquire some credibility, then perhaps I will. Everyking 15:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why not another method of dispute resolution then? RfC? RfM? Snowspinner 16:35, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Since when have you been willing to mediate anything? Aren't you the same one who went straight to arbitration against me without even trying to talk anything over? And haven't you said that you won't ever make any concessions about anything? Everyking 18:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Everyking! Fancy seeing you here! You don't often turn up after arbitration decisions, actions by Snowspinner, or actions by RickK! silsor 16:06, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Snort*. RickK 19:19, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Xiong

I have blocked User:Xiong for threats on User talk:Netoholic and for general disruption (c.f. his litsing of WP:TFD on VFD). It's a 24 hour block that I hope he'll spend reflecting on the manner of his interaction with people he disagrees with. Snowspinner 19:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked him. Netoholic and Xiong are both adults; if Netoholic finds the message threatening he can ignore it or respond to it as he chooses. Neither user needs Principal Phil to tell them how they can and cannot interact with each other. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 19:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Threatening other users with suggestions that you will drive them off Wikipedia if they don't leave you alone is not acceptable behavior. Snowspinner 20:24, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a blockable offense either. --Conti|✉ 20:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

File it under "disruption" then. Snowspinner 20:35, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems a lot of things get filed under "disruption" these days. You will note that Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption does say "disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies", which you have not done. Furthermore it is should not be up to a lone sysop to determine what is and is not acceptable behavior. I think that constant attempts to control and bully other users, combined with negligible contributions to the encyclopedia, does not constitute acceptable behavior—but I'm not going to block you. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Did threats stop being personal attacks recently? Snowspinner 21:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks can be removed. They are still no reason to block someone. If you want to change that, start a proposal and a vote on that, don't block people because you think you're right. --Conti|✉ 22:00, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

He tried that—twice—and it failed—both times—yet he continues. "Common sense" covers a multitude of sins, doesn't it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's puzzling to say it failed the second time, with the lack of any, you know, vote. Snowspinner 22:27, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

(left again) Hmm, and why is that? Could it be that there was so much opposition in the discussion phase that nobody thought a vote would succeed? Oh, and if threatening to take certain actions on this site (not in real life) is a blockable offense, then why wasn't the author of this edit blocked? That looks to be much the same type of threat that Xiong made. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:36, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you cannot see a difference between telling someone to leave them alone or you'll drive them off the site and warning someone that threats are inappropriate, you have no place being an administrator.Snowspinner 22:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

So if Xiong had admin powers, and couched his threat as an official warning (to, I don't know, stop disrupting Wikipedia?) backed by a threat to remove Netoholic from the site by technical rather than social means, it would all fine and dandy? Okay then. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Good faith warnings from administrators of behavior that will lead to blocking are not threats or personal attacks. Snowspinner 23:01, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

And yet, you know, administrators do not have any special power over other users other than applying decisions made by all users. Or shall I tell Squealer to get his paint pots and ladder? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Informing a User of policies that they may be in violation of isn't an administrator specific action, so I'm unclear why you bring up "special power". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the block, not the warning itself—though since the block was illegitimate, I believe that the warning was nothing more than bullying. Exactly the sort of thing for which Xiong himself was threatened and blocked. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And here I was thinkin' that you just didn't like me. Snowspinner 04:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that there is any overt or implied threat of physical violence in Xiong's statement. That Xiong has taken such a strong stand wrt Netoholic is troubling, but it is hardly grounds for a block in and of itself. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think threats need to be threats of physical violence. Snowspinner 22:45, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I've reblocked, clarifying that this is under the disruption policy for both the personal attacks against Netoholic and the violation of WP:POINT in listing TfD on VfD. I admit puzzlement to the objections here - normally I'm criticized for escelating things to the arbcom. This time I'm trying to deal with a disruptive user with more mild measures that give the user a chance of reform, and I'm power mad. Take your pick - either disruption goes through the block feature or the arbcom. I've sent this one through the block feature. Unblock, and I'm happy to just arbcom him for the continual disruption. Snowspinner 22:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'll unblock, then. I strongly feel that the arbcom is the place to take disruptive editing--this is almost never clear-cut enough to rely on individual judgement. Meelar (talk) 22:47, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll submit the case as soon as my exam schedule lets up. Snowspinner 22:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

That's fine, then. I've got no opinion on the case, just wanted to voice my opinion on the procedural question. Best, Meelar (talk) 22:53, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, it's my choice too, but if people are going to complain that I use the arbcom procedures, I figured I should try something else. I'll go back to plan A presently. :) Snowspinner 22:56, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose "minding your own business" and "engaging other users constructively instead of trying to control them" aren't options, then? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you really object so much to my efforts to remove trolls and other disruptive users from Wikipedia? Perhaps you'd like to lift the bans on Lir, Xed, and CheeseDreams? Snowspinner 22:52, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, I object to the way you constantly choose threats, intimidation, and force as the first resort rather than the last—to the way you hound and persecute users who have contributed more in a month than you have in your entire time here—to the way you try to stamp out reasoned dissent—but most of all, to the way you wield an imaginary authority willy-nilly, despite constant disagreements and objections. Lir and Cheesedreams don't enter into it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 23:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

Please stay civil, even if you may think someone else is channelling their inner dick.

Mirv, if Snowspinner is really that bad, put together an RFC with diffs and stuff. If that's too much effort, surely this should be too - David Gerard 15:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Please stay civil, even if you may think someone else is channelling their inner dick." T|N>K, thank you very much. JRM · Talk 18:22, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

• I feel I must point out that, regardless of other comments, Snowspinner is at least unbiased. It seems to me that Snowspinner and Netoholic seldom agree about anything, and it would have been easy for Snow to not interfere between Xiong and Netoholic. The fact that he did interfere is a noble act, and should be taken in good faith. Radiant_* 12:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Uh, I don't want to get in the way of this nukular exchange, but I would like to note, just for the sake of clarity, that I did not threaten to somehow boot Netoholic out of this community. I did promise, quite seriously, that he would not force me out by myself -- that we would go together. I apologize for any previous lack of clarity.

It seems to me that Netoholic has cooled out and I know I am exhausted and ready to move on. I should very much like it if we could all do this. — Xiong熊talk* 02:34, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

[edit] Javier Solana

Admin Davidcannon (talk · contribs) is making bizarre allegations that I SqueakBox (talk · contribs) am the sockpuppet of Cumbey (talk · contribs) with whom I have had disputes at Javier Solana. He makes them here at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cumbey and here. This is because Cumbey put her statements [29] and [30] on her user talk page. I then moved these comments [31] to here. I am not a Cumbey sockpuppet, nor is she mine, and I want him to withdraw the allegations. --SqueakBox 19:58, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gabrielsimon and User:DreamGuy

Three revert rule violation on Vampire Lifestyle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [32]
• 2nd revert: [33]
• 3rd revert: [34]
• 4th revert: [35]

DreamGuy (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [36]
• 2nd revert: [37]
• 3rd revert: [38]
• 4th revert: [39]
• 5th revert: [40]

Reported by: Nickptar 02:25, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This is a revert war about whether "poor social skills" as a trait of self-described vampires is ascribed by said self-described vampires themselves or by "detractors and critics" (and more recently, whether anyone ascribes it at all). Gabrielsimon provides no justification other than NPOV (although, in all the ways in which the statement's been presented, it's been clearly presented as an opinion), and DreamGuy offers no justification other than Gabrielsimon's motive - neither side has presented evidence despite an invitation to do so on the article's Talk page. (Although in DreamGuy's defense, he didn't add the sentence that's being re-re-reverted.) I think it will soon be time for some proper dispute resolution. For now, hopefully a short block will set both these guys a little straighter.

Gabrielsimon already has been blocked for violating the 3RR rule on the same article once before. He also has been nonstop harassing me on my talkpage for several days, for which vandalism reports and a request for assistance at the village pump have done absolutely nothing. He's completely unrepetant and has never made a change to an article I've seen yet that was not strongly biased. He should have been prevented from making any further changes a long time ago. I was taking pains to try to explain the concepts to him, but he insists upon labeling my restoration of a previous editor's additions as vandalism. I've also been trying to count reverts so as to not end up violating the three revert rule (see pass history of the page to see where I left the bad version solely for no other reason than for not getting into trouble with this policy even if it meant letting the other editor constantly get away with his biased edits) but apparently miscounted somwhere. I am getting thoroughly disgusted with Wikipedia at this point, as this person constantly harasses me and makes blatantly biased edits and nobody else seems to care or even responds to the help request or the vandal report I made. And Nickptar's claim that nobody prevented evidence on the talk page is complete nonsense. If he'd bother to read the posts from before he ever showed up on that page (or looked when i pointed them out to him) he'd see that it was already explained, but instead he just keeps asking for evidence over and over that is already there. DreamGuy 03:46, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I am sorry for being frustrated and putting my frustration in that bit above. Since then Gabrielsimon tried yet again to report *me* for vandalism, and for the edits in the revert war mentioned above of all things. Some admins have stepped in to say he was out of line and even go so far as do the reverts to the page in question above for me (but of course Gabrielsimon reverted that too, not sure how many reverts that makes it for him). I'm now feeling a bit better about the Wikipedia experience in that eventually some people show up to support me for doing what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. If you need to ban me for the screw up on the miscount of reverts earlier, feel free, it's only fair. DreamGuy 12:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clearly seeing the facts of the case. See my statement on Talk:Vampire lifestyle. Nickptar 14:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Grace Note

While doing an RC patrol, i came across Grace Note (talk · contribs) removing {{cleanup-notability}} tags from several article. The majority of these article were school related articles, a contentious issue here on Wikipedia. The reasons he gave for the remove of the tag were the following. (these are only from article in which i contested his removal of the tag)

1. Labelling schools as not notable is trolling. Please stop doing it.
2. Labelling particular types of article as not important enough is tantamount to trolling
3. Please don't use this tag on articles that you know some people feel are important.
4. Please don't tag schools as unimportant.
5. It's a terrible article but some believe schools are important. Please don't misuse these tags.
6. Please don't misuse these tags on schools.
7. I know. It's rubbish and probably should be deleted. So do the VfD, all above board.
8. See other schools with this tag.
9. This is already marked as a stub. That indicates that it needs expanding. No other notice needed.
10. Already marked as stub.
11. Mark as a stub, not cleanup.
12. Better to use stub than cleanup, which it doesn't need.
13. inappropriate tag changed to stub

The vast majority of the tags were placed by Vegaswikian (talk · contribs), whom Grace Note has accused of being a troll, with several also being placed by Allen3 (talk · contribs) and Android79 (talk · contribs). Based on the edit histories of the users who placed the tags on the articles, i have no reason to suspect that any of the users that were trolling any school related articles in anyway, more then likely the user seems to have been engaged in RC or RP patrol at the time that.

Though i do believe that the actions taken by Grace Note are seriously bordering on trolling if not editing in bad faith. GN also put a comment on Vegas talk page, that combined with the statements that the user left on my talk page leads me to believe that he is, and i do mean this in a slightly joking way, part of the militant faction of school inclusionist that have been found here on Wikipedia. Also based on his comments, and his somewhat knowledge of the Wikipedia workings, the user leads me to believe that it has been involved with Wikipedia longer then his User contributions would lead us to believe, which based on his edits would still put in (IMO) as a noob, which raises sockpuppett questions of this user.

I am not going to said what was said between the users, all can be found be appropate talk pages, if any "administrator" needs a clarification of my position, please feel free to contact me threw my talk page. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: I couldn't help but notice the broken link, so I fixed it. Wiki-links use a verticle bar (|) and double [[]], BUT external links use a space ( ) and only single []. Hope that helps you!

Since I fixed the link I can't resist sticking my oar in, even though it's probably not wanted, but I'm going to ramble on regardless!

It seems to me that Grace's "all schools must be saved!" mentality has blinded (her?) to the fact that they are still supsceptible to Users' (non)-notablility concerns the same as with any other pet topic page. NO page should ever be percieved as automatically protected unless there is a matching clause in one of the semi-/policy pages to back it up, and yet Grace has worded (her?) statements as if they are authoritative and not to be questioned under any circumstances. Note that I say "blinded", rather than implying any sort of intentional maliciousness on the part of the User, that it is, that good-intentioned actions overpowered good reasoning actions.

However, Boothy443's sockpuppet suspicions seem to me to be fairly well-founded, but, again, I'm not in any way condemning, merely seconding this suspicion. But it could be the User merely guessed at Boothy's experience (rather than manually checking) and so deemed (her?)self the elder. Master Thief Garrett 10:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These are extremely controversial templates in no way represent Wikipedia policy. In fact, the statement that something may not be "important" enough to be in Wikipedia is a very serious misstatement about Wikipedia deletion policy. There is a proposed policy (Wikipedia:Importance) but this enjoys no great consensus and is extremely controversial (Wikipedia talk:Importance). I think it's fair to describe the systematic misrepresentation of one's opinion as Wikipedia policy as trolling. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• The template in no way states that it represents a policy - and in fact, many templates used on Wikipedia don't represent a policy. The template simply states that "If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article, or explain on its talk page why it is notable. If no expansion or explanation is provided, this page may be nominated for deletion." That is a lot nicer than nominating it for VfD outright, isn't it?
  • The template was earlier nominated for deletion, and kept (here).
• I do, however, agree that the school issue is troublesome, and would really prefer if both parties somehow found a compromise. Adding 'NN' templates to a lot of schools is just as spurious as removing them all. Radiant_* 12:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

The wording of the template is as follows: "The subject of this article might not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.". That is a false statement. There is no established Wikipedia policy on notability. It is a falsehood. However this falsehood can be addressed by editing the template. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm in the camp in the cross-fire. I think some schools should be included others shouldn't. I think there needs to be enough material to actually write a solid article, so I tend to find cleanup tags more fitting than importance tags (they'll spur disputes anyway). If no actual info is conveyed in an article, it should be either expanded or deleted. BEEFSTEW is a good way to assess the worth of a school article. Mgm|^(talk) 12:55, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

It's clear enough to see what has happened. I object to people pushing the POV that there are subjects not important enough to include in WP in this way. There are other forums for expressing that view. I'm unapologetically in favour of a broadly inclusive encyclopaedia but I understand others have their own views and, because I staunchly support both the NPOV policy and the right of editors to right as their conscience dictates, I have no problem with that. I put a polite notice on Vegaswikian's page because I felt that as a very new user he might not be aware of the contention surrounding this issue. Boothy, a user I've never encountered before, slammed a rather rude message on my page. I'm not sure why he thinks I'm trolling. Anyone can see from my contributions that I often pick random pages to copyedit, and I happened on one with this tag. I had a look-see to see what other pages it had been used on. I think it's wrong to push this particular view through what appear to be "official" notices, particularly where those using them don't attempt to communicate the originating editors. It seems to be the standard-issue complaint these days though. Call someone a troll and that excuses any sort of personal mudslinging you want to indulge in. The other guy's just stirring. I'm here to work on an encyclopaedia, not indulge people who have a bone to pick. Too many articles in need of my tender mercies to waste too much time on satisfying the needs of these fellows. Thanks, Tony and MGM for the considered comments. Grace Note 13:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe that anyone has said that schools, in and of themselves, are "subjects not important enough to include in WP". As far as I know, each school's importance has been judged on a case by case basis. On the other hand, there are several people who are under the belief that all school articles, no matter how ridiculous, no matter how non-notable, no matter what the content of the article, are, sui generis, required to be kept. Now, how's being pedantic? RickK 22:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

  Okay, Rick, I'm certainly not going to take you on for pedantry but I will indulge you since you are, I know, interested in this issue as a broader question. I think it's closer to the truth that some believe that schools must establish their "importance" in ways other things do not. That's to say, they're not in themselves important enough, which is what I said. Rick, I think we need to distinguish between the ideas that all schools are important and all school articles are good enough. I certainly subscribe to the first idea, because I'm of the belief that the bar to entry for a nonpaper encyclopaedia can and should be low; but I do not sign up to the second. I don't either think that my belief in the first idea trumps anyone's not believing it! We can have a difference of opinion without feeling that that must inevitably lead to conflict. What I'd be much more interested in would be mutual recognition of the value of the views, and an attempt to find middle ground. I don't think that this is served by slapping these tags on to school articles (or, necessarily, by routinely keeping any school article without attempts to clean them up).Grace Note 06:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • Since I'm clearly "the other guy" I will keep stirring! I should point out, though, that I made my comments far more generous and non-accusatory than the others have since... I agree many schools are worthy of inclusion here, but it seems to me that some that Schoolwatch has saved should have been deleted. Not to say Schoolwatch is inherently "evil" but some members of it perhaps conform to its guidelines a little *too* closely. I agree the template seems to be erroneously worded, and, regardless of the outcome of this little incident, it MUST be looked at and reworded. We cannot have future problems resulting from it. Master Thief Garrett 00:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kim Bruning

With regard to the very controversial article Teach the Controversy, Kim Bruning (talk · contribs) has been behaving very oddly. When one editor, after a long and acrimonious battle over the page, suggested that the article be merged with Discovery Institute, and asked others to vote on the proposal, Kim Bruning suddenly appeared on the Talk page with the statement: "Voting is not permitted on wikipedia" [41] (backed up within minutes by Fennec (talk · contribs) [42], who had also not been involved on the page before, and Sam Spade (talk · contribs) [43]. This led to some considerable and understandable confusion. The poll stands 9:4 in favour of merging at the moment, though it seems likely that some people were put off voting by Kim Bruning's statement.

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teach the Controversy was then called, and Kim Bruning proceeded to question the integrity of the person calling it, with no evidence that I could see or that he was prepared to offer. He has now accepted that he was wrong, but taken together with his intervention on Talk:Teach the Controversy, I find his behaviour in this to have fallen well short of what should be expected of any editor, much less an admin.

I have no wish to open an RfC on this, but I think that the problem should be aired here, if only to mark this sort of approach to controversy as something that should be avoided in future. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is an innappropriate place for listing such matters, but your interaction w Kim is certainly indicative of why I voted against your adminship. your ability to handle conflict is astoundingly poor. Sam Spade 09:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The thing about voting not being permitted on Wikipedia is very strange; we vote all the time, we'd be in bad shape without it. Nevertheless, if Kim acknowledges that he was wrong, I don't see any reason to take it any further. Everyking 10:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He never said he was wrong about that, he wasn't. The wikipedia is not a democracy. Sam Spade 10:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Astoundingly poor" you say Sam? You mean as opposed to your ability to handle conflict? This is hypocrisy at its highest. FeloniousMonk 06:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kim's actions do not seem to go beyond anything any editor could do. I fail to see why this merits discussion on this board—not everything admins do should appear here because they're admins. I find it highly unlikely that what you mention can be generalized in some way to be put up as a valuable lesson for all admins on "how not to do it". "Incidents" is not a neutral word; don't slap things on this board too hastily. Your disapproval is elevated to something the whole adminship community should review, which is arguably going too far.

Kim's full comment (vote, even!) on the voting procedure was

Voting is not permitted on wikipedia ( Wikipedia is not a democracy) , changed to strawpoll format, but note that even strawpolls are really discouraged. Try for consensus :-) Kim Bruning 15:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The remainder of the discussion is at Talk:Teach the Controversy/Archive5. Reading the VfD vote, we find this:

I think that this is a borderline article content vote, something which is a really bad idea for an online encyclopedia. We should ask Ian Pitchford what his intent was. In fact I've dropped him a line already. :-)

That "line" included the following, which I presume is where he's supposed to question the integrity of the nominator:[44]

[...]

There's a collision between the VFD poll and the poll on Talk:Teach the Controversy. Since you were the one who started the VFD poll, could you explain your motivations for doing so? (can be anything from "oops, didn't see the other poll" through "vfd seemed better" to "I thought you said..." , etc..)

[...]

Correct me if I'm wrongly filling in the details on any of this. From where I stand, this seems like a classic case of misinterpreting (or overinterpreting) someone's actions. But regardless of that, I don't think this belongs on this board at all. And furthermore, I'd like to express the hope that we could have many more admins as courteous as Kim, regardless of how "oddly" they are perceived to behave. JRM · Talk 10:40, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

this is the right place for informal complaints about admin behaviour, which is exactly what Mel was doing. "voting is not permitted" is not a corollary of "WP is not a democracy". We do have lots of votes, we just cannot vote to disregard policy. The problem seems to have been resolved, but it is presicely the purpose of this board to ask for opinions when admins think they risk clashing with other admins. dab (ᛏ) 10:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, mea culpa. It's my fault for failing my good faith and having come to see this board as place where admins go to crucify each other; the "informal" bit seems about right, though. No opinion on Kim's "voting" comment, which I regard as valid a personal opinion as any others, admin or no. There was even a follow-up discussion in which exactly the points you mention were discussed, so I still fail to see the "incident", or any sort of clash on an admin level. JRM · Talk 10:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

I see it as highly indicative of the sorts of admins voting has been providing us with as of late. Wikipedia:Polls are evil, Wikipedia:Don't vote on everything, and in conclusion, Voting Is Evil. The majority has no claim to the truth. Sam Spade 11:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm very careful with my words, and I have already done my best to address all of Mel Etitis' concerns clearly, concisely and adequately at the appropriate times. This means that either he has missed something, or that I have been unintentionally unclear. Since I don't want to repeat myself here, I suggest that Mel Etitis check back what has already been written to discover where this misunderstanding stems from. If I have missed anything pertinent, he should be advised that I am quite approachable on my talk page, which I hope he'll turn to ahead of AN/I in future. Kim Bruning 15:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What JRM said, and thanks to JRM for digging out the pertinent quotes from the daunting archives at Talk:Teach the Controversy and setting up an overview here, so we can all more easily see the posts Mel refers to. To say that Kim and the others "appeared suddenly" on the talk page of an article they hadn't edited seems to be intended as criticism, but I totally don't understand why. Doing just that is generally supposed to be a helpful and useful thing, in case of content conflict and acrimony. We even have a special page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, devoted to asking people—"outsiders", non-editors of the article—to go to the talk pages of conflicted articles and post comments on them. This is because calm outsider eyes and voices are considered to be promising remedies when a conflict has started to feed on itself. And, while I admit I can't face reading through all those archives, how can it be wrong to call for consensus instead of majority vote? That is the wiki way. If Kim Bruning, of all people, is supposed to behave "oddly", Wikipedia needs more oddness, not less.--Bishonen | talk 16:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This probably isn't really the place for a discussion on voting, but I wanted to add an opinion. Traditionally, voting has certainly been highly discouraged - we work by consensus, not democracy. Voting can easily shut down the options, making both sides dig into their positions and neglect to attempt to find mutually acceptable solutions. Polling can be useful at times to clarify the current thinking of contributors - but certainly shouldn't be the be all and end all of decision making on Wikipedia. Kim perhaps put this a little more strongly than I would have done, but the sentiment is very valid. Jimbo's talk at Harvard this week touched on this. The transcript doesn't seem to have caught it all, but basically he talked about voting being of limited use on Wikipedia, and that even where we do use it (he mentioned VfD) it is best used as a form of dialogue rather than as a simple numbers game. Recently there has been a move towards more voting on Wikipedia, in my opinion this is very anti-wiki and should be discouraged. We need to get back to the ideal of consensus - hard as it can be with the larger community we have now. -- sannse (talk) 16:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sannse as usual is full of good sense. Now, it isn't correct to say that voting isn't _permitted_ on wikipedia -- we hardly ever have such firm rules. You can't really say it that way. Voting (in a non-binding poll) can be a valuable tool for gaining consensus, though. In many cases where I might feel the majority is wrong, I'd still tend to tell myself to relax if I found that 95% of editors disagree with me. But usually it's better to engage in reasoned discourse to try to find a creative way to resolve the disagreement.--Jimbo Wales 23:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few responses to comments above.

1. I certainly didn't mean to imply that there's anything wrong with "outsiders" contributing to a Talk page which has seen long and acrimonious disagreement, though doing so in order either to leave inaccurate claims about what's permissible on Wikipedia, or merely to leave slogans about voting, is at best unhelpful.
2. Whatever might be said about voting, the plain fact is that voting is permissible on Wikipedia, and to state that it is not is therefore to make a false claim. It's as simple and as straightforward as that. If Kim Bruning had said that voting isn't encouraged, or that votes shouldn't be allowed to take the place of discussion and consensus, or any of a number of perfectly true claims, I shouldn't have objected. It is not, however, merely a case of putting things too strongly; voting is permisible, and he stated that it wasn't.
   This is all independent of any view of what Wikipedia policy on voting should be; it concerns what the policy actually is, and what Kim Bruning claimed that it is. I find it disheartening that so many editors should care so little for the importance of restricting ourselves – whether as admins or non-admins, but especially as admins, whose claims about policy are often taken as authoritative – to the truth.
3. "In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll" [In general, only long-running disputes should be the subject of a poll]. It doesn't take an exhaustive or detailed trawl through the archives to show this was a long-running dispute. I had come to the page because of an RfC, and had tried to mediate between two entrenched sides, each pushing a strong PoV, mainly VorpalBlade (talk · contribs) and Ungtss (talk · contribs) on one side and Ian Pitchford (talk · contribs) on the other. There were times that I thought consensus was near, but it never really came (or it came and was immediately disrupted). The vote/poll seemed to be the only sensible way forward. Kim Bruning's false statement that voting is impermissible affected that poll, and was certainly (see the Talk page) the reason that some Users gave for supporting the idea of a VfD.
4. Finally, I pointed out all of this on the Talk page, and on the VfD page; I don't think that any of Kim Bruning's responses were adequate, but they're there for others to judge. I couldn't (and still can't) see the point of repeating them on his Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is exactly one strict Vote on en.wikipedia, and that's the Arbitration Committee elections. All others are polls that gauge consensus, and are done in a particular wiki-like way. I edited a strict vote to turn it into a strawpoll or survey. Note that this is still not in line with the survey guidelines (!) , but typically accepted as a fix in this kind of situation. Kim Bruning 00:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about Talk:Gdansk/Vote? Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 17:40, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help diffuse misunderstandings to simply use softer words such as, "Just remember that votes are not binding. It is better to think of them as opinion polls." I fully share the wariness of votes as a sledge hammer or tyranny. But we don't want to give the idea that innocuous polls are forbidden. Tom Haws 18:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for all your comments! I've posted a short clarification based on this discussion:

Talk:Teach_the_Controversy#A_quick_note_on_Poll_vs_Majority_vote

Kim Bruning 21:08, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tony Sidaway and User:Harvarder--a request for review

I found some rather odd looking edits and new articles last night, and decided that the user was trolling. I reverted and speedied some material that looked trollish. Because this is a very subjective judgement and I have implicitly failed to assume good faith I request a peer review of my actions.

The first hint of trolling was a very strange new article about someone called Victoria Moy (only administrators can use this link because the article was deleted). It looks to me like marginally plausible twaddle, and the unencyclopedic style tipped the balance. Another article was one called "Hyper-intelligent" which gave a nonsensical dicdef ('An adjective which describes hyperactivity as a sympton of high intelligence'). Nobody is that dense. See [my deletion log for more.

The user, though new, made immediate complaints on WP:RCP and WP:VIP, which I think tends to confirm my assumption that this was an experienced Wikipedia troll at work. On the other hand, I could be overreacting, and seeing malice where none exists, in which case I owe the user an apology. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An interesting case. His/her edits up to 19:14 yesterday (the comment at Talk:Bai Ling) appear to have been made by a semi-new user - familiar enough with us and our processes to be adding images but not always doing it in a smooth fashion. My take on the case up to that point was an anonymous user who finally decided to create an account.

The edits after that point suddenly change topic and become much more speculative. He/she added several dicdefs with incorrect definitions (one speedy deleted, one I just nominated for VfD), a harmless but probably pointless redirect and a small number of POV edits to existing articles which were all reverted (only some by Tony). The deleted article on Boss Models was a sub-stub whose only facts were largely incorrect, though there really is such a modeling agency. The deleted article on Farene was a "secret society" variant - inherently unverifiable. The deleted article on male supermodel (since independently recreated as a redirect to supermodel) was a POV rant but not outrageous. The deleted Victoria Moy article qualified as patent nonsense since it consisted of three utterly unrelated sentences.

I probably would have used VfD rather than speedy deletes for all but Victoria Moy and might have worded the comments on the user's Talk page a little differently. But overall I think you were correct to be suspicious - especially since at least some trolls have announced their intention to create accounts with innocuous contribution histories before launching their vandalism campaigns. (Does anyone still have the link to that claim?) I would probably give this user a bit more rope and see what happens. Rossami (talk) 14:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Odd. Overall it looks to me like the work of an Asian teenager with a slight English language barrier. Probably not malicious IMO, just mildly clueless. The second two sentences in Victoria Moy go together, it's just not clear how they relate to the woman. Farene was unverifiable (at least for an English-speaker), but we'd need a Chinese editor to tell us if it's implausible. The only things that look trollish to me are the RC and VIP listings. Isomorphic 20:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see any problem with that response; seems reasonable, might list on VfD Everyking 21:02, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Marco Krohn

Three revert rule violation on Scientific consensus. User:Marco Krohn:

• 1st revert: 00:16, 27 Apr 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:29, 27 Apr 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:54, 27 Apr 2005
• 4th revert: 18:02, 27 Apr 2005

Reported by: -- JonGwynne 18:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Both parties appear guilty of 3RR violations; I count at least four reverts by User:JonGwynne in the past 24 hours. Kelly Martin 18:42, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

On further inspection this appears not to be the case, although I think User:JonGwynne is walking the line here, especially in light of his history. Kelly Martin 18:57, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC) (updated 19:54, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC))

[edit] User:Smell Etitis

Smell Etitis (talk · contribs) posted abusive comments on Mel Etitis's Talk page [45] and vandalised his user page [46]. He also posted {{delete}} messages on User:Chadbryant's User and Talk pages. I suspect the name alone is enough to earn a block, but his behaviour is also unacceptable. Guettarda 18:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oops, too slow, DropDeadGorgias has blocked him already. Guettarda 18:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Why post here? It's obviously an abusive name. This could easily have been blocked on sight. Mgm|^(talk) 20:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Because he's not an admin and he couldn't block it on sight? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:03, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
• That would be a very good reason... Mgm|^(talk) 05:12, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

This is one of a string of accounts opened purely or mainly to vandalise User:Chadbryant's User and Talk pages; others have included Luigi Mottola (talk · contribs), Fark dot com (talk · contribs), John Henry DeJong (talk · contribs), Chadabryant (talk · contribs), Chad Bryant (talk · contribs), CBryant215 (talk · contribs), AnaleaseBryant (talk · contribs), DickNWitham (talk · contribs), and Dick Witham (talk · contribs). They originally were involved in editing disagreements on various articles, but have given up all pretence of being interested in anything but harassing him. The only thing that I can think of doing is to permanently block each one as it appears (which is why I'm now included in the attacks, but I'm only incidental); is there another approach? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:JonGwynne (III)

One revert rule violation on Scientific consensus. User:JonGwynne

Sorry, I initially did not want to do this, but since Jon started with the above here we go again. User JonGwynne is known for his reverts and edit wars and is under parole. According to the ArbCom ruling Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/JonGwynne#Final_decision he "is limited to one revert per 24 hour period on articles related to global warming; violations shall be interpreted as violations of the three revert rule."

Yes, but this article isn't related to global warming. If this was a mistake on your part, I'll accept your apology. If you did it deliberately then shame on you.--JonGwynne 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]

JonGwynne now changed his strategy and makes small revert-like edits to circumvent the 1RR. If you look into the version history you see that his edits are reverted not only by me, but also by Vsmith, by WMC and even by Cortonin.

• [49] - Cortonin reverting JG
• [50] - Vsmith reverting JG
• [51] - WMC reverting JG
• for examples where "Marco Krohn" reverts the edits of JG please see above :-)

Reported by: Marco Krohn 19:48, 27 Apr 2005

Both users blocked fror 24 hours.Geni 01:51, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geni, please be more careful in the future. My 1-revert restriction is for articles on global warming only and "Scientific consensus" doesn't really qualify.--JonGwynne 06:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)