Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: June 16, 2005 - June 20, 2005

Contents 1 User:Emico 2 User name 3 Sockpuppet, Squeakbox and the Unethical Cyberstalker 3.1 Admin poll for monthlong block 3.2 Talk page Vfd 4 User:NPOV 5 User:Mimiian (I) 6 Sockpuppetry at WP:TFD? 7 Please block vandal User:Lee D 8 Sockpuppetry at WP:VFD 9 User:ScapegoatVandal 10 User:Stevietheman 11 User:Softcafe 12 User:Gbambino 13 Protection of User:Enviroknot 14 Removal of evidence from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence 15 User:Rovoam (and sockpuppet IPs) 16 User:Yuber 17 Judaism 18 User:64.12.117.12 19 User:Mimiian (II) 20 User:Anonymous_editor 21 User:SamTr014 22 Sockpuppet accounts 23 User:Germen 24 User:66.61.159.186 25 Message from User:BruceDLimber 26 Everyking mentorship 27 Votes for deletion problems 28 User:Spinboy 29 User:Earl Andrew violating policy for User:Spinboy 30 GAP Project 31 User:RickK 32 Elizabeth II of Canada 33 User:Peckeronwheels 34 Vandalism or just stubbornness? 35 Yet another role account 36 User:204.56.7.1 37 Apartheid 38 User:FuelWagon 39 VfD 40 Suspected Sock Puppet: User:Bloghate 41 User:Simon Dodd

[edit] User:Emico

Violation on Iglesia ni Cristo (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• 1st revert: [1]
• 2nd revert: [2]
• 3rd revert: [3]
• 4th revert: [4] (Note: this is a diff that includes the current version, so it may not show the revert properly if additional edits follow)

I've already blocked him, just reporting that fact here. This came to my attention because Emico requested that the article be protected on his version. When I determined that he was the only one in violation of the rule, I blocked him instead. I checked Emico's talk page to make sure he's been warned about the rule before, so he can't claim to have been unaware of it. --Michael Snow 04:24, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User name

Thebolex (talk · contribs) as a user name seems inappropriate, and his only edits are creating the appalling JR EWING, an article now in Vfd, 04:34, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

And has now removed the Vfd here, SqueakBox 04:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I warned them not to do that again, as they had not gotten a prior warning, and they seem to be new. Noel (talk) 07:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• What's inappropriate about the user name? Scratching head in puzzlement. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I couldn't see the problem with the name either. The warning was for removing the VfD notice. Noel (talk) 04:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, the name breaks into the bolex. (Bolex is a manufacturer of 16mm cameras.) I'm having trouble seeing how the name is offensive or otherwise in violation of policy, unless it parses in some way that I missed...? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Try bollocks. RickK 05:39, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet, Squeakbox and the Unethical Cyberstalker

If you review the recent behavior of Squeakbox, you will see he has stalked Rexjudicata on Wikipedia, and made changes to any page edited by Rexjudicata. He has claimed that Agwiii and Rexjudicata are the same person. They are not.

Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute.

It is important to note that Squeakbox knows nothing of these topics, and the sole purpose of his changes have been to harass Rexjudicata. As Squeakbox is an "old" member of your clique (aka Wikipedia community), he rallied his friends for support and they joined him.

Your code of conduct notwithstanding, the fact remains that the behavior of Squeakbox is a violation of the Cyberstalking Laws of Florida, many other states, and a growing number of other countries. Your Wikipedia S.O.P. is in conflict with these laws, and that should give you pause. Why are your members allowed or even encouraged to break the laws in a growing area of International regulation?

If you can get past the fact that Squeakbox is "allowed" to make edits -- as are all Wikipedians -- and examine why and what he has been editing in his attack on Rexjudicata, you see that he has used your rules as a vehicle to harass Rexjudicata. The choice is yours -- ignore the stalking and harassing by claiming the rules permit Squeakbox's behavior -- or look at the unethical behavior of his stalking.

Consider what we call the ethics transparency test. Ask, "Could I give a clear explanation for the action, including an honest and transparent account of my motives, that would satisfy a fair and dispassionate moral judge?" Squeakbox's behavior fails this test.

Consider what we call the ethics Golden Rule test. Ask, "Would I like to be on the receiving end of this action and its potential consequences? Am I treating others the way I’d want to be treated?" Again, Squeakbox's behavior fails this test. If Rexjudicata had behaved as Squeakbox did, he would have gone to all of the substantive pages that Squeakbox edited, and made changes to them -- this did not happen. Instead, he posted his complaint about being cyberstalked and erased harassing comments made by Squeakbox on his page.

The choice is very clear. You may intervene and stop the unethical, stalking behavior of Squeakbox, or you can stand behind a technical interpretation of your rules, ignoring the fact that they permit unethical and illegal behavior. This is not about suggesting that Squeakbox or any other Wikipedian stalker be prosecuted, but about the fact that your rules are increasingly out of step with both ethics and laws. Philanthropists and investors are very careful about such issues.

Rex —Preceding unsigned comment added by RexJudicata (talk • contribs) 07:28, 16 Jun 2005

• "Squeakbox has written on the Parents Without Rights page that Grayson Walker has had his parental rights taken away by the court. This is not true. Beyond that, it would be impossible for Squeakbox -- in Honduras -- to have access to private records of a Florida family law case. The fact that he would write such a libel shows his intent is to harass and not contribute."

So he made a mistake, if it's verifiably wrong produce a source and change it back.

The same thing goes for complaints about user conduct. That's what RFC is for. Produce the evidence and present it to the wikipedia comminity at large. There's no rule against against editing the same pages as others, I'm sure many people cross paths with people who have similar interests. - 131.211.210.14 11:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Look. Squeakbox hasn't done ANYTHING unethical, illegal, or immoral. You have yet to provide clear, solid answers. Tell you what. Go to WP:RFC and follow the appropriate procedure. Excuse me for being frank, but you need to put up or shut up. It's as simple as that. Plus, Squeakbox isn't a sockpuppet. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 11:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

  • Repeatedly spamming people with unwanted messages is against the law too. - 131.211.210.14 11:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This shows Rex has a serious problem. This kind of behaviour should not be tolerated in wikipedia, as it is nothing other than an attempt to force me to stop working here, SqueakBox 15:17, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore the only clearly illegal edits in this case are this and this. If you pump the IP address into Google you get this cached version [5], note the reference to Spam & Kook Killers are Us, the company Rex admits to working for on his user page. Here, in another cached version, we see this is actually Grayson Walker, with a connection to this, which I used in the Grayson Walker article, and which is whois registered to Grayson Walker. So it appears to me clear that it was Rex who was impersonating me. Calling me a paedophile, from a new IP address, is typical of his past behaviour on other sites. I would welcome a police investigation of this case, as I believe the facts speak for themselves, SqueakBox 15:38, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) This is a legal threat, SqueakBox 16:04, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

This proves that RexJudicata is 66.176.193.185. Here and here 66.176.193.185 falsely impersonates me as this is my email address for wikipeida. I take this false impersonation very seriously. SqueakBox 16:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Admin poll for monthlong block

As an uninvolved party, and in light of the evidence given, I offer to block this user (User:RexJudicata) indefinitely for a month. Please indicate your support/opposition to this decision here.

Alright, I know this is really short notice, but it seems like people are leaning towards a month. I shall block him now. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:10, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be better to give him a chance to see this poll, and what the general opinion about him is, and then it might not be necessary to block. Everyking 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Support

1. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:37, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
2. Then I support. I really don't think a poll is necessary, kudos for asking for advice though! smoddy 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
3. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oppose

1. How can we do that? Don't we need arbitration? Yes, I'm a supporter of quickpolls, but not for indefinite blocks. Everyking 17:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

   Block, yes. Permanent, no. We quite clearly are not allowed to. WP:BP gives us a maximum of a month for disruption. That seems sensible to me. smoddy 17:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) Support a month.

   OK, well if it's just for a month then I have no opinion. Everyking 18:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Why not just block for a month or something. Give them some time to cool down. Maybe they will come back and do something constructive. I made a suggestion earlier that since they are so knowledgeable about cyberstalking laws, they should try to get the cyberstalking article up to FA status. I've already laid the groundwork; it just needs some expansion. 205.217.105.2 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I was planning to block him for a day or two at first, and ramp it up if he continued to make threats and be disruptive. I hate polls. I think admins should use their judgment on this one, we don't usually decide about blocks by voting on them. Rhobite 17:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
3. I'm with Rhobite on this one. Start with a day, and ramp up quickly if the clue-by-four doesn't have an effect. They aren't a vandal, just somewhat obsessed, etc. Noel (talk) 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No vote

1. This editor can be blocked without a poll, and we shouldn't take a poll. I would strongly support an indefinite block for this particular editor whose activities were clearly far beyond any legitimate use of Wikipedia resources and who had refused to heed all warnings. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
2. I dislike quickpolls This link is Broken 11:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page Vfd

66.176.193.185 has now put a Vfd on Talk:Parents Without Rights. I don't know if he wants the Vfd to be put on the article (which is protected) or just wants to delete the talk page. He hasn't logged his notice, SqueakBox 17:32, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:NPOV

NPOV (talk · contribs) is an obvious role account, used for such things as inserting "Evolution is theory, not fact" [6] and give them a false air of legitimacy. Should something be done here? Radiant_>|< 11:46, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Avoid all the problems this could cause and ask him to change his username to avoid sort of association with the NPOV policy. - 131.211.210.14 11:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Check his contribs log, and you'll see that it's not actually a user. It's a role account. Or possibly a sock. Radiant_>|< 11:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
• How can you see it's a role account? - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, he has a couple edits in 2003, then nothing for two years, and now he's started again. Also, he has a name that implies Wikipedia legitimacy. And he makes precisely the sort of controversial edits that most people would not want to do with their main account. Naming evolution not factual, and signing it as NPOV, is POV, misleading, and sounding more authoritative than it actually is. Radiant_>|< 12:54, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I'll do a username block. Snowspinner 15:39, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I find it amazing that anyone can remember a password that they haven't used in 2 years. func(talk) 15:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not if you use the same password for everything (as many people do). Guettarda 16:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Prime case for a username block to avoid confusion. DJ Clayworth 16:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I raised this a few weeks ago on WP:RFC#Choice_of_username, and since jguk is no longer around to make the case, I thought I should copy the comment he made there:

Again, I can't see the subpage - but if we allow User:Neutrality, why should we not allow User:NPOV - although I agree we shouldn't allow the redirect to WP:NPOV (he can have a link to that page if he wants, but not a redirect, IMO), jguk 11:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Because neutrality is a general principle/ideal, whereas NPOV is an official Wikipedia policy. Snowspinner 17:14, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not correct. I can have a neutral point of view outside of Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it is also policy. :) Yours, User_WP:POINT 05:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's very interesting that I've encountered two other Users in the past week whose accounts were almost a year old, had only one edit in that time, and then began editing on VfD. RickK 05:41, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mimiian (I)

Three revert rule violation on China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Mimiian (talk · contribs) (all times UTC-4):

• 1st revert: 07:30, 15 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:48, 16 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:56, 16 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 08:07, 16 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: Current revision as of 08:16, 16 Jun 2005

Reported by: MarkSweep 12:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry at WP:TFD?

Take a look at the votes made by User:Hhamadraad, User:Alapretes and User:ArchmageGwidon on WP:TFD regarding Template:Crap. I would argue that the last one here engaged in vandalism by removing my comments. Has sockpuppetry started infesting the TFD page now as well? Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And MiddaSantaClaus (talk · contribs)'s contributions in particular. I'd revert them myself, but given that he's already quite stridently labelled me as a vandal, I think it would be more politic to let someone else. --Cryptic (talk) 12:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked ArchmageGwidon, since his only edits were vandalism (removing Sjakalle's vote, specifically). Hhamadraad and Alapretes are obvious sockpuppets. MiddaSantaClaus likely as well, and already has a vandal warning on his talk page. Radiant_>|< 13:00, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Aklisus (talk · contribs) and Charb (talk · contribs) are two more socks, who apparently exist only to revert my earlier RC patrolling. Sigh. --Cryptic (talk) 13:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked Charb, obvious vandal. Aklisus is toeing the line but I'm not sure about him. Radiant_>|< 13:43, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please block vandal User:Lee D

I am not an admin, but user:Lee_D violated his final warning. Can someone block him and add Template:test5 to his talk page. (see Special:Contributions/Lee_D) Thank you. --michael180 13:19, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Done. El_C 13:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could also see WP:AIV for this. smoddy 13:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank You --michael180 14:42, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry at WP:VFD

VfD is currently under attack from a horde of sockpuppets. Articles listed on VfD attracting the horde are

Mathew Kenneally, Marija Taflaga, Sarah Lynch, Tobias Halligan, Blue Orchid Scandal, Julia Fetherstone, Claudia Newman, James H. Robertson, Peter Rajic, Clam Commune, James Higgins, Tim Caddey. -- Longhair | Talk 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked the lot of socks for 24 hours to get them to cool off. Radiant_>|< 14:27, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Can "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently" (WP:BP be applied here? smoddy 14:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It probably can, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. These votes are easy to discount at VfD-close time, and blocking them permanently just clogs up the block list. And they'll create new ones anyway. --W(t) 14:38, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
  • There's still sockpuppet votes coming in. Their attack concerns only the VfD debates of the above articles. -- Longhair | Talk 14:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • As long as vigilant people keep pointing out the sockpuppet votes, things should be fine as they are. --Deathphoenix 15:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We should have a short boilerplate at the top of each VfD page which plainly states that votes from new users don't count - that might give some of these people pause. Noel (talk) 16:00, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Votes from new users are fine as long as they're not blank keep or delete votes, but have some reasoning which shows they know the policy. Ideally, they do have a few edits under their belt, though, yes. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Add User:Hotpants to the list of sockpuppets. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Add User:TagTeam to the list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Add User:Freezer to the list, although this one took a short time-out to vandalize a brand-new article as well [7]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• User:TagTeam is back, continuing to disrupt the VFD process. Requesting immediate block now as an abusive sockpuppet and as an inherent disruptor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:ScapegoatVandal

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

• 1st revert: 11:54
• 2nd revert: 13:24
• 3rd revert: 13:53 (added information)
• 4th revert: 14:30

Reported by: JFW | T@lk 16:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 16:28
• 2nd revert: 17:04
• 3rd revert: 17:39
• 4th revert: 17:53

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 19:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I have a stake as one of the contestants, so I have not banned SV personally. He has come to the talk page ranting that his POV is NPOV and that we are strawmanning him for antisemitism and conspiracy theories. JFW | T@lk 16:29, 16 Jun 2005
  • No, you are making another straw man fallacy. I hate Nazis, Judeofascists and Communists with equal gusto. I made no conspiracy and you have yet to prove how it is false and a conspiracy. Playing stupid doesn't count. ScapegoatVandal (talk · contribs) 17:14, 16 Jun 2005
    • He's also violated 3RR on Judaizers, although the 4th revert was a little trickier, as he added back the links and then commented them too, In any event, he's violated the 3RR on several articles, and resorted to a series of nasty personal attacks as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ethnocentric bullying is wrong and you have violated the 3RR so many more times too, but I haven't been taking count of this part in the hypocrisy you spew. ScapegoatVandal 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No individual user apart from you has violated the 3RR. This is not "ethnocentric bullying" but the removal of a highly speculative unsourced view, as explained on talk:Circumcision without insults and rants. JFW | T@lk 18:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of language, you Jews have incited it. I am frustrated that only you Jews get away with POV pushing on doubly ethnocentric and ethnoreligious bounds. I am not the only person that gets his edits to Jew topics reverted. It's all over the edit histories. You cannot disprove that you were there doing as I have said. Too bad buddy, you are way out of line and absolutely corrupt. You can't hide your trail of deception on the Wiki. Of course others have violated that rule. You're telling me that others who rv more than 3, 4, 5, 6 times probably even are not guilty of this wrongdoing? Nice spin doctoring, as I have already accused you of and it is right. Jews do this spin and get away with it. All the false politeness aka sugar coating won't save you from the flies attracted to you. [personal attack removed] ScapegoatVandal 18:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you think the rule is wrong, go to WT:3RR. JFW | T@lk 18:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never said the rule was wrong. Stop playing guessing games and giving me a verdict. I said that you all exploit the rule's loopholes to push POV. ScapegoatVandal 19:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You keep fucking with my edits over language, but I will let you remove them from these other pages if you feel like it. Just don't do that on my profile pages and we have a deal. ScapegoatVandal 19:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 19:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User:David Gerard has now blocked them indefinitely ("trolling name, trolling behaviour, revert-warring, personal attacks"). Noel (talk) 21:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stevietheman

Stevie thinks it's appropriate to remove all attempts by User:Tverbeek to communicate with him on his talk page. While, of course, it's appropriate to remove personal attacks, which may or may not have occured. He seems to think he can also remove all other message by Tverbeek that followed including a notification he requested mediation. Can someone explain to him the difference between a message and a personal attack is? I don't seem to get through to him. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm of the view that if someone wants to wipe a message off thier own talk page then that is their business. It's rude though. You cannot force someone to talk. Clearly Stevietheman doesn't want to go through mediation. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Softcafe

This user has made some very questionable edits and page moves that I'm not sure I want to get into fixing myself (or in the case of the page move, can't). Could an admin have a look at this? Moving KKK member pages to having the suffix (racist) on them isn't NPOV or possibly even legal... --Kiand 19:18, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Softcafe refused to stop doing this, and when I gave him/her a last warning (I have a feeling it's really the Don Black he/she is writing an article on), they logged out and began making the same edits with an anon, so I have blocked both for 24 hours. RickK 07:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Gbambino

This user, gbambino (talk · contribs), persists in removing factual information which contradicts his monarchist views. He has continued doing this despite my warning that he risks being banned for vandalism. Since I am involved in the dispute I don't want to ban him myself but I think his behaviour constitutes vandalism and a ban, at least a temporary one, is in order. See [8] [9] [10] This user has been banned previously for vandalism and for a 3RR violation so I think a longer ban, at least two weeks, is in order. AndyL 21:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia:Vandalism if they genuinely believe what they are writing - and it sounds like they probably do. It is, however, Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption. Noel (talk) 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protection of User:Enviroknot

I protected User:Enviroknot due to a prolonged revert war. However, it was pointed to me by User:Mrfixter at User talk:Mel Etitis#Enviroknot, et al. that I might have been mistaken in protecting that page. I would like to ask for more opinions on whether I was right or wrong on protecting that page, what to do now, and what should I do on similar situations in the future. --cesarb 01:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem in protecting it, and I don't think that you acted at all improperly. I should like, however, to see the "sock puppet" template replaced, as its presence on that page was in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I'm reluctant to replace it by editing a protected page; any opinions from other admins? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's true that they edit the same pages using the same IP, it's a no-brainer that these accounts are the same person. I'd support replacing the sockpuppet tag. Isomorphic 04:38, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is the evidence for this? Did you check with a developer? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard did a sock check -- I can't remember where he specifically discussed the results, and who was whose sock, sorry -- and Elkabong/Enviroknot's response was to call him a liar.

And there's this bit of circumstantial evidence, courtesy of SlimVirgin:

...take a look through these: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive22#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive24#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive25#User:ElKabong. Here's the diff for where ElKabong posted something but KaintheScion signed it. [11] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

--Calton | Talk 01:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But what do those have to do with me? All I've seen so far is that I had the misfortune to get someone else's IP address after a power outage, and that's been the only thing the rogue admins can come up with. They have just been using it as an excuse to persecute me and vandalize my user page.Enviroknot 01:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it's not true, has never been true, and now my page is again vandalized while I was out for the weekend. Thanks for nothing.Enviroknot 04:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. They are at it again. I won't protect again, since protection didn't work. --cesarb 01:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My recommendation, for what it's worth, is to get a developer to compare what IP addresses that Enviroknot, ElKabong and KaintheScion used over a period of time. Let them make this decision. At the very least, it will give us some peace, and be as fair as possible to Enviroknot. I am always reluctant to accuse someone of sock-puppetry, because unless you are a developer there is no way of knowing for sure. Even developers must make a judgement call based on IP addresses. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've protected again. When Mel Etitis reinserted the sockpuppet notice, he gave a link here, but all I see that supports keeping the sockpuppet notice is Isomorphic's comment — nothing else. I personally favour keeping it, but this situation is getting ridiculous. I strongly recommend establishing more consensus supporting the tag before we reinsert it. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:27, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

• David Gerard and Tim Starling have the same sockchecking options as the developers (who, generally, have more important things to do). Since David proclaimed two of this trio to be socks of the third, personally I'd take his word for it; we're unlikely to get better evidence than that. See User talk:David Gerard#Environknot. Personally I don't care whether or not there's a big honkin' box on their userpages stating so. Radiant_>|< 11:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there's no question. Since first spotted this guy has been acting like a troll and his socks were blatant before David Gerard sock checked them. [12]. He's been lying like a trooper since that moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:58, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Oh yeah, there's more evidence in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KaintheScion_et_al. Radiant_>|< 15:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, given David Gerard's opinion, I'm convinced of sockpuppetry. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:19, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

You shouldn't be. (removed personal attack) unsigned comment by anon user:69.144.179.212. later edited by anon user:212.218.64.68

[edit] Removal of evidence from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence

An anonymous editor, operating under an almost continuously changing I.P. address, has been continuously attempting to remove evidence presented by Yuber, under the blanket excuse 'rv islamist vandalism'. Examples of reverting on RFAr: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

I believe this is covered under WP:BP, but because I am personally somewhat involved in the dispute, it may not be appropriate for me to take action. Ingoolemo ^talk 01:53, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Lots of totally different IP addresses - proxies? Noel (talk) 04:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Probable proxies. User:131.175.189.222 User:217.123.137.115 User:136.145.54.123 and maybe more (I didn't check all of them) were flagged by SORBS as "Likely Trojaned Machine, host running." I think SORBS is our official proxy detector site. This link is Broken 12:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

block them, of course, already on grounds of being open proxies, and also because the edits are very obviously vandalism. I would like to believe that this is somebody trying to make KaintheScion look bad, but sometimes people around here exhibit staggering levels of stupidity, so I won't make a judgement on that. dab (ᛏ) 12:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of this recent behavior would be inconsistent with what he has done before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

This problem began five days ago, specifically 09:25, 2005 Jun 13, and no one has added any evidence since. Given the totally different IP addresses, blocking may not be successful. I'd hate to protect the page, but doing it for 12-24 hours might be enough to make the vandal go away. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:10, 2005 Jun 18 (UTC)

• I suggest that everybody take a look at the talkpage for this request for arbitration... I think there may be a problem when it comes to the sockpuppet allegation. --Chanting Fox 01:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Rovoam (and sockpuppet IPs)

Last night I was having trouble with Rovoam (talk · contribs) appearing under many proxy IPs and moving articles using cut and paste. When I warned him about it he must have misread my warning because he got very angry and said that I was endorsing an incorrect point of view over his own: when he continued to cut and paste I protected the pages. I was then treated to a barrage of vandalism on my talk page: 23 vandalisms in 10 hours, all apparently by the same user though using different IPs.

Today I now have the other side of the battle lobbying me to change the content of the protected page (Moses Kalankaytuk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)) to meet his own preferred edit. I have refused because I don't want to get involved in the debate and as the disclaimer says, the edit that is protected is not endorsement of that version of the page. However I readily admit that I know nothing about the subject or the apparent vandal in question. I am also at a point where I am ready to scream and punch something, due to some of the persistent personal problems that caused me to take a wikibreak recently and one or two other users who are just grinding me down a bit. If someone would like to take over at this point I would be very grateful. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 15:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Evil Monkey has been blocking a lot of these anons, but only for 24 hours. If they are proxies (I'm assuming they are), I'd have blocked them indefinitely. Noel (talk) 21:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I received an email today from someone who received a message I had left for this user on one of the IPs used to vandalise my talk page. It would appear that it's one of those multiple-IP servers. There are, however, some IPs that appear to be just used by this user. User:Tabib has left messages on them so they shouldn't be too hard to find. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, earlier in the week, I lenghtened the block period for a few of these from 24 hrs to infinite. With Tabib's help, they're easy enough to spot. El_C 21:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Yuber

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

• [28] Original edit made here by Noitall.
• [29] Yuber 1st Reversion, but Yuber deceptively labels it as a “minor” edit
• [30] Yuber 2nd Reversion, admits it is the same passage, but tries to claim that it is not a “reversion”
• [31] Yuber 3rd Reversion of same passage
• [32] Yuber 4th Reversion of same passage

Reported by: --Noitall 23:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, to report a 3RR violation, you need to supply the diffs and times showing each change. If you want to write it up again, I'll take a look at it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:41, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if it's a partial revert, quote the sentence/passage he keeps reverting to, or if there's more than one, just pick one of them. It makes it a lot easier for admins to trace the reversions if you do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:43, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

YUBER NOW IN AN EDIT WAR REGARDING CHRISTIAN VIEW OF ABRAHAM NO LESS

Even more, I tried to discuss his actions with him, see User talk:Yuber (even attempting to compliment him) and Talk:Abraham, and he still violates and reverts. He has never discussed a single item on the talk page despite multiple requests.

--Noitall 23:54, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

he's technicaly just staying within the rules.Geni 00:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked the diffs and there was a partial revert four times within three hours, so I've blocked him for 24 hours. First revert was to an 05:44 Jun 11 version of Anonymous Editor's. The sentence restored four times was: "All three religions regard him as the ancestor of the Jews, through Isaac, and the Arabs, through Ishmael."

• The version Yuber reverted to was a 05:44 June 11 version changed by User:Noitall at 13:21 Jun 15 [33]
• 1st revert of Noitall's edit 20:22 Jun 17
• 2nd revert 20:35 Jun 17
• 3rd revert 20:48 Jun 17
• 4th revert 23:30 Jun 17 SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Note It should be noted for anyone interested that this discussion may also be relevant to an ongoing Arbitration that involves Yuber Jtkiefer 05:13, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Note This user is misusing multiple user accounts or collaborates with other Muslims like Mustafaa and BrandonYusufToporov to press their POV by reverting constantly. --Germen 14:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judaism

Judaism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) as been reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours - please lock.

Reported by: User:62.253.64.14 00:23, 18 Jun 2005

Comments: Two separate users but both reverting to the same state. I am asking for the wikipedia policy of "no original research" to be applied evenly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.64.14 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 Jun 2005

I don't see a 3RR violation here. You keep deleting that Judaism is monotheistic, and other editors (legitimate editors, not sockpuppets) are reverting you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:30, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.12.117.12

Three revert rule violation on Put-in-Bay, Ohio (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 64.12.117.12 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [34]
• 2nd revert: [35]
• 3rd revert: [36]
• 4th revert: [37]

Reported by: Silas Snider (talk) 02:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Has been continually adding commercial links to Put-in-Bay, Ohio, and accusing user of being bots in his edit summaries. NOTE: I believe that the page that he is reverting to is [38], but I can't be sure. I think he has just been reverting to his previous reverts. Silas Snider (talk) 02:34, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, man, not this page again. Protected; no point blocking because it's an AOL address - probably get a different address next time they dial in. Noel (talk) 04:34, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Mimiian (II)

WP:3RR violation on China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) by Mimiian (talk · contribs):

1. revert reverted by MarkSweep
2. revert reverted by MarkSweep
3. Revert reverted by myself.
4. Revert reverted by nobody yet, but I'm about to.

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 15:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This has probably been going on for much longer. I only went back a few hours. SchmuckyTheCat 15:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I reported an earlier instance of essentially the same violation by User:Mimiian two days ago (see #User:Mimiian (I) above). Attempts to engage him/her in conversation on his talk page and on Talk:China have resulted in no compromises or concessions. --MarkSweep 15:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Also, User:Mimiian has applied the same strategy to History of China (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). --MarkSweep 15:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours as he was blocked just a couple of days ago for 3RR on the same page. Schmucky and Mark, when you report violations in future, please include a diff clearly showing that the first revert was a revert, and not just an edit, and then also showing the diffs for, and times of, each of the subsequent four reverts. In this case, the earlier version Mimiian was reverting to (concentrating on the phrase that China is the oldest, or oldest continuing, civilization) was 21:25 Jun 16, and his reverts were 14:11, 14:40, 14:52, and 15:15 Jun 18. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Anonymous_editor

Three revert rule violation on Pakistan by user:Anonymous_editor

• 1st revert: 01:55, Jun 19, 2005
• 2nd revert: 02:24, Jun 19, 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:36, Jun 19, 2005
• 4th revert: 02:43, Jun 19, 2005

Reported by: Jtkiefer 07:33, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Part of an ongoing revert war with user:SamTr014 Jtkiefer 07:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that this has nothing to do with revert war itself, both users were reported in the attempt to apply the 3RR Rule Fairly. Jtkiefer 07:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Was the first revert a revert to a previous version, or the first time that section had been deleted i.e. a regular edit? If it was a revert (in whole or in part), can you give a link to the previous version it reverted to, or the date and time, please? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:45, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it was a deletion of something that he himself added, which was an expansion of stuff that had been added (and removed) before, then that was re-added and reverted which started the whole edit war, here is the relevant page as far as I can find 01:55, Jun 19, 2005 Jtkiefer 07:58, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

If that was the first time he deleted it, that counts as a regular edit, not a revert, and then he reverted to his deletion three times after that, so that's not a 3RR violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:15, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:SamTr014

Three revert rule violation on Pakistan by user:SamTr014

• 1st revert: 02:12, Jun 19, 2005
• 2nd revert: 02:33, Jun 19, 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:40, Jun 19, 2005
• 4th revert: 02:49, Jun 19, 2005

Reported by: Jtkiefer 07:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Part of an ongoing revert war with user:Anonymous_editor Jtkiefer 07:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that this has nothing to do with revert war itself, both users were reported in the attempt to apply the 3RR Rule Fairly. Jtkiefer 07:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I left a warning on his talk page, as I can't see any sign that he was warned, and he hasn't been blocked before. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet accounts

I believe that User:sumal, user:Muralikumar and user:Bidyotp are sockpuppets of user:Sumalsn; created to ballot stuff the Indian Collaboration of the Week. What should be done about these accounts? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:16, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

What a strange thing to do. Oh well - to deal with it. I suppose it depends on how seriously you take it. The users are clearly sockpuppets, so I suppose you could label them as such under their votes so that people know to ignore them. Personally however I'd consider just letting it pass. Does it really matter all that much? Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, but should the sockpuppets be banned? =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm loathed to block sockpuppets unless forced to do so in case they share an IP address with a legit user (who would find the autoblocker blocking the address for 24 hours or more).Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 12:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Germen

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

• 1st revert: 14:26, 19 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:41, 19 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:10, 19 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 16:09, 19 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 16:46, 19 Jun 2005

Reported by: Axon 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is the second breach of the 3RR by this editor, the first after their last warning #User:Germen[39].Axon 16:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Yuber, Mustafaa (probably the same user) and Axon escape this rule by using multiple user accounts for reverting. Action against this foul play is advised. --Germen 14:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear violation, and Germen was warned the last time, so I've blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, s/he continued reverting even after being reported. [40] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:66.61.159.186

Three revert rule violation on William A. Dembski (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 66.61.159.186 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:32, 19 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:56, 19 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:35, 19 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 19:16, 19 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 19:27, 19 Jun 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• He's just (19:45, 19 Jun 2005) made the same revert again. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • He's now switching to other IP addresses to make the same edits. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As he's switching IPs, I've protected the page. I'll also leave a warning on the page of the IP address he's used most, if there's a predominant one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Message from User:BruceDLimber

Greetings!

I'm placing this here because I've just searched a bunch of Wikipedia screens having to do with problems and administrators, and nowhere can I find a button for "Add New Message" or some such. (I'd appreciate being emailed a note as to how one in fact can do this; all I see is "Edit" buttons on existing messages like the one above to which I'm appending this.)

I a week or two ago I was on Wiki and edited an article (on the Baha'i Faith) slightly. Now, I suddenly not a notice that I have mail, and the mail is threatening me with banishment for supposedly doing something or other to an article about "Buuancy." I didn't access or edit any such article, and indeed wasn't even aware such an article existed!

I also got a note to stop harassing somebody or other whom I've never heard of and was not harassing.

PLEASE FORWARD OR REDIRECT THIS COMMENT TO THE APPROPRIATE ADMINISTRATOR(S) since I can't seem to figure out how one is supposed to create a new message to them. Thank you.

And as I said, I'd very much appreciate being advised what's going on, that my account is now clear, and how exactly one does post a new problem message. (BTW, the list of "problems" to be brought to administrators needs to have an item added for administrative miscommunications such as the above as this doesn't seem to fit under any of the current problem categories.)

Thank you.
Bruce D. Limber
brucedlimber@aol.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceDLimber (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 Jun 2005

Replied on User talk:BruceDLimber. --cesarb 21:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking mentorship

Raul suddenly deleted the Everyking mentorship vote off the Requests for Arbitration page almost immediately after he got the 4th vote he was looking for to support his personally-encouraged mentorship program for Everyking without explaining to any admins what the results were. Unless you happened to have been watching the RfAr page, you had no idea this was even being discussed. So, what's the result? Admins aren't supposed to block Everyking when he makes an edit to Ashlee Simpson articles despite his parole? It would be nice if it were explained what we are supposed to or not supposed to do. It would also be nice if the section were kept on the RfAr page for more than a few seconds after it got the 4th vote. RickK 21:39, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

It's all there on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2. Please assume good faith. Rhobite 21:43, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

How are we supposed to know that? It seems to me, that if there is a change to the arbcomm's parole ruling on a person, that the other admins should be notified of the change and not have it tucked away where nobody can find it. Especailly as I said, mere minutes after the 4th arbcomm vote was obtained, as if it were something shameful. My good faith is lacking considering the last two shameful arbcomm decisions (this one and jguk's). RickK 21:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to do anything. In the event that a conflict develops, it will be handled by the mentors. Otherwise I'm free to edit. That said, I think you have a lot to apologize for. You've been treating me unfairly for months about this. Even when we try to work out a fair deal you argue that I don't deserve a break. I wish you'd just let it go. Everyking 21:49, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless I happened to know that there was a change to the terms of your parole concerning editing Ashlee Simpson articles, I would have blocked you the first time you did so. Therefore, yes, I, and all other admins, needed to know that your parole had been changed. RickK 22:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

But of course you did know that, because you were arguing on the Arbitration page. Everyking 22:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This should have been put on AN, like any other arbcom ruling. And I don't think demanding apologies from people is a terribly wise idea. It would be a grave mistake to take the declaration that you can't edit these articles without a team of three people to watch your every move as an endorsement that your behavior has been anything less than unacceptable. That sanctions and the explanations of well over a dozen other Wikipedians did not get through to you does not speak well to you or your behavior. Snowspinner 22:29, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

A grave mistake? What the? Is that supposed to be a threat? Anyway, Phil, this is just sour grapes. You know all the facts of the matter; I don't need to repeat them. Why don't you direct your passion for harassing other Wikipedians into editing some articles for a change? I'm curious: as an admin, you provoke controversy with nearly everything you do; if you were to engage in some actual editing, would you be equally controversial at that or less so? Everyking 22:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you take your mentorship to cover our mediation agreement too? Snowspinner 23:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

If you want me to be nice to you, all you have to do is not write threatening/insulting things like that above. Everyking 23:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two should meet IRL. JRM · Talk 16:37, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

For the purpose of general information, I agree that it would have been wise to post a note about this on WP:AN so that administrators wouldn't be left thinking Everyking was violating the terms of his arbitration ruling by editing Ashley Simpson articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes for deletion problems

Someone added a __NOEDITSECTION__ to Template:vfd top. While that was reverted, it took too long and "contaminated" a number of VfD Log pages. Since the ones who close Votes for deletion are mostly administrators, I ask of anyone who closed VfD discussions between 08:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) and 21:17, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) to go back to the discussions you closed and check if the [edit] link is on them. If it isn't, remove the bogus __NOEDITSECTION__.

I have already "cleaned" all pages from June 19 to June 14; I can't find the broken discussion on June 13 (going to hundreds of discussions via Recentchangeslinked can get tiring quite quickly). --cesarb 21:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank Cesar for his work on this. RickK 22:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think we got them all... --cesarb 22:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well done! I was wondering what was going on there. Would it be a good suggestion to protect the template? Radiant_>|< 22:28, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it would be a good idea, since it's subst:'ed in a lot of pages, and vandalizing it means instant vandalism of all closed VfD discussions, which would need to be manually reverted on each one (but wait, first you have to find which of the 100+ per day was vandalized!). However, that wouldn't help much against a well-intentioned but ill-considered modification like that one (he might not be an admin, but he's on WP:RFA with twice the number of supports than the number of opposes... A few more days would have made the difference if the template was protected). That said, let's not be too hard on him... The intention (which I guess is to reduce the number of accidental edits of closed VfD discussions) was good, and even admins make mistakes. --cesarb 22:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly think it was just an honest mistake, I doubt very seriously that this was intended as vandalism. RickK 23:11, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • I also think it's obvious it was an honest mistake. But just consider for an instant what vandalism on that template would cause... --cesarb 23:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Yup, it was an honest (if stupid) mistake by yours truly. I'm not sure it's that sensitive to vandalism though, the only reason this didn't get caught and fixed immediately was because it didn't directly shout "I've been vandalised" when you added it to a VfD. If someone added that goatsex picture to it or something the first person to subst it would notice, revert the vandalism and re-subst.
        • On the other hand, there's not much reason for not protecting it either as it doesn't need much editing. --W(t) 23:36, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
• Protected now, for the time being. It's not an oft-changing template anyway. Radiant_>|< 07:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • You forgot its pair, Template:vfd bottom. I protected it (either both or none should be protected, since they work together). --cesarb 11:21, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I've unprotected both. This template doesn't get vandalised a lot, and since it's used with subst:, I don't think that vandalism on this template is going to cause major problems. JYolkowski // talk 01:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Spinboy

Three revert rule violation on Green Party of Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Spinboy (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:17 20 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:12 20 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:22 20 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 03:40 20 Jun 2005

Reported by: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.81.185 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 Jun 2005

Several attempts to neutrally report serious internal debates within this party, from credible sources summarized at Talk:Green Party of Canada, were reverted by Spinboy under several different transparent excuses. His fourth revert was marked a minor edit in bad faith, after a clear warning not to revert any further edits without discussing them and justifying his claims that they are somehow "inflammatory" or "POV" (words typically used by promoters of political parties as excuses to censor the truth about them). What's more, he self-righteously accuses those who wrote several different versions, in an attempt to satisfy his objections, of violating the three-revert rule, when none of the edits made by them were reverts. By contrast, all Spinboy's edits were actual reverts, and he's violated the rule deliberately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.81.185 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 20 Jun 2005

Blocked for 24 hours. Kelly Martin 04:31, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy was unblocked 45 minutes later by Earl Andrew. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that was that shif from Green politics to green movement in one of the reverts but still.Geni 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked why I unblocked Mr. Spinboy. Well, I thought the policy was, if you find an administrator to unblock you, then by all means do it. Plus, Im not a big fan of the 3 revert rule, and believe that instead of blocking people, we have them go to arbritration to settle their disputes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

that isn't wikipedia policy it is mearly wikipedia practice. As for the rest the comunity appears to want a 3 revert rule a juding by the size of this page it appears to want it inforced. Your personal feeling on the matter arre not really relivant.Geni 16:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. The optics of the situation just aren't very good when you block one party to a revert war and unblock the other. Hopefully Spinboy won't be back here again, but in future it might be best to ask for a second opinion from another admin to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earl Andrew, you shouldn't unblock someone who's been blocked for 3RR unless there are some extenuating circumstances, such as they weren't warned or something similar. You can't simply unblock because you disagree with the policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify, I unblocked him because I was asked. The rest of the stuff about my opposition to the way the 3RR is administered is just my personal feelings of the matter. I'm sorry if they aren't relavent, I just didn't want to write a one line :-D . I hope there was no conflict of interest, I don't think I've made any edits to the page in question, although dont quote me on that. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's especially unwise to unblock someone with who you appear to be pals - that raises instant charges of favouratism on the part of admins, something that is a constant (and troublesome) refrain. Noel (talk) 17:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like some institutional memory is called for here. IP addresses starting with 142.177... are frequently used by the hard-banned user EntmootsOfTrolls, who is known for his interest in Canadian Green politics, among other things (I'm familiar with this user, and the edit summaries are very much in character). According to Jimbo Wales, edits by this user are supposed to be reverted on sight. This report should have been disregarded in the first place, although Spinboy would be well advised to request help if he doesn't know whether the three-revert rule applies. --Michael Snow 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Spinboy for 23 hours and 15 minutes (since he was blocked for 45 minutes prior to the block being lifted prematurely).

"Well, I thought the policy was, if you find an administrator to unblock you, then by all means do it."

No Earl Andrew, that's not the policy. 3RR blocks should be a no brainer and shouldn't be unblocked unless they were made in error (because one of the four reverts was misreported) or, perhaps, because the violator is a newbie who didn't know the rules. Reverting a block for no reason just because you're asked to is unprofessional. AndyL 21:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked. I'm puzzled as to why Spinboy was reblocked, given that this was posted immediately below my explanation of why a block is not called for in this instance. It's possible to raise the issue of the questionable basis for unblocking without punishing Spinboy for Earl Andrew's decision. --Michael Snow 22:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR block are pulled all the time for reasons other than admin error. The form reason is "User X contacted me and they are very sorry and have apologised and undertaken to be careful not to do it again."Geni 02:02, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't actually seen your post. I think perhaps my cache needed to be cleared or something. AndyL 22:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense, looks like we're clear on this then. --Michael Snow 22:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Earl Andrew violating policy for User:Spinboy

User:Spinboy, who was making false claims about another user, had violated the 3RR, and who had been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR by this other user, was somehow able to convince User:Earl Andrew to block the other user. This is most likely a personal relationship between the two as both are from the Ottawa area, and both sympathetic to left-wing parties there (Earl to the New Democratic Party, Spinboy to the Green Party of Ontario and Green Party of Canada). Spinboy violated the 3RR while censoring unfavourable information about the GPC. It would be wise to determine if Earl Andrew has likewise censored unfavourable information about the NDP, and if the two are colluding to keep this information out.

There have been numerous incidents of political parties patrolling the Wikipedia to suppress true but unfavourable information. If this is also a case of administrator collusion to enable violation of the 3RR, then, it should be stomped on heavily: Earl Andrew should lose adminship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.12.20 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 20 Jun 2005

For what it's worth, Earl Andrew's block of User:142.177.81.185 doesn't seem entirely out of line. The anon IP stepped immediately into a revert war at Green Party of Canada, and left some somewhat abusive edits and edit summaries there and on Spinboy's talk page.

On the other hand, an immediate two-week block with the cited reason per requested by User:Spinboy may not be the best way handle the dispute. I would urge Earl Andrew to be more specific in the block log about the policy under which a block is imposed.

Spinboy doesn't come up smelling of roses either—he was blocked for 24 hours as part of the same revert war. I'm concerned to note that Earl Andrew unblocked Spinboy 45 minutes later, reportedly on Spinboy's request. As a courtesy, Earl Andrew might want to make a note on WP:AN/3RR when he unblocks a user, and notify the blocking admin. I would encourage him to avoid involvement in future in issues where there might be a perceived conflict of interest. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

back when I was pretty much carrying out all the 3 revert rule blocks I expected a certain number to be pulled for various reasons. It seemed to be accepted that if someone contacted another admin by email there was a fair chance of the block being pulled.Geni 16:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This course of action might not have been the wisest, true. All the same, it's worth considering the source, and I don't think the original block of Spinboy was legitimate either (though they may not have realized this). For an explanation, see my comment on the 3RR noticeboard. --Michael Snow 20:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GAP Project

User:CoolCat inserted two copyright violations into the GAP Project article, and when the article was deleted, he brought it to VfU, then changed his mind and re-inserted the copyvio. I reverted him, at which point SPUI reverted to the copyvio without so much as a discussion. When I reverted again, leaving an edit summary that I was reverting a copyvio, SPUI reverted it again, again without discussion. I have blocked SPUI for 24 hours. RickK 04:44, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

CoolCat has said several times on the wiki that he is the author of the content. Like I told you earlier, he also said this to me as soon as the trouble first started, on April 22. He told me this two hours after the very first copyvio notice was ever added to the page. Perhaps this is why SPUI was reverting without adding anything new to the discussion. silsor 04:56, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea what SPUI's motive is. Where did he and CoolCat ever communicate this non-copyright violation status? I have re-blocked him. RickK 05:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

But how do you know what SPUI's motive is? Since CoolCat has said right on the wiki that he himself wrote the content that is alleged to be a copyvio, why not assume SPUI is taking his side? silsor 05:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There's no proof of it being a copyvio, and that has been discussed to death. So let's assume a little good faith here. This block also shows RickK's disturbing lack of good faith. --SPUI (talk) 05:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your past behavior would preclude good faith, and your failure to discuss the revert would enforce that. Silsor should not have taken it on himself to unblock you, but be warned, if you revert it again, I will block you again. Take it to the VfU page and discuss it. RickK 05:41, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

And now Ugen64 has taken it upon himself to revert it as well, also without discussion. I must wonder why the need to violate not only VfU but continual reversion to a copyright violation. Is there a particular reason why nobody wants to discuss this before making such major actions? I have protected the page, though I suspect Ugen64 or Silsor will revert the protection. RickK 05:46, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You've not only broken protection policy but also the 3RR, and blocking policy, and assume good faith. But of course Wikipedia would fall apart without you. --SPUI (talk) 05:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the protection. RickK, this is a clear violation of Wikipedia:Blocking policy Wikipedia:Protection policy. I believe it to be inappropriate for you to protect a page when you are involved in the revert war, especially as you appear to be the only one reverting (four times in 24 hours) to your favored version. There are times when rules may be bent but this is too controversial. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) [updated — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)]

• I have put a notificiation at WP:CP, requesting the participants there to clear up whether or not this is a copyvio. Radiant_>|< 12:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, RickK was not involved in the article over a matter of content, but over the matter of copyright violation. It is appropriate to block someone who is setting Wikipedia up for legal liability. func(talk) 14:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible legal liability, which is exactly what's disputed. And it's not exactly a dramatic one at that, unless you expect a cloud of lawyers to roll in and shower cease-and-desist orders on us at any moment now (I'm not getting involved in this discussion, but let's not toss around big words.) In any case, hey, let's keep talking and go a little easier on the warfare. JRM · Talk 16:35, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Func, I didn't mention oops, I guess I did. I meant to say that it was a violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy (although, actually, I did disagree with the block as well). I unprotected the article with a note on the discussion page, and Gamaliel later protected it (which is the desired course of action, I feel). I think it's better to have a third party protect pages; it avoids any implication of improper behavior. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because the participants all should know better, I feel that page protection is unwarranted. Behave yourselves or else. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:15, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:RickK

Three revert rule violation on GAP Project (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). RickK (talk · contribs):

• All clearly in the history

Reported by: SPUI (talk) 05:46, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 24 hours. silsor 05:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a dispute about differing opinions about content, it's a dispute about the copyright status of the material. If people are violating policy by inserting copyright material, I don't see why we can't treat a 3RR "violation" the same as if you had to break the 3RR to revert vandalism. I'm not sure this article should even exists as there is an open VfU on it. I'm going to unblock until we sort this all out. Gamaliel 06:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Like it says under my user page, I won't perform the same admin action (like blocking) twice - but I don't think there's any sorting out to do. RickK flaunted the rules and received the same consequence he would have given anybody else in the same situation. silsor 06:15, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, I would like to offer my opinion. If Rick genuinely believes that content is a copyright violation, then, in my opinion, he had every right to continue reverting it as if it was vandalism. Rick went out of bounds by blocking SPUI. Rick is right: SPUI was only reverting him to antagonise him. But antagonisation isn't a blockable offence. Still, though, Silsor really jumped the gun here. I haven't known Silsor to be overly impulsive and aggresive, but he has been here. He chose not to so much as give Rick, a long-time editor in good standing, so much as a warning before blocking him for the maximum time allowed. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Blankfaze, I agree. Yet another instance of the poison of the 3RR - it is carted out way too easily and often, without demanding any type of discussion. Page protection is usually a better alternative, and one that should always be tried first before the abrubtness of a user block. Fuzheado | Talk 06:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• If a suspected copyright violation is counted as simple vandalism (which I think it could be, though that page doesn't say so) then the three-revert rule doesn't apply since it (wrongly in my opinion) states that the rule "does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism". Rick had reasons to disbelive Coolcat's story about it not being a copyvio, so its understandable he was treating it as a continued violation of policy. That's not to say he's not wrong for protecting the page or blocking SPUI, but I don't think this is a clear-cut case of 3RR. Angela. 06:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • The underlying problem is whether the initial deletion was correct. There was discussion (I don't know if you could call it productive discussion) at WP:VFU. What I can't yet figure out is why the page was deleted in the first place, at WP:CP without (it would appear) first addressing Coolcat's assertion of original authorship of the copyright source. Removing copyvio material is not a violation of the 3RR, but was it really established to be copyvio? I can't tell for sure. Guettarda 06:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not like coolcat is a new user without a history. Coolcat's position was also being supported by an established user, SPUI. RickK demonstrated his unwillingness to come to agreement by blocking SPUI twice and by protecting an article he was involved in a dispute in... Normally I'd agree that we should be cautious about 3rring someone who is trying to remove something they claim is copyvio, but our obligation to assume good faith ends when its is clear that they are unwilling to communicate or comprimise. There are few to no issues that can't wait long enough for a little discussion. Gmaxwell 06:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Come now, let's just say that Coolcat and SPUI don't have the best reputations... BLANKFAZE | (что??) 20:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Ad hominem comments serve only to poison the well, do not excuse RickK, and are not helpful. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
          • Blankfaze's statement was not an argumentum ad hominem. Ad hominem refers to someone's argument not someone's behaviour. Discussing someone's previous bad character is entirely reasonable when discussing their current behaviour. smoddy 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Coolcat has made the claim that he wrote the text (which is completely realistic considering his involvement with Turky), but rather than respond to that argument Blankfaze attacks coolcat's (and spui's) character. I'm not sure what other than argumentum ad hominem to call it. I suppose it's better than what Rickk did, as it seems he just pretended the claim was never made and reverted away. Gmaxwell 03:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would say a block RickK for either his 3RR violation and misuse of rollback, his block war over SPUI, or his use of page protection on an article he was edit warring over. -- Netoholic @ 20:23, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
  • Only the 3RR is blockable. Unless you want the admins to do the exact same thing as RickK is accused of? Hmm, that would give a nice cull of admins... smoddy 20:32, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • An RfC should be created for this incident. What evidence was presented that this article contained copyvio material? Hall Monitor 20:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

      • Now open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK 3. -- Netoholic @ 21:49, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

      • It's on the article's Talk page. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There is no need for double standards for administrators. Wikipedia can live without RickK for a single day. There were three other editors that RickK was reverting, not just one. Since there was clear doubt about whether there was a copyright violation, (the 3 others reverting him) he should not have violated 3RR. He should have waited, or enlisted the assistance of others, perhaps by personal contact, or alternately, by starting an RfC regarding the article. Instead, he reverted a fourth time to his own preferred version, and then protected the page, enforcing his view regarding the copyright status without consensus. This indicates a dire need for a "cooling off period" provided by a 24 hour block. I understand the concern about copyright, but the fact he was reverting three others, not just one, is indication that this wasn't simple vandalism. RickK should receive the same treatment that anyone else who is fully aware of 3RR would receive. --Unfocused 21:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You're talking about this as if it were a dispute over POV content. It's not. He was attempting to implement policy on copyright violations. Treating it as if it were a content dispute is, well, words fail me. I'm not surprised he bailed. Who needs that sort of pseudo-bureacratic wilful obstructionism? Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is shameful - RickK was clearly acting in good faith. That it wasn't cut and dry is clear. That discussion would have helped is clear. But erring on the side of not having the Wikimedia foundation embroiled in a lawsuit it probably can't afford is NOT something to block over - particularly when the contributor is a longstanding and respected member of the community. SPUI should be ashamed that he could think of no other method of resolving this dispute beyond requesting a block. And as for Silsor, I hope he's intending to do a lot more RC patrol than he has been, because we're going to need the help without RickK. Snowspinner 21:19, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am not responsible for RickK leaving. That was his choice. silsor 21:27, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You're responsible for a needless slap in the face to a good editor that drove him away. It may have been his choice to leave, but the fact remains that he left over something you did, and that something was not a good decision. Snowspinner 01:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Please cool off a little bit. That accusation is nearly a personal attack. As shown by the active discussion here, it is not clear that Silsor's action was a bad decision. The block for violating 3RR has been nearly automatically applied to those who know the rule; suggesting Silsor did anything wrong is ignoring that well established precedent. It is also on the verge of creating a double standard for admins. No one forced RickK to leave. It is still his choice. For one so frequently harsh, I think he just had a "thin-skinned moment" and hope he'll be back. This whole incident has an RfC opening, why not discuss it there instead? --Unfocused 01:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RickK drove himself away. I received an email from him today that says he swore he would quit Wikipedia if he were ever blocked. silsor 01:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

You can say (and think) what you like, but the fact remains that RickK left after you blocked him. Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Under no circumstance should an administrator refrain from blocking any user only from fear that the user will leave. If the block was unjustified and wrong it will be because RickK was reverting vandalism. If there was a breach of the 3RR, a block was justified. Silsor should not be blamed for RickK's departure. That choice was fully and entirely RickK's own, and we should respect that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It's not as if RickK is the only administrator on Wikipedia available to revert and/or lock the page. He should have solicited third party assistance, because he was edit warring with three other editors, not just one, which in my opinion, makes it clear that there is doubt of the copyright violation status. --Unfocused 21:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto my previous comments. This is not a dispute over POV in content. So the rules for dealing with such things do not apply. Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument advanced here, that RickK was acting in good faith because he was trying to protect us from legal liability would only make sense if that was normally how we responded to copyright violations. But it isn't... We play copyright very fast and lose and I've recieved substantial pushback from deleting media with less reason to believe it was copyvio than the material in question. I think we do need to become a bit more agressive, but as it stands we are not at all... What we see here is a fairly typical example of RickK playing it lose with the rules out of anger, distrust, and dislike for our editors. I however do not blame RickK for this, as his actions are useful and we often thank him for them, but rather I blame all of us... for failing to continually monitor his behavior. Quite simply, Rickk should have long been used to being told to cool it and that he isn't is a huge failing on our part. Gmaxwell 03:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I however do not blame RickK for this...but rather I blame all of us... for failing to continually monitor his behavior. What I see is a fairly typical load of holier-than-thou codswallop. RickK did what copyright violation policy called for -- deleting the violating material immediately to minimize Wikipedia exposure to copyright infringement. CoolCat has hardly lifted a finger to dispute the violation, except to claim that he wrote the original text without offering a shred of proof. If Gmaxwell wants to dispute RickK's actions, fine, but spare everyone the passive-aggressive drive-by insults, okay? --Calton | Talk 04:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He made the claim, he was ignored by RickK. He reverted the in error removal, he was reverted. He solicited the help of other editors. I do not see what Coolcat failed to do. What proof were you expecting? There is no reason anyone should be insulted by my commentary. Gmaxwell 10:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What proof were you expecting? What Rick "ignored" was content-free handwaving. I was expecting, I dunno, maybe the teeny tiniest evidence that CoolCat actually wrote the text. Writing credit, job title, first use of text with his name attached, somthing, ANYTHING. You know, a speck of a ghost of a shred of evidence for his claim. Maybe for you the "indignant sputtering" standard is sufficient, but I prefer something a little more substantial -- hell, minimal -- especially for copyright violations. I mean, his self-contradicting I know its nothing like www.adiyamanli.org. Even if it were I know its pd statement might have been a tip-off: "Judge, I don't care what all those witnesses said, I didn't kill the guy. Besides, if I did, it was self-defense."

There is no reason anyone should be insulted by my commentary. Except for your sanctimonious tone, question-begging "gosh, we all failed him" assertion disguised as a premise, misstatement of the situation, and ignorance of the underlying issues, no, not a thing. --Calton | Talk 06:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very well put. Noel (talk) 07:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

eh. Let me known when you actually have a material point to make against my statement rather than a bunch of rightious handwaving... and please stop pushing the weak argument that RickK's edits could possibly have reduced our copyright related liability here: The material was still just as available from Wikipedia as it is preserved in the history. Copyright law wouldn't look on it any differently, now a court might but they would cut us the same slack if we left it up while trying to understand coolcat's claim. Gmaxwell 12:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that the hundreds of Wikipedia mirrors tend to only make available the most recent version of articles. Even though reverting the page only moves the questionable content to the history, it does prevent it from being reproduced on the hundreds of other sites across the Web who make the good-faith assumption that Wikipedia material is all genuinely GFDL.

Whether that materially affects the legal exposure of Wikipedia or the mirrors is, I dare say, a secondary concern. It affects Wikipedia's reputation if we regularly release material of questionable provenance. It also affects the real owner of the copyright, who at least deserves our consideration even if we don't fear a lawsuit. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's get this straight. This was a valid block for WP:3RR. If the page needed to be reverted (and this is a matter that is disputed) someone else could have done it or RickK could have waited. There is no exception in 3RR that applies here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In other words, anyone dealing with a copyvio should simply blank the page and protect it right off the bat. Then, if anyone unprotects it, they are acting outside policy. Noel (talk) 08:41, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that either. I think a good summary of my opinion is that copyright disputes don't merit edit warring. Protection may play a part in this but should not be done as a matter of course. Normal editing should be enough. Rick shouldn't have edit warred. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the RfC about this incident was not certified in due time, I have deleted it per the usual policy for uncertified requests. Now let's all end this mud slinging and go back to writing an encyclopedia. jni 21:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Without RickK to help keep the vandals and POV-warriors under control, alas. Noel (talk) 19:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth II of Canada

The VFD for this page has been closed twice now, once by an anon, and once by the nominator (AndyL). I've re-opened the discussion both times. My reasoning is:

• The VFD has only just had the 5 days minimum discussion - given the length of the debate and the heated arguments on both sides I think it would be best to let it rest a few days longer before fixing the decision;
• The consensus is only just 2/3 for merge/redirect to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom - again, this is a minimum requirement to judge consensus, but is not necessarily sufficient to close the VFD at this stage;
• VFDs should be closed by admins or other trusted users, not by anons (particularly one who seems to be involved in Canada-related edit wars himself), and they should preferably not be closed by the nominator or anybody else involved in the discussion.

I personally think that the merge/redirect call is the Right Thing to do, but that the way this VFD has been processed was the Wrong Thing. If there's any rush to close vfds, it should be the several days of backlog that gets hit first. And as I said to AndyL - if he's so sure he's made the right call, then it'll still be the right call in a few more days time. sjorford →•← 09:24, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support your actions. VfDs may not be closed by anonymous users and should not be closed by anyone too closely associated with the debate. These procedural controls are increasingly important as Wikipedia gets larger. Rossami (talk) 13:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could someone who has not already participated in the debate please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada and determine whether or not there's a consensus? As far as I can determine, according to the consensus guideline at Wikipedia:Consensus the criteria has been met since there's more than a 2/3 majority to merge/redirect but since I proposed the VfD in the first place it's apparently seen as objectionable for me to declare the now week old VfD closed and implement a redirect (the merge has already been done). I thought it was a "no-brainer" since the 2/3 threshold has been exceeded but I'm fine stepping aside. I'm just concerned that the VfD will be left to languish through admin neglect. AndyL 21:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I concur with AndyL, but since I voted m&r in that VfD, how about a third opinion? Radiant_>|< 08:27, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • I did not vote on this one. There is certainly consensus that most of the content should be kept. There is also a definite majority, but perhaps not a consensus, in favour of merging it with Monarchy in Canada; however, merging content should not, and does not, require the same high standards as deleting it. I have thus closed the debate and slapped a merge tag on the article. - SimonP 23:42, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Peckeronwheels

I've deleted an image by this user, which was deleted before as being used for vandalism. Seems surprisingly similar to our notorious Willy. I've asked them to change names. Please keep an eye out for any vandalism by this user. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism or just stubbornness?

On Tsushima Islands there's currently a debate concerning the article title: should it be plural or singular? Nanshu (talk · contribs) tried to short-circuit the debate by placing the article on "requested moves" without mentioning this ion the Talk page, but failed. There's now a discussion and a poll on the move, but Nanshu insists on changing the text of the article to the singular. Aside from trying to sideline the discussion and ignore the attempt to reach consensus, this makes the text of the article conflict with the title. He has been warned a number of times, but continues to insist on his edit.

Now, it seems to me that this has gone beyond mere stubbornness, and is certainly not good-faith editing — but is it vandalism? Any thoughts? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was my first look at the article yesterday, and it's certainly a crazy talk page. I'd normally say protect until the vote is over, but Mr Tan would have a fit. Vandalism is a bad-faith edit, which would here suggest it would only be vandalism if he guessed he was going to lose the vote, for example, but was making the changes regardless. I'd put a note on his talk page saying his edits are going to be regarded as vandalism if he keeps on making them; or you could regard them as disruption of Wikipedia, which might make it blockable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another role account

0001 (talk · contribs) is an obvious VFD role account. It was created to day, made several hundred edits to his own userpage and talk page (obviously to beef up edit counts) and started voting on dozens of VFD articles, using not altogether sound arguments. Radiant_>|< 15:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Administrators can (and I believe should) discard edits from low-time as well as low-edit users. I personally always discard any votes from editors who created their account after the VFD nomination. I also don't count userpage and talk page edits when assessing 'low edit' users. So frankly this guy is going to a lot of trouble for nothing. DJ Clayworth 16:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

does dussrupting VFD count as dissrupting wikipedia (and why do I feel we need a wikipeda:VFD/Oldpatrol page)?Geni 16:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well, yes. VFD is a controversial yet necessary part of Wikipedia, and disrupting any part of Wikipedia is a bad thing. Radiant_>|< 21:04, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Now has vandalized Radiant!'s user and user talk pages: [41] and [42]. --cesarb 02:08, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:204.56.7.1

Three revert rule violation on Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

Reported by: William M. Connolley 17:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Anon persistently and silently removes merge notice. Note reported for 3RR vio on Albert Einstein above (by 2 users), but no action taken then.

the problem is that the first revert involves the removal of some hidden text as well.Geni 17:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley had violated the 3RR, also. The Albert Einstein one was actioned on (though Connolley was not banned to my knowledge for similar actions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 Jun 2005

@Geni: I don't see the problem, all four diffs listed show exactly the same edit. I won't block myself as I'm party. --Pjacobi 18:25, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Note our anons characteristic impolite lack of signature (this isn't because they are a newbie: check their edit list). Geni: can you amplify your comment? I too (like Pj) don't understand it: this appears to be a completely straight 3RR vio with no mitigating circumstances whatsoever. Just like 204's previous 3RR vio on Einstein, which for no obvious reason attracted no admin response whatsoever. William M. Connolley 21:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC).

the first revert involves the removal of the hidden text "This article (which is 36 kilobytes long; 15 Jun 2005) is split from the main article (which is 34 kilobytes long; 15 Jun 2005) because of size considerations of relevant information". The editor does however have a history of breaking the 3RR and the change is not significant (it is only visible to editors) I'm going to block for 24 hours. I hope this doesn't affect to many inocent users.Geni 01:08, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Also, if you look at 204's contribs, they are all of a piece, ie one person, so I don't see why this should block any others. William M. Connolley 08:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Apartheid

An anonymous editor has been trying to POV the page for months, using various IP address and sockpuppets. He's been reverted by 11 different editors, but he insists his material will stay "until the Talk: discussion is concluded". It appears the Talk: discussion will not conclude until everyone agrees with him. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've protected it. I left a note for Tony, as he said something previously about working with one of the editors there, so I don't know whether he'll want to unlock it again. I'm assuming the anon IP and the new user account, who was also deleting links from David Irving are the same person. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:22, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:FuelWagon

Three revert rule violation on Nuclear option (filibuster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). FuelWagon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [47]
• 2nd revert: [48]
• 3rd revert: [49]
• 4th revert: [50]

Reported by: Simon Dodd 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User is repeatedly reverting an edit, despite lacking any relevant factual objection to the new text; IMO, this is being done in violation of NPOV, since the proposed text actually removes partisan comments rather than adds thereto. This is, in fact, his FIFTH infraction, but the previous revert falls outside of the 24 hour period required by 3RR. See article talk page for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dodd (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours even though it's a first offense, because he was warned, and also because he was abusive on the talk page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Marvellous. Not to be pre-emptive, what happens if the user returns after the 24 hour period and reverts again?Simon Dodd 21:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you prefer me to ban him forever on the basis of one 3RR violation, something you yourself have just been blocked for? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Simon has e-mailed to clarify that he wasn't being sarcastic with his "Marvellous" comment, so I apologize for the above response. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

Could someone who has not already participated in the debate please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Elizabeth II of Canada and determine whether or not there's a consensus. As far as I can determine, according to the consensus guideline at Wikipedia:Consensus the criteria has been met since there's a 2/3 majority to merge/redirect but since I've proposed the VfD in the first place it's apparently seen as objectionable by some for me to declare the now week old VfD closed and implement a redirect (the merge has already been done). AndyL 21:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected Sock Puppet: User:Bloghate

I added a suspected sock puppet notice to user Bloghate. He's only put things up for VfD and has been causing all kinds of problems for entries relating to people listed in the blogger category. --TNLNYC 21:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Bloghate is a bleedingly obvious role account. Why is it that we don't have a policy against role accounts in the first place, I'd say their very existence is strongly leaning towards WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 07:44, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Definitely a role account, but my own feeling is that it's a WP:POINT one, that it is one of those sarcastic "you VfD'd my blog, so now I'll VfD all of them" things. All we can do is consider the blogs one at a time and ignore the fact that it is a role account. If it's a POINT gesture, then rationally voting to delete on the insignificant blogs and keep on the significant ones will starve the troll. If it's not a POINT account, then it will still starve the troll. Unless someone can dig up the IP and say that it is definitely X or Y regular user, I'd just ignore what he's doing and proceed as normal. Geogre 22:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Its not just that it is a blatantly obvious (t)role account, but it is one that is created for the sole purpose of being rude and disruptive. The username alone is offensive. By not banning the account, is this sort of activity being tolerated or condoned? Hall Monitor 22:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is it offensive? I can hate baseball without hating a baseball player, or rap music without attacking a rap musician. The point is that what this person is doing is disruptive only if there are a lot of votes. The default action for VfD is to keep. Most of the things the user nominated have won "keep" votes. In the cases where they haven't, the things have needed to go. If the person were filing RfC's or going to VfU or multiplying votes, or insulting people, it would be disruptive. Also, he or she has nominated a lot of blogs, but the really disruptive trolls do something like nominate 50 articles in a row, which overloads the VfD vote for the day. Again, I'm not defending or denying that this person is trolling. I'm just saying that it's not bannable. The danger of feeding the troll is greater than the trouble of ignoring it. Geogre 12:44, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The problem with Bloghate is that his behavior is disruptive. He causes people to get angry, and causes people to vote 'keep' not for the merit of the article, but for the fact that Bloghate nominated it. The last time that happened, the user responsible was eventually banned from VFD by ArbCom. It wouldn't hurt to do something about this before it escalates. After all, the main thing Bloghate is doing is POV pushing. Radiant_>|< 13:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• User:Bloghate is now systematically removing blog links from people who have articles on Wikipedia while removing them from the Bloggers category. How much longer is this behaviour going to be ignored? Hall Monitor 21:48, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had a look. This user only ever seems to have carried out disruptive actitivies. I don't care about its motives; clearly it's a role account of some kind and absence of a policy on role accounts isn't a good excuse not to block it. I've blocked it indefinitely. Its owner is free to open other accounts and perform non-disruptive edits, or to do so without opening an account. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Simon Dodd

Three revert rule violation on Nuclear option (filibuster) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Simon Dodd (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [51]
• 2nd revert: [52]
• 3rd revert: [53]
• 4th revert: [54]

Reported by: FuelWagon 21:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Page has been this way for some time. Simon Dodd comes in and wipes out a democratic opposition point of view, claiming his version represents the "facts". Some Democrats specifically opposed the Nuclear Option specifically because it would allow a Republican president to nominate a judge who can get confirmed by 50 Republican senators. Simon Dodd keeps removing the "Republican" in front of "Senators" under cries of "POV" and "facts". I don't argue that the nuclear option would change the confirmation process to require 50 Senators regardless of party affiliation, but the sentence is intended to represent the point of view of those who oppose the Nuclear option specifically because it would allow Republican-Only confirmation of judges. Simon Dodd's version erases that point of view. His version does NOT report this opposition point of view. I keep tryign to explain this on talk page but he keeps taking out this opposition point of view. I keep putting it in and he reports me for 3RR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuelWagon (talk • contribs) 21:25, 20 Jun 2005

Although I can't see where Simon was warned, he was warning FuelWagon, and so must have known he was also reverting. Therefore, I'm blocking him too for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:47, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)