Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents: January 15, 2005 - January 22, 2005

Contents 1 User:Acouillard 2 User talk:Arminius 3 Slander 4 History of Russia 5 Vandalism 6 GNAA Staos 7 Scott Peterson 8 Lir? 9 Troll patterns 10 Page Protection 11 Ollieplatt 12 Everyking 13 Possible runaway Bot user:Pearle 14 Amerime 15 Anon IP breaking 3RR rule 16 VfD Vandalism 17 Protecting Administrator User pages 17.1 Use of Administrator Powers 18 3RR violation by User:Palestine-info on Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948 19 Page move vandal 20 History merge 21 Persistent page vandalism by 69.143.195.107 22 3RR violation on Melissa Joan Hart 23 Open proxies? 24 3RR violation on Charles Darwin 25 Carrp 26 3RR breaches by Robert Blair 27 Irate 28 Vacuum 29 Removal of VfD tag 30 Pumpie 31 User:Zain engineer

[edit] User:Acouillard

Acouillard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Needs to be banned immediately. Already mentioned in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, he's at it again. -- Curps 04:27, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to his contributions, he was last active 6 hours ago and edited 3 pages? silsor 04:55, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? I see 17 contributions, not to mention the strong likelihood that he previously committed the same kind of vandalism as anon IP User:68.98.206.109 (contributions), as discovered by User:Uncle G and described at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

He commits creeping vandalism, gradually eliminating a paragraph here, a phrase there, a link somewhere else. This has been going on for many days (including the 68.98.206.109 contributions). He was warned on his talk page.

The link between this anon IP and User:Acouillard is strongly suggested by the history of Wikipedia:Interlanguage links

-- Curps 05:07, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Every single edit by this username appears to be vandalism; indefinite block - David Gerard 05:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Arminius

A minor problem I'm hoping someone can lend a hand with.

• At 13:48, Dec 31, 2004, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with comment time to go.
• At 03:23, Jan 13, 2005, Wolfman asked for the undeletion of User talk:Arminius, at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion#User talk:Arminius.
• At 04:14, Jan 13, 2005, I restored the history of User talk:Arminius and left this message on it:

  Hi Arminus,

  Your own pages aren't actually candidates for speedy, believe it or not, so I undeleted your page history per the request on VfU. However, number 7 of the "Other pages" category on CSD is "User and talk pages on request of the user, where there is no significant abuse, and no administrative need to retain the page. A redirect (to the user's new name, or to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians) should be created to avoid red links and confusion."

  So if you want the page deleted again, let me (or any other admin) know. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

• At 11:20, Jan 13, 2005, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with no comment.
• At 03:29, Jan 14, 2005, I restored User talk:Arminius with no comment.
• At 12:15, Jan 14, 2005, Arminius deleted User talk:Arminius with no comment.

Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? is explicit that an admin should not delete their own pages. It for the same reason we shouldn't block ourselves or protect our own pages. There was apparently an arbitration case against Arminius, which is why Wolfman wanted the history kept. I have no reason to get into a history war with an admin I know nothing about; the only reason I'm involved is because I watch VfU. If he had done as I asked, I would support the deletion of his talk page, but his actions make me wary, and I wonder if it would be best if the page history was kept. Please review the linked pages, and opine. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:10, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

I have undeleted the page and left a message for Arminius, asking him to tag it for someone else to delete. SWAdair | Talk 08:00, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I actually tend to agree with Arminius on the interpretation that admins can delete their own pages, however if there was community consensus to undelete them, they should be undeleted. --fvw* 18:03, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

Policy states that user pages cannot be speedied upon objection. I have objected. From Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages?: "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user and user talk page." (emphasis added) Wolfman 20:40, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's fine by me, I just don't quite agree with the "admins can't delete their own pages" interpretation. In this case, it's definately up to the community instead of unilateral actions. --fvw* 05:06, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

If there is indeed an arbitration case ongoing against Arminius as suggested above, his talk page should be retained for administrative purposes. Mgm|^(talk) 19:22, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration case was closed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Arminius with the comment "as long as Arminius realizes that future misconduct would be dealt with far more severely (as a second offense, so to speak)". An important part of the evidence in that case refered to discussions on the talk page. While the case is closed, there is no good reason to delete the evidentiary history. I seriously doubt any non-admin would be allowed to do so. There is even less reason to allow an admin to delete such history since the case concerned abuse of admin privileges. Note that it's the deletion of history that I object to, not the deletion of page content. Wolfman 01:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, technically a pre-emptive objection is not itself enough to prevent deletion of a user page requested by the user. That would allow any grudge holder to effectively permanently deny another user a common right simply by objecting and never rescinding the objection. Any decision of that nature should be made by community consensus. Normally (barring evidence of policy violations) a user page may be deleted and the objection handled after, along the lines of Objection, automatic undeletion, VfD. Wolfman is correct, though, in pointing out that this talk page contains evidence of policy violations. That in itself is a show-stopper. If this were a regular user, I would advocate deleting the history (available for undeletion if another case is brought before the next database purge) since the evidence relates to a closed case and since the user's conduct during the case was exemplary. I cannot so advocate in this case, however, since the history involves alleged abuse of admin privileges. If no cases are brought against him within six months of the close of the last one, I would advocate allowing the deletion of the history. For the moment, since deletion, objection, and undeletion have taken place, the next step is VfD. SWAdair | Talk 07:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate (I guess) Wolfman's continued passion for vengence because I blocked him for one of his offenses. The arbcom case was dropped because ultimately it was not seen as worthy by review not only by the arbcom but by both signatories to the original case, based on my conduct after. Also its important to note the only real issue was my conduct with Chameleon. Eitherway, the history of statements is documented in the archive, despite the evidence not being relevant, as the case was dropped. Perhaps people should focus on wikipedia.

Important to note that the talk page is not really deleted as such as the history can be reivewed or restored by admins..obviously. This whole little episode is pretty silly, no evidence is lost and this is often done by admins. Not only that, the arbcom case was dropped this is merely an effort to exert control over my talk page by a user with issues. Perhaps this could be relevant had I actually faced censure or been involved in a current dispute in which the extensive history of my talk page was relevant..maybe. I deleted the talk page and started over as I was playing with my own page format (something just about ever user does particularly admins) not to "hide" a well documented non-event.

Wolfman, I assure you, anything that is done on wikipedia is documented somewhere (in this case a few places) so if want to continue your witchhunt or misdirect your own personal issues with yourself towards me, you will have ease in gathering meaningless evidence.

Personally, I don't much give a crap at this point about whether the page is deleted or not but I would like it to be or at least to the point orginally before undeleted for my conveinence. I'm not going to be on the wiki much do to more important obligations in my real life, I think the well meaning admins who unfortunetly got dragged into this rather odd episode would better spend their time editing or patroling wikipedia productively as it seems to be their custom, and Wolfman better to edit wikipedia or even better Get a Life. ;) Arm 12:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slander

Please deal with the slanderous remarks posted by User:Trey Stone on one of his userpages. (He has more sockpuppets than Lir, such as User:Master Sockpuppet and User:Raghead-in-Chief-- just a couple out of the dozens that I remember.) The comments break every possible civility policy. Comments similar to the following should also be removed [1] Thank you. 172 04:44, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does this really require administrator involvment? Why not move this to Wikipedia:Requests for comment? As I read the Wikipedia:Blocking policy, it doesn't cover incivility or rudeness. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

It does cover purposeful disruption. If he continues being disruptive, a block is in order. But, at this stage, you're right, a block is premature. 172 05:12, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't cover this case, even if you feel "disrupted". Anyway, those two sockpuppets you point out have only two edits each, and if that Trey Stone diff above is the worst he's done, he still is quite a way off from a block. I think it balances out the "disruption" you caused when you removed his comment from that Talk page. -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

(This section was removed, but I restored it in case there were any other opinions on the reported incident, and so normal archiving can occur in time.) -- Netoholic @ 06:25, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

He's an immature prat to be sure, but an RfC would be more appropriate. Wasn't he dragged to arbcom yet, for his sockpuppetry? Mackensen (talk) 06:56, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please note that 172 asked for us to deal with Trey's actions, nowhere did he ask for a block. I vaguely remember witnessing a dispute between the two at some article, but I can't remember the name. I agree that it should be an RFC request. Mgm|^(talk) 19:26, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of Russia

User:Genyo has reinserted "Kyivan Rus' (Ukrainian spelling) is the birthplace of Ukraine, not Russia!!!" in the article four times today. He continued after being directed to read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and express his opinions in talk. Although this borders on vandalism, I don't know if I should be the one blocking him, having reverted him a couple of times. Thanks. 172 06:02, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest you help him with more encyclopedic language. That is much preferred than you asking your fellow traveler editors to block him. Try to include others. Ollieplatt 06:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fellow traveler editors?" 172 07:13, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI it has been taken care of. [2] 172 07:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for one week! For what?! Ollieplatt 07:40, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism and trolling. (History of Russia was not the only article.) Neutrality made a good call. 172 08:49, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

User:Davenbelle deleted and redirected the page Dean Scream to Howard Dean without a word on Talk or even posting a deletion page. Is this vandalism? Ollieplatt 07:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. silsor 07:55, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

Redirecting a page is not "deletion". -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

Vandalism? See: [3]

Davenbelle 08:06, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

You should take this to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Netoholic @ 08:12, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA Staos

During the slashdotting of the Enemy Territory article today, User:GNAA Staos moved it to "CLIT COMMANDER". I first blocked the account indefinitely, but since there are some legitimate contributions in the past and some GNAA members have been known to treat Wikipedia as a reference work rather than a spittoon I have unblocked and left a warning. If anyone would like to implement a block that's fine with me, I feel like I left it hanging. silsor 09:48, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

My advise is to watch the account, but don't block. Not all GNAA members vandalise Wikipedia (incredibly enough). - Ta bu shi da yu 05:08, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This one did. silsor 06:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

In that case, block. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Peterson

Uh, hasn't Scott Peterson been blocked yet? I can't find him in the block log. Here are his latest edits, none of them that recent:
User talk:Stormwolf, (WHY ARE YOU SUCH A GAY NIGGER?!?!)
User talk:Fwv (WHY ARE YOU AND STORMWOLF AND HOARY AND RICK AND EVERY OTHER MOTHER FUCKER WRITING MEAN ASS SHIT ABOUT ME ON ALL THE KICK ASS FORUMS?!!?! YOU ARE A FUCKING FAGF AND GOD FUCKING HATES YOU.. GOD DAMN GO)
User talk:Adam Bishop (htr5thI HAVE A HARD ON FOR WAR)
--Bishonen | Talk 20:48, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)P.S. Those aren't the posts, btw, they're just the edit summaries. Click on the links to get to the meat.--Bishonen | Talk 21:59, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked as troll/impersonation/personal attack account. Anyone seriously object? - David Gerard 22:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Object??? Endorse, heartily. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:36, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

That guy seemed to have left on his own accord, so I didn't block him, but I do not object to this :) Adam Bishop 06:33, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lir?

65.103.53.243 looks like it might be Lir. Could a dev check whether this is correct and if so, block and reset the ban? --fvw* 23:19, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)

It appears to be his cable - he's posted as himself from it before. Blocked for 1 month, as per practice for banned users' cable/DSL IPs - David Gerard 01:52, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I thought. That means his ban resets though; What's the appropriate place to note this? Vogel has a counter on his user page, but that might not be appropriate as Lir actually used his user page himself. --fvw* 01:56, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

I see no reason not to use the user page. Just doing it now - David Gerard 02:11, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Troll patterns

The GNAA troll and User:Scott Peterson both followed a pattern of starting with some proper edits and then going batshit. One to watch for - David Gerard 02:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He has been blocked (Both by you and me). Thue | talk 10:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page Protection

Can someone please page protect Dean Scream while it is being discussed. Ollieplatt 06:30, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ever heard of WP:RFP? dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ollieplatt

I have blocked Olliplatt for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule on several pages, even though he has been warned, and for edit warring and making POV edits all over the place. He also deleted the ifd header from Image:Deanheil.jpg without discussion RickK 06:50, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Neutrality^talk 07:11, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, too. Davenbelle 07:13, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I believe he is also User:Billclinton (And, of course, User:Libertas); there are others I suspect. Davenbelle 07:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Technical evidence found by Tim Starling confirms that Libertas has multiple sockpuppet accounts. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Libertas/Proposed decision#Sockpuppets 2. Neutrality^talk 07:19, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at Ultramarine? I'm pretty sure that this user is Libertas. I'd eat crow if it were confirmed that he was not. 172 07:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We'll check. Sometimes these things aren't picked up (there are time limits and such). I'll ask Tim or another developer to check. Neutrality^talk 07:24, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is there a specific spot for asking developers questions like that? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 07:51, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Nope - they're largely busy working on the system (both adding new bits and, of late, putting gaffa tape and string around the bits steam is blasting from) - sockpuppetwatch is a low priority, so ask very nicely ;-) - David Gerard 08:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. To be fair, I retract my comments somewhat. I still strongly suspect a connection, but I'm not totally certain. This user just proved somewhat reasonable in accepting an encyclopedic rewrite of his POV additions. But then again Libertas has his reasonable moments too, such as when he accepted by reworking of Soviet Union. 172 08:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If records are still available, you might take a look at User:Antiwar and User:JackStack as well. RadicalSubversiv E 08:35, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also Zulitz, who is usually a fairly reasonable editor, but who made a comment on my talk page pretending to be Antiwar ([4]). RadicalSubversiv E 09:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much for blocking this disruptive user; don't be surprised, however, if he looks for retribution when he's unblocked (he frivolously listed one of my images on IFD and then WP:CP after I blocked him). [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 13:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Those following this delightful saga may be interested in taking a look at Students for a Democratic Society, where Ollieplatt is now insisting upon the inclusion of dubious information about LSD, backed up by irrelevant citations. I'd open an article content RFC, but that seems kind of useless at this point. RadicalSubversiv E 09:45, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Everyking

I blocked Everyking for 24 hours for violating the 3RR rule on Pieces of Me, but since he's an Admin, he continues to edit. What can we do about this? RickK 07:15, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Put it in the Arbitration complaint. Neutrality^talk 07:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

such things should not happen. Admins have to abide by the rules. Seriously. If this sort of thing becomes common, we'll need clear de-sysopping guidelines soon. dab (ᛏ) 07:41, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If he has been blocked and continues to edit, then we will need to consider filing an RFC on him under the admin section. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the arbitration case trumps an RFC, doesn't it? I agree with dab that we need a Rf(de-)A policy. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 08:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

It would take evidence of specific abuse of admin powers in the arbitration case for the arbcom to act. In past cases, admins have been asked to reapply at WP:RFA - David Gerard 23:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be in line with his belief that "I have a 5,000 page watchlist to tend to; the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." silsor 08:03, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

of course, WP needs its addicts. But an admin cannot go around violating the 3RR, much less ignore being blocked (I suppose it's technically feasible to make blocks of admins effective. It would just be sad to admit such an implementation is even necessary). You would think a 5000 page watchlist should leave no time for edit wars... I'm not saying "de-admin Everyking", mind you, I have not looked at the details. But in case he insists the rules don't apply to him, well, he can also tend his watchlist without admin powers. dab (ᛏ) 08:23, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

His statement: "the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." is rather worrying. I have opposed the RFC on Everyking, feeling that the problem was one that could be solved by normal editing (that is proving true on Autobiography, the Ashlee Simpson album). But this incident gives me concern that he feels enabled to make unilateral decisions because of his perception that his continued functioning as an editor is a paramount consideration for the welfare of the Wikipedia project. No one editor is that essential. He's apparently on his way to becoming a rogue administrator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:13, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. I'm only familiar with the Ashlee Simpsons dispute in passing, not involved, but in my opinion it pales next to Everyking's behavior re the block. A rogue admin would be a serious threat to WP's integrity. Forgive me if I sound incredulous here, but aren't there any measures available for dealing with admins? Khanartist 09:26, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

well, if an admin went on a vandal spree, he could be emergency-de-adminned by a bureaucrat. Did ek actually say "the project can't afford to have me blocked for so long." (diff?), or is this a paraphrase? Obviously, nobody is that essential to the project. Some people are more important to it than others, of course, but as long as the foundation persists, and remains in possession of servers and bandwith, WP will continue to prosper. dab (ᛏ) 09:50, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Autobiography (album)/Archive3. A text search for "project" should bring it up. I'd provide a diff but I would defy any human being to dig through the quagmire that is that talk page's history without losing their sanity. →Reene^✎ 10:20, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

As the comment is nicely timestamped, it was a matter of some 30 seconds to locate the diff: [5]. Lupo 10:24, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're right, of course. I didn't even think about timestamps. I'll have to keep this in mind for the future if I ever need to dig up a comment in a talk page again. →Reene^✎ 02:24, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. So it appears that he was specifically referring to a 24-hour block for 3RR violation, the possibility of which had been raised owing to his propensity for near-3RR editing. I believe that it was later that he boasted about his ability to perform four reverts in twenty-four hours and one minute with impunity (this kind of margin-testing is a practice that I think is so wildly provocative as to merit a blocking in itself; then again I think the 3RR is far too lenient in the first place.) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is hardly the behaviour we're looking for in an admin, and I imagine he would have some trouble passing RFA at this moment. dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think someone on the mailing list pointed out that all or most of the entries in the edit list attributed to Everyking since he was blocked are due to his use of the admin rollback feature (which is not blocked). It was also stated that his use of the feature seemed to be sensible. In the light of this, I withdraw my speculation that he may be turning rogue and apologise to Everyking. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Everyking. His original 24 hrs block is up as of now. He did not revert Pieces of Me a 5th time as was stated in the second block comment. It seems the issue of using rollback on unrelated articles while blocked needs a policy clarification. I'm quite of the mind that this is actually a good way for an admin to atone for whatever it was that got him/her blocked in the first place - as long, of course, as it is only used to rollback simple vandalism and not anything even remotely related to the blocking issue (or that requires talk page edits). But others are of the opinion that no edits should be allowed - whether using rollback or otherwise - so this needs discussing -- sannse (talk) 01:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Silsor actually unblocked shortly before me, for the same reasons -- sannse (talk) 01:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where the best place to discuss it would be, but I, for one, believe admins who are blocked should have the same edit rights as normal users who are blocked, i.e. none, not even rolling back edits. I understand the reasons that admins retain the ability to block and unblock (see WP:BP), but I do not agree that they should be given special editing privileges. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked admins should lose the ability to rollback, since this is a loophole in page editing blocks. silsor 01:49, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't violate the 3RR, except according to an extremely liberal interpretation of the 3RR that counts as a revert any change to the text that matches an old version and not a newer version. So basically: other user deletes half the article. I restore that half. That goes on three times. Then, since I'm mindful of the rule, I just restore part of one paragraph, a small portion of my preferred version. And Rick blocks me. And then, since I'm blocked, the only way I can continue to contribute for 24 hours is to do RC patrol for vandalism using rollback. And Rick, apparently, has a problem with that. Well, I don't know what to say. Everyking 07:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not an 'extremely liberal interpretation', that's an entirely valid interpretation - people gaming the 3RR have been (quite justifiably IMO) nailed on that one plenty before. Adding a fragmentary paragraph doesn't make it not a reversion, either - David Gerard 08:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's not a revert. It's a partial restoration of content. We should probably add something saying that the 3RR is not limited to just reverts; an admin can decide pretty much anything is a revert, depending on his or her interpretation. And I think Rick ought to apologize to me for extending my block while accusing me of reverting a fifth time when I hadn't even touched the article since his initial block. It almost appears he's throwing accusations around just to make me look bad. Everyking 08:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with David on this. "Other user deletes half the article. I restore that half" is unequivocally a description of one instance of a revert. You may want to make excuses for that revert, and it may be for the ebst of reasons, but it's still a revert. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, read what I wrote again. Everyking 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no intentions of apologizing. You might check not only this page, but the RfA against you and the mailing list, and you'll see that everybody agrees that your behavior is unacceptable. You might want to consider apologizing, yourself. RickK 08:40, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that admins are authorised to block edits. Your ability to block an admin is not an authorisation for you to desysop that admin for 24 hours. Kindly stop acting as though it is. Jamesday 23:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why you're making this personal attack on me, but I don't appreciate it. I had no CLUE, until this occurred, that a block did not keep a sysop from making edits. The block was entirely appropriate, and I defy you to claim that it was not. Everyking HAD violated the 3RR, and the block was justified. RickK 00:09, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

A block on use of the edit screen is only that. It does stop a sysop from making edits. You're describing softare operation which would be both a block on use of the edit screen and a temporary desysopping. I'll leave it to others to discuss whether your block was or wasn't justified. Jamesday 00:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't help it if some folks don't like me. Such is life. But I did not violate policy, and I think I deserve an apology for being blocked, and an additional apology for having my block extended for no reason. I think that would be a good gesture of civility on your part. An atmosphere of threats and harshness doesn't do any good for anybody. Everyking 09:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For those who are wondering what all this discussion is about, this is the edit that was made right before Everyking's THINGIE (since it is apparently not a revert), and this is the THINGIE which led to him being blocked for 3RR violation. Make up your own minds and give this topic a rest, please. silsor 09:36, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Partial restoration of content"—that's what you were looking for. Well, I don't know. Earlier people were suggesting I should be desysoped just for rolling back some blatant vandalism. If you were in my position—blocked despite following policy; block extended on an obviously false charge; threatened with desysoping for fighting vandalism—do you think you might be a little bit angry or offended? Do you think you might want an apology? Everyking 10:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ek, you seem to have a rather private interpretation of '3RR' and 'vandalism'. Vandals usually don't argue their edits on talk pages. And 'partial restorations' count as reverts, too, you may want to re-read the policy. Now, I'm not saying you acted in bad faith. You need accept that the same rules apply to you as to everybody else, especially as an admin, even if you don't like it when somebody cuts some of your text from an article. Also, a block is a block. If it had been clearly an inappropriate block, somebody would have unblocked you. You are free to start a complaint against Rick, but as an admin, you need to have the good grace to bear a block without exploiting you privileges. dab (ᛏ) 10:53, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They weren't arguing their points. They were just blanking articles and writing profanity and such. Who disagrees with me that that is vandalism? Everyking 11:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The statement that those whose edits you have been reverting on various articles related to Ashlee Simpson "weren't arguing their points. They were just blanking articles and writing profanity and such" is a false and disgraceful statement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My statement had nothing to do with Ashlee Simpson articles. Please stop with your pretenses of outrage. It is very irritating. Everyking 12:23, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My feelings about your activities long went past outrage and reached a state of resigned despair. And here you go again. Dbachmann specifically referred to the reverts: you seem to have a rather private interpretation of '3RR' and 'vandalism'. Vandals usually don't argue their edits on talk pages. And 'partial restorations' count as reverts, too, you may want to re-read the policy. Now, I'm not saying you acted in bad faith. You need accept that the same rules apply to you as to everybody else, especially as an admin, even if you don't like it when somebody cuts some of your text from an article.

Now you falsely claim that his statement that those who were reverting were arguing on the talk page was false, and when I point out that it was false you switch (as others have noted) to talking about your activities after the block, which were indeed directed against vandals. Please stop this, it's timewasting, has the air of deliberate obfuscation, and I don't think it's advancing your case in any way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I assumed that when he mentioned vandals he could only mean the vandals I rolled back, because I had not called anyone else a vandal. Is that not obvious? And the vandals did not discuss; they blanked pages and added profanity. It all seems very simple to me. Presumably Dbachmann was confused and thought I had used rollback against my opponents in the dispute, and he was thinking I was saying that I was calling my opponents vandals, and was saying that vandals don't discuss—because you all have been discussing. I pointed out that the vandals had not been discussing and pointed out what they had been doing; I was pointing out the difference between those I rolled back and those I reverted ordinarily prior to being blocked. It seems you are always ready to assume bad faith with me, even when it takes incomprehensible logic to do so. Do you seriously believe I was calling you a vandal and saying that you had replaced text with profanity? Are we in the same dimension here? Everyking 13:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Uh, hello? You called Reene a vandal and worse. Have you not read the evidence presented in the RFAr against you? Here's just one diff where you compare reverting Reene 30 times to reverting a page blanking 30 times: [6]. I'd say our suspicion was well-justified. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then pray tell, what were you talking about? Johnleemk | Talk 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism, John. The stuff I was rolling back while blocked. Did you read all the stuff above? Everyking 12:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When Everyking begins his defense of his rollbacks, he segues into non-Ashlee Simpson articles, but earlier in the thread, silsor shows that the vandalism rollbacks were not the cause of the block, while the Ashlee Simpson reverts were. This subject is very complex, and it's probably best that everybody specify which actions they're referring to. As it is, we're mixing and matching the AS/block reverts and the rollback/after-block actions in the same thread.Khanartist 12:36, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

The rollbacks are completely distinct from the Ashlee stuff. Rick blocked me from editing for supposedly reverting four times on Pieces of Me. Not using rollback, though, just normal reverts. Then, once I was blocked, the only way I could think of to still contribute was to do RC patrol against vandalism, and I rolled back a lot of it. Page blanking and profanity and such. Then Rick came here and complained about that, although I'm not sure why. So I was defending my use of rollbacks against vandalism while under Rick's block. Although frankly I can't understand why I need to defend that. Everyking 12:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Because, as has been pointed out several times already, a block is a block and it might have been prudent to honour the block. I think nobody is saying you did anything bad while rolling back vandalism, but pretty much everyone seems to agree that admins should follow the rules just like any other user and not edit anything while they're blocked. -- Ferkelparade π 12:55, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would never have dreamed such a thing was against the rules. In fact, I don't believe it, and I'd need to see some kind of proof. User:Jamesday said some things on Rick's talk page to the opposite effect; that there was a deliberate purpose to allowing admins to do admin work even while blocked from normal editing. Everyking 13:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it seems in fact to be the case that admins were deliberatly granted access to the rollback feature even when blocked. But, you know, it seems to defeat the point of a block for violation of the 3RR, somehow, if the subject of the block is allowed to continue ... reverting stuff. That said, as long as ek kept away from reverting the disputed article during his block, we may argue that he did honour the block. dab (ᛏ) 13:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's not that admins were not granted access after being blocked. Blocking came after admins and blocking was deliberately limited in effects. A block is not, and is not intended to be, a temporary desysopping. Remember that admins are supposed to be addressing conduct only. If a block is effective in ending a revert war, that's all that's required. Though why a block was used instead of page protection, when only one page appears to have been involved, puzzles me, since it seems excessive for the purpose. Jamesday 23:59, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again the sneaky personal attack. Are you really saying that, in the case of a 3RR violation, the page should automatically be protected instead of the person who violated the rule being blocked? Are you saying that the block was not justified, that even though Everyking HAD violated the rule, it doesn't matter? RickK 00:09, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

What sneaky personal attack? You chose one option, a 3RR block, when another option, page protection, was available, for an edit which has resulted in various people disagreeing over whether it was actually contrary to the 3RR. Whether your view that it was in fact a violation of the 3RR was accurate is something for the community to sort out. Yes, you are able to block after three reverts but that does not mean that you are required to do so - you're supposed to choose the most suitable tool. Jamesday 00:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I was very careful not to break the 3RR and I do not believe that I did. Restoring 10% or 20% of my preferred version just cannot qualify as a revert. How are people supposed to make compromise edits if that's the case? Everyking 00:14, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Translation: You were very careful to game the system. The point of the 3RR is not to allow three reverts every 24 hours, it's to let admins deal with edit wars. And no, in the case I believe we're talking about, you didn't restore "10% or 20%", you restored 100% over the course of three edits, of approximately 10%, 30%, and 60%. --Carnildo 00:42, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, from what you've said above, are we to conclude that you consider removal of any material from Wikipedia vandalism? I've seen that you have shown good judgement elsewhere on Wikipedia, so this is the only explanation I can think of that would explain your actions concerning the Ashley Simpson articles. -- llywrch 23:39, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No. I disagree with the removal of the information from the Ashlee articles, but I do not consider it vandalism. It's a content dispute. Everyking 00:10, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then please refrain from calling those who disagree with you on those pages "vandals". RickK 01:09, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever done so. Early on I may have once or twice referred to the deletion of large portions of the article as vandalism, but I don't stand by that. Everyking 01:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Would you please explain this comment then? There's really no question that you've been launching personal attacks against people you perceive to be "destroying" your article since close to the beginning of this fiasco, up to and including accusing them of vandalism/being vandals. →Reene^✎ 02:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I was expressing my feelings a little too openly. I apologize. Everyking 02:44, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, as someone whose interaction with this article has been limited to passively reading it (& shaking my head over the content of the Talk pages), in the state you work to keep it I find the article hard to read. Data needs to be pruned from this article to make it accessible to the casual readers -- like me. You can argue all you want about how every detail needs to be kept in these articles to make them worthy of WP:FAC, but you've included more material about Ashley Simpson than I would want to know even about the bands I am devoted to. -- llywrch 04:19, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason we have summary style, you know. It's not good, as I see it, to "prune" notable, relevant information. Any subject could perhaps be described in two sentences, but that doesn't mean one would want to describe it in two sentences only, if it's worth a few volumes. Such a description would be woefully inadequate and would leave the reader disappointed and force him or her to look elsewhere for his or her information. There was an intro for the simple basics. Then there were sections for details. And then there were subarticles for more details. Just a standard system. I really quite strongly disagree with the idea that some of the content is nonnotable. People have been accusing me of adding trivia, but the fact is that I've consciously avoided that. There is a level at which something can be comprehensive without going into trivial detail, and that's what I was aiming for. Everyking 05:20, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the consensus is that your aim is off. By quite a bit. I haven't seen anything notable pruned by anyone yet, though unnotable stuff has certainly been added in. —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 05:25, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're missing an important point here. There is a consensus among current participants in the dispute that the old versions were too large, with too much detail, yes. But was there a consensus to remove 80-90% of the content? I think not. People just wanted it to be a bit trimmed, and some people wanted certain areas to actually be expanded. But unfortunately the dispute has led to the intervention of some editors who are far more deletionist than any of the initial participants, and these are the people who have been reducing the articles to stubs. I regret that I was not more open to cutting a bad deal early in the game, when the articles might have been worsened but only to a moderate degree. Instead I kept fighting and got the radicals drawn in, and now the articles appear to be doomed. So what I'm getting at is that you're not seeing the notion of consensus here for what it really is. Everyking 06:25, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a content dispute. No problem, we have lots of those. The point of this discussion was ek's behaviour during his block. It seems now that it is legitimate for an admin to do vandalism rollbacks during his being blocked for 3RR violation, as long as they are unrelated to the dispute which led to his being blocked. I did not know that, but ek seems to have honoured the block, so I apologize to him for speculating that he may have done otherwise. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many of us didn't know either. It seems that the need to block administrators is rarely invoked. Peter O. (Talk) 17:03, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, there aren't many admins like Rick, thankfully. Most of us stick to the rules. Everyking 00:18, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rick, I don't think you should try blocking an admin. Also, you have a habit of rubbing people the wrong way. To be fair, I also have that habit - but the difference is a back off, apologize, and try to undo the damage each time I mess up. Please follow my example!

Everyking, if you feel as an admin the need to revert the same edit more than three times, maybe you should enlist the help of another admin or two: take turns doing the revert, so you won't be violating the rule.

To all: our rules are not meant to favor trolls or others who seek to flout our policies. Sometimes bold action is required. But let's try to stick together and help each other, okay? --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:26, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Admins are not exempt from the rules. Everyking violated the 3R rule, and was rightly blocked for doing so. Also, I suspect you may want to read a little more of the backstory of this issue (Everyking's RFC would be a good place to start), the problem is that there aren't any other editors (let alone other admins) who agree. Sticking together here just because he's an admin is equal to cabalism, and luckily this isn't happening. --fvw* 18:31, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I didn't revert more than three times; I did partially restore some deleted content, but this was not evasion as it is being described as much as "feeling out" what would be acceptable to the other parties involved, in addition to not wanting the article to be devoid of detail. However, I will no longer engage in any reverting or any partial restorations of content on Ashlee articles if I encounter opposition. Everyking 18:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All, please note that a block is only and deliberately a block on the successful use of the edit this page feature. It is not a ban from all use of the site - it's simply one tool to try to end a possible edit war. If you want to get a 24 hour removal of admin capabilities, that's a different thing and deliberately outside the capabilities admins have. Abuse might be something like using a rollback to continue whaver prompted the block in the first place, or blocking the other participant(s) in that dispute, which could be a quick route to having the sysop capability temporarily removed as well. Remember we're about "stop the problematic behavior", not "punish this person". "Punish" is something no admin is authorised to do - if you find yourself thinking that way about a situation, it's time to let another admin deal with ending the conduct. Jamesday 23:26, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Possible runaway Bot user:Pearle

What is going on here? This seems to be a bot that is listing categories for deletion, without justifying it on WP:CFD. He seems like a troll. Has whoever got approval to work this? What's going on? Dunc|☺ 09:44, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked it till he explains what's going on. RickK 09:52, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

I've no opinion on whether the behavior exceeded what the Bot was authorized to do; however, what it was doing is adding the CfD tag to categories that had earlier been nominated for deletion but to which the nominator neglected to add the CfD tag. Seems to be a reasonable use of the bot to do such a tedious task. older≠wiser 15:23, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Beland operates Pearle to do some of the grunt work at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. This work is invaluable. I've never known Beland to operate Pearle for CfD work without a mandate from CfD. I don't know if adding CfD tags is specifically one of the things that Pearle is authorized to do, but if not, it should be added to the approved list; it's a logical extension of what Pearle usually does. The interstate highway categories are listed at CfD. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Interstate_highways_in_Alabama (and_the_other_49_states.) (it would be prohibitively difficult to assign tags to all 50 categories manually). Sportsperson/sportspeople categories involve an old discussion. Film categories are listed under the entry for Category:Films_by_country (we're talking about a mass renaming of categories to bring them to some kind of consistent standard, the kind of work for which a bot is absolutely essential as long as categories cannot be moved).

In any case, I am certain that these edits were made entirely in good faith. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:10, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hm, but it seems the bot added the template to hundreds of categories that were not on CfD at all? looks like it was running wild, somehow. dab (ᛏ) 16:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any specific examples where the bot added the template to a category that was not on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion? I didn't check everything, but all that I did notice was in fact listed there (perhaps not a heading, but as a group such as Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Interstate_highways_in_Alabama (and_the_other_49_states). older≠wiser 17:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

It's probably worth pointing out that you will find categories that are not specifically listed at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. When an entire tree is listed, often just the top-level categories will be explicitly mentioned. (This is not ideal but is a result of not having the ability to simply move categories. No one wants to enter a list of fifty or sixty categories at CfD.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 18:27, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

what about Category:Welsh sportspeople and Category:Polish films people complained about on the bot's talkpage? Do I understand correctly that if I listed Category:Fundamental on CfD, I would turn Pearle loose, making it add the cfd-template to each and every category on WP? It would seem some safeguards are required, then... dab (ᛏ) 18:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See the entries for Category:Sportspeople_by_country and Category:Films_by_country. And no, listing Category:Fundamental would not cause all subcategories to be listed—first, the listing would have to specify that all subcategories were included, and second, Beland would have to tell Pearle to assign CfD tags. It's not automatic, it rarely happens at all, and it is only done when all of the subcategories are included in the request for deletion (or, more likely, renaming).

I'm not quite sure why this is such a big deal. Pearle is marking categories with "CfD" because they should have already had CfD tags. It's basically the same as when I added the tag to Category:Social justice, which was listed for deletion but not tagged. The only difference is that the categories are not explicitly listed at CfD because there are far too many of them for this to be practical. -Aranel ("Sarah") 19:15, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Aranel. This isn't a problem. Andre (talk) 19:26, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, why is it a problem that we are warning people that a category has been listed (perhaps via an enclosing category) on CfD? If people have problems with the people doing work on Cfd (like deciding to delete a category too early), take it up with the people - for 93% of these recent CfD bot complaints, the bot was doing exactly what it was told to. Noel (talk) 19:38, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

well, it should be unblocked, then. I suppose the remedy to the misunderstandings will be as simple as making the edit summary more illuminating, such as "adding cfd template, because this category was listed on wp:cfd" or similar. dab (ᛏ) 21:26, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One final little irony: Pearle's owner applied on December 1, at Wikipedia talk:Bots#Pearle Wisebot, for permission to add the placing of {CfD} tags to its list of authorized tasks, and nobody ever complained, so in fact it is authorized to be doing that (as the bot rules currently stand). Noel (talk) 22:20, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Apologies to all if I get kind of cranky about these CfD bots being blocked, but... I am very aware of how very badly backlogged CfD is, and to clear it will be a great deal of work (as a result of what in retrospect seems like an implementation shortcut whose savings have been outweighed by the costs - i.e. the design choice to put category membership in article pages, rather than in the category page itself). I get really frustrated when I see the tools that we have for helping with the vast amount of work required here being rendered inoperative for what seem to me to be to be un-reasonable causes - among them what I perceive to be uneven application of rules about bots (being hyper-cautious in some instances, but not in others). There is a huge amount of drudgework there - please take that into account whwn looking at these. Noel (talk) 14:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Amerime

What exactly is the situation with the Amerime article? Litefantastic claims that it keeps on getting recreated on the talk page, some anon says 'e would send it back to VfD if logged in, and a couple of other admins have touched it since it was recreated in any case. - RedWordSmith 00:57, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It had VFD consensus to delete, and is thus a speedy candidate. However, attempting to delete it produces an internal error. Perhaps it should remain listed here as "pending deletion" as soon as the bug is fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

At the suggestion of a developer, I have blanked the article, added {{pending deletion}} (see above), and protected it until the bug gets fixed. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

***Note: the below comments were deleted. I don't intend to dig through the edit history to find out who did it, but please don't delete other people's comments.***

They weren't deleted, just moved under #Deletion bugs above, where they seemed more apropos (especially since this item will be archived before that one is). Noel (talk) 02:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What are "block-compressed revisions"? Has anybody reported this bug? RickK 05:47, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's not a bug. It's a glitch :-) Old revisions (I think all those prior to December 2004) have been compressed in the database to save space. As a side effect, this makes deletion of revisions before Dec 2004—and hence articles created before that—impossible for the time being. A future software release will contain the fix that allows deletion of compressed revisions, and then such articles can be deleted. Lupo 07:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon IP breaking 3RR rule

The anon IP 24.15.188.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) broke the 3RR rule at Albert Einstein. Can someone please block.

PS, this smells very much like our old friend User:Plautus satire

-- Curps 02:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, anybody home? -- Curps 02:31, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 02:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As did I, four minutes later. There should really be some sort of notification so double-blocks don't happen. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 02:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What effect does double blocking have anyway?Geni 02:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

None, as far as I know. I think the first block is the one that takes effect. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This anon IP may actually be User:Punarbhava - see this edit: [7]. User:Punarbhava was apparently a recreation of User:Khranus, who was hard-banned in Nov. 2003. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:16, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VfD Vandalism

User:Adroyt has vandalized the above VfD twice. Khanartist 03:13, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Adroyt is a troll (came onto IRC for a while today and tried to troll along with a GNAA member) but can you provide links to where that VfD was actually vandalised? silsor 03:20, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Here Khanartist 03:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Has vandalized several articles today. Since he was last warned, he seems to have stopped, but if he repeats the vandalism, he needs blocking. RickK 05:43, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Protecting Administrator User pages

I was interested to see RickK's user page is protected. I have asked him why this is and was interested in the opinions of others. Ollieplatt 07:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The protection of my User page is none of Ollieplatt's business, unless he was attempting to vandalize it. My Talk page is available for discussion. RickK 07:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked some valid questions about this, which may have some simple answers., from RickK's user talk

[edit] Use of Administrator Powers

Hello. I have some questions relating to administrator powers and the interaction between those powers and user pages.

1. Why is your user page protected?
2. How long has it been protected?
3. Is this privilege extended to others?
4. Did you protect it yourself or ask someone else to?
5. Is there some time limit on how long a user page can be protected?
6. Is there a policy that governs user pages, I've noticed some people edit others and others protest that and defend their right to say what they want on their page, are there rules about this? If there is no policy, does it constitute vandalism to edit another's user page?

Thanks for your prompt response,

Ollieplatt 07:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate a response to the above, I don't propose to edit the page at all. I noticed it was protected and am entitled to ask, as above, why it is protected, whether it is a privilege only available to yourself, whether it is within Wikipedia guidelines for it to be protected, whether you protected it or procured its protection, what time limit if any exists on its protection. I would appreciate a response, and not a personal attack along the lines that I am planning to edit the page. I pledge not to do so under any circumstances and accordingly invite your response to the questions asked. Clearly it is a sensitive matter, and perhaps warrants wider discussion, although the reason I asked you directly was that there may have already been such a discussion prior to my arrival. If you could answer the questions or just point me to when it was discussed that would be splendiferous. :-)

Ollieplatt 07:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with a user page being protected. Mine gets vandalised occasionally. If it happens too often, I might protect mine too. Why are you so concerned Ollieplatt, since you don't intend to edit it? What business could it possibly be of yours?-gadfium 08:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

it may be reasonable to discuss if a clearer policy is desirable. We don't want more policies than we need, WP is complicated already. But if the community senses the need, it will of course be implemented. I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). dab (ᛏ) 08:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). dab (ᛏ) 08:41, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation by User:Palestine-info on Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948

User:Palestine-info has violated the 3RR on Estimates of the Palestinian Refugee flight of 1948, repeatedly deleting cited information as follows: [8] [9] [10] [11]. Was already warned about the 3RR on another page: [12].

Jayjg | (Talk) 15:26, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's done it again; now he's trying to "game" the system by removing the entire sentence, not just the specific controversial section, and claiming that therefore it's a different revert. [13] [14] Jayjg | (Talk) 16:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked, gaming noted in block log - David Gerard 18:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have discussed it with Palestine-Info on IRC, listed the edits and unblocked him - David Gerard 20:18, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure the talk helped, since he did it again, and in under 3 hours:

• [15] Revision as of 20:43, 20 Jan 2005
• [16] Revision as of 21:27, 20 Jan 2005
• [17] Revision as of 22:16, 20 Jan 2005
• [18] Revision as of 23:12, 20 Jan 2005

- Jayjg | (Talk) 23:34, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone else, please? I don't think I should block on this one again - David Gerard 05:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 Talk 05:34, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Which brings up an interesting point - what do we do with people who routinely violate the 3RR? Clearly the maximum penalty laid out in WP:3RR (24 hours) doesn't deter some people, and arbitration is a lot of work. Would repeat 3RR violators fall under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption? I certainly feel they do (but I would like to see any admin get consensus from several others that someone falls under this before imposing a longer block - many 3RR violations aren't 100% clearcut). Noel (talk) 12:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

they break it routinely, you block them routinely. Not much different from random anon vandalism. The 3RR keeps the edit histories relatively clean and slows down edit wars, it doesn't aspire to solving anything else. I am afraid rfc+arbcom is the only way to go. But I agree we'll need some sort of "court martial" arbitration dealing with routine cases, to save time and energy. dab (ᛏ) 12:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, RFC+ArbCom it is I'm afraid. I actually would like to see some sort of special arbcom "fast-track" procedure for non-complex problems concerning one specific piece of behaviour (and which wouldn't impose bans of longer than say 30 days). That, or bring back quickpolls… --fvw* 12:38, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

[edit] Page move vandal

I've just blocked User:FVW, another incarnation of our page move vandal, but not before he moved about 100 pages to nonsense titles. Help fixing his contributions would be good. (Those not yet familiar with this vandal's MO: he creates a user-name similar to, but different from, a current, non-vandal user (in this case, User:fvw, where the difference is UPPER vs lower-case; in other cases, punctuation differences), copies that non-vandal's userpage to the newly created userpage, then uses it (presumably via a bot) to move random articles to QWERTY-nonsensical names (asdfjskdl, etc). - Nunh-huh 21:33, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure, good sir. Those edits are very ugly though :(, may take a while! Is there some automated way of doing it? -Frazzydee|✍ 21:42, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This now seems - through group effort - to have been cleaned up completely. Block him early when he comes back. Blocks are easier to undo than page moves. I suppose the only technical solution would be to deny "page move" privileges to new users, and this will be opposed because it's too troll-unfriendly. - Nunh-huh 21:47, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that was very fast cleanup, nice job everyone. I only managed get one before they were all gone. I think the real solution to this isn't preventing new users from moving, but making the rollback feature work on page moves too. That would make page move vandalism just as effort-consuming as regular vandalism and solve the problem. --fvw* 22:01, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Either, or both, would be good to see, as would a "throttle" that limits all users to...say...one page move per minute. - Nunh-huh 22:08, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We're doing fairly well with the clean-up, though it's not done yet. User:Bkonrad is heroically doing the page moves and I'm watching his contributions and deleting the resulting redirects. The block was actually fairly quick—I caught at least three people doing it at once, but there were likely more.-Aranel ("Sarah") 21:49, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Heh, well wasn't that fun. I think everything has been moved back now. May need to check for anomolies though. For example, I think someone may have accidently deleted the article Hill instead of the spurious redirect. I've already restored it, but there may be other such incidents. older≠wiser 22:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid fvw and I may have done something to Scripture for Humane Kings, which I currently can't actually find the test for (but I swear I've seen it). Anyone with the technical knowledge to figure this out might start at Scripture for Humane Kings). -Aranel ("Sarah") 22:15, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I think you got it, it was Afdsfdsggty. --fvw* 22:19, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

I think that ScHumKings is ok now. (The version with the parenthesis, now deleted, was my fault, and I deleted the "aflsdkjflkd" or whatever it was moved to. - Nunh-huh 22:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Shouldn't User:FVW be banned instead of just blocked. His copying fvw's user page seems to constitute impersonation in my opinion. Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I just checked the log. Nunh-huh, can you give the expiry date next time? Mgm|^(talk) 09:38, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

A number of admins blocked the vandal, but some set the time to indefinite, others to 24 hours. Is it correct that the earliest unblocking time counts? If so, he will become unblocked 06:22, Jan 20, 2005. I will unblock him and then block him indefinitely for good. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:07, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Done -- Chris 73 Talk 10:10, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History merge

Could someone please merge the page historys of Magdalen College School and Magdalen College School, Oxford, the former was created in a cut and paste move and was later copied back to the , Oxford version. Thanks :) --BesigedB ^(talk) 22:07, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried, but the it wouldn't let me move the page even after deleting with assorted errors. I'll try again later when the database is less cranky. --fvw* 22:21, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Both now seem deleted to me, either as a result of overabundant administrator attention, or because of caching issues. - Nunh-huh 22:24, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Magdalen College School, Oxford has been deleted, but has history which is not reflected in the history for Magdalen College School, which is now there. So it's still not fixed.

May I suggest that in cases like these, one person should leave a message here of the form "I'll deal with this", so we don't have two admins trying to do this, and stepping on each other's feet? There's a natural interlock, because if you go to leave such a message, if someone else is already working on it you'll see their message.

So who's going to do this one? Noel (talk) 00:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt it in about two minutes, and will report back on my success or failure. - Nunh-huh 00:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The merged history is now all at Magdalen College School, Oxford. Contributors will have to decide what parts of it need to bein the current article. - Nunh-huh 00:43, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent page vandalism by 69.143.195.107

From approximately 18 Dec 2004 to 18 Jan 2005, User:69.143.195.107 made 32 edits, most of which were serious vandalism. The user was warned on his talk page on 31 Dec 2004 but hasn't stopped. Vandalism has ranged the gamut from racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Any help on this matter is appreciated. --Viriditas | Talk 09:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On their talk page, the sternest warning they got was a {test2}. The vandalism looked more like juvenile delinguincy than a serious attempt to mess things up, so I elected to put a {test4} warning on their talk page, and let it go at that for now. The next time they vandalize, hit them with a one-month block (they only seem to come by irregularly, so anything less they might not notice). Noel (talk) 12:54, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Their only edit since then has been to the Wikipedia:Sandbox; although it seems to display their unhealthy fascination with MLK, I wouldn't really call it vandalism. Let's keep an eye on this character for another few days. Noel (talk) 13:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation on Melissa Joan Hart

Could an admin have a look at Melissa Joan Hart, as I see it User:204.193.6.90 has violated the 3RR rule there (I'm involved with the content dispute). --fvw* 17:26, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Oops, scratch that, my apologies to User:204.193.6.90, I misread a close IP as being the same user (it could be, but I have no evidence of that). --fvw* 17:30, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Now User:204.193.6.90 has violated the 3RR, would someone do the honours please? I don't think that last edit actually needs reverting, it's a perfectly good link; Still, a 3RR violation is a 3RR violation. --fvw* 23:03, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

It looks to me like they managed to avoid breaking 3RR by about 45 minutes; am I calculating incorrectly? Jayjg | (Talk) 23:16, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ungh yes, the user was defending the revert with "I didn't do it, I had one of my friends do it" on the talk page, and I forgot to check exact time stamps. I'm beginning to turn into the boy who cried 3RR! here, I'm taking this item off my watchlist for a bit and going to bed. Apologies to all for this spammy non-incident, and thanks for the correction. --fvw* 23:22, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

There's a current discussion on the mailing list about the spirit vs. the letter of the law on the 3 RR policy, and consensus there seems to be that 4 reverts in less than 25 hours, or even maybe more, is grounds for blocking. RickK 00:14, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'd argue that consensus is still a little nebulous -- I don't know that it can be stated as boldly as Rick just did (though I agree with the statement he makes, and I think he's right that at least the voices on the mailing list are moving towards that consensus). What I think is clear is that the community consensus (with an important but small minority opposed) is that reverts are a really sucky way of interacting here and we're irritated enough by them that we don't want the 3RR to be interpreted as "keep pushing 3 reverts a day, every day, until you get your way". So users who watch the clock and start punching in reverts once the 24 hours is up are irritating most of the community, and if they do this with any frequency, I'd say the community would probably not complain if (after careful and clear repeated warnings about exactly what the consequences were) that kind of users got put in the timeout corner for a day. I know if I had reverted three times, and then waited until 24:30 after my first revert to revert again (thinking how cleverly I'd gamed the system), it wouldn't shock me (though I might whine a bit) to be blocked as violating Wikiquette and general good faith. But that's just me. Jwrosenzweig 00:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Don't we have any provision somewhere that would state that such deliberate gaming of the system in itself constitutes a blockable offense? Lupo 08:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not quite, I think - we seem to have rough admin consensus, not policy, that it's gaming the system. One should always be open to discussion on the matter and another admin may well unblock them if they think your block is unfair, but they can do that anyway - David Gerard 15:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open proxies?

Can someone please check whether 193.188.105.16 and 193.188.105.17 are open proxies and block them indefinitely, if so? (I've blocked them for 24 hours for vandalism.) I cannot check it myself right now. These IPs seem to belong to some Bahraini ISP. Lupo 11:03, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They don't seem to be (at least not on ports 80 or 8080), but note that many many others in the 193.188.105.* range are listed on stayinvisible. —Korath (Talk) 11:29, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hm, one should also check other ports: 81, 1080, 3128 (SOCKS proxies). Furthermore, the same vandal (Willy on Wheels-related) returned through 148.244.150.57 somewhere in South America. Can someone check these IPs thoroughly? Lupo 12:46, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It just occurred to me that you won't see his vandalism in his contribs. He created user pages for existing users who didn't yet have a user page (User:Robert Blair, User:Baffclan, User:Ekaterin, User:Avinashswamy, and User:Velho) and also Category:Cheese sandwiches and Fvw, which I've all deleted again. All user pages had the same content: an elaborate sockpuppet warning that the account belonged to Willy on Wheels, falsely signed by RickK. Lupo 13:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yup, open proxies. I've blocked them, or at least I will once this infernal lag dies down. Feel free to just put this kind of stuff on my talk page in future (unless there's a big hurry and I'm not around); I'm hacking on some proxy detection stuff anyway so I kind of like to know what's going on in open-proxy land. --fvw* 16:28, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

It appears that your blocks have not taken. They are listed on Special:Log/block, but don't show up on Special:Ipblocklist, and I don't see any unblocking. At least 193.188.105.16 did edit after your block. I've re-blocked all three IPs (indefinite, msg {{BlockedProxy}}). Lupo 11:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I had blocked them first, but only for 24h. The first block is effective! Thus, to change an existing block, unblock first and then re-block! Lupo 11:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation on Charles Darwin

User:Vfp15 has violated 3RR on this article and, in line with policy, has to be blocked for 24 hours by an admin. Thanks.

Reverts:

1 - 01:17, 19 Jan 2005

2 - 03:55, 19 Jan 2005

3 - 08:19, 19 Jan 2005

4 - 00:31, 20 Jan 2005

--Mrfixter 01:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours by Rhobite. SWAdair | Talk 11:17, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. --Mrfixter 11:43, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrp

This user was blocked by Danny for removing material from current events which was added by Belizian. However, Belizian did not cite sources for the majority of his additions, and no warning was given to Carrp. In addition, the events removed by Carrp (material related to striking in Belize) were not on Google News's World section. I have not unblocked Carrp, but I thought it might be wise to ask for input from others. Johnleemk | Talk 19:25, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's ludicrous! Blocks are not a way of handling content disputes. I would definately support unblocking Carrp, and would suggest that Danny read the blocking policy. --fvw* 19:28, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:Carrp. --fvw* 20:01, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I support your action. Jayjg | (Talk) 20:10, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can support Belizian as being an excellent and mature contributor. Oh, and I also owe him ten bucks.... silsor 02:55, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

the following comment moved from my talk page --fvw* 20:16, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to me that you know very little about what happened but nonetheless chose to take matters into your own hands. Not a very commendable act for a sysop, but then you are so new--to Wikipedia and to sysophood--that I can hardly expect you to know your ass from your elbow. So, here it is. I did not block in a content dispute in which I was involved. I blocked because Carrp was deleting important information--breaking news, as a matter of fact, about a revolution in Central America, given by a trusted user before he left the capital with his wife. He could not find any information about it on Google, so he decided to erase it. Johnleemk then came to the mistaken conclusion that this was "original research," not actually knowing what the parameters of original research are, or what that rule was intended for. As for blocking without a warning, yes, I did that. This was a clear case of vandalism to content that was unique to Wikipedia and important. I have no compunctions about doing that, I have done so for the past three years, and will continue to do so if I feel someone is vandalizing important content. Danny 20:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An action is never block-justifying vandalism if it is done in good faith - and nobody should be blocked for a good faith action without a warning. I support fvw's action too. Thue | talk 20:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, the issue was more complex than I thought. However, I don't think it is clear-cut vandalism, and I think a warning would have helped. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

you cannot go around blocking people for edits you don't like, additions or removals. I sense a tendency of admins becoming more trigger-happy, recently... Danny should re-read policy, and especially what is considered vandalism on WP. I warning would have been the very least. You have the rollback button: use that first. dab (ᛏ) 22:28, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source, and neither is a "trusted user" of Wikipedia. This block was without grounds, and outside of policy. I fear Danny may not be in touch with current policies by which admins should hold themselves. -- Netoholic @ 02:28, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

I happen to think our policy on sources is a little too restrictive (there are lots of people who know useful data which isn't in a book), but... I think it's unreasonable to describe removing material which cannot be verified as "vandalism", and therefore feel that any block was unjustified. Noel (talk) 03:23, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add my side of the story. I believe that this whole situation was due to several misunderstandings.

For my part, I should have made a greater effort to understand what Belizian was posting. I do now understand that he was posting a legitimate breaking news story. However, this was very difficult to see from the original summary [19] which was extremely long for a Current Events summary and had numerous spelling errors. The story didn't get any hits on Google news and the source provided by Belizian was a week old. Also, this source didn't appear to be especially reputable upon initial inspection as many of the headlines ended in exclamation points (ex: "Castrate, cut penis off, hang, whip, torture rapists and child molesters!"). All in all, it did not seem to belong on the Current Events page. I removed the summary, only to see Belizian repost it. In an attempt to avoid a revert war, I wrote a message on Belizian's talk page User Talk: Belizian explaining why I believed his story didn't belong on Current Events. I removed the story again and was blocked shortly thereafter.

For Danny's part, I believe he could have spent more time examining the situation instead of blocking as his first (and only) action. I never received a warning or an explanation of what I had done wrong, either before or after I was blocked. When I noticed that I had been blocked, I emailed Danny to ask why I had been blocked. I asked him to look at the diffs and requested that I be unblocked. Within a minute or two, Danny replied with one word: "No". There were no explanations or answers to my questions. I emailed Danny again, asking him to expand on his "No", but never received a reply. I then emailed several other admins asked them to review the matter.

For Belizian's part, I think he could have done a better job explaining that he was reporting first-hand information. This is unusual on the Current Events page since the vast majority of stories are from media sources. A short note on the talk page could have prevented many, if not all, of these problems.

I'm really not very happy with the way this situation was handled or with Danny's attitude towards the admin (User:fvw) who finally saw the absurdity and unblocked me. I'm going to take a Wikibreak but I will likely return sometime in the future. Thanks for listening. Carrp 03:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WP is not bloody CNN, we do not need 'breaking news' before any other site has it. If we allow 'first hand accounts', we are open to all sorts of hoaxes. Even if this was a 'trusted user', there is no reason for a sysop, especially an experienced one, to block someone for a good faith edit instead of reverting, expalaining and/or warning. PS, I realize Belizian is a good contributor. But Carrp did put a polite explanation of his removal on his talk page. He could easily have reverted and explained. I do not see any reason for a block here for miles around. dab (ᛏ) 09:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just what I was going to say. This was a ridiculous use of sysop blocking power and deserves, at the very least, an apology. Filiocht 10:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Danny also blocked me yesterday and is refusing to say why other than 'trolling', he has not pointed to anything specific. And trolling isn't even mentioned in the blocking policy. I believe a recall process should be established for admins who routinely abuse their powers like Danny and Rhobite. Ollieplatt 10:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which most people would (I believe) take to cover trolling. And there is a recall process - the arbitration process can (and had) removed admin powers from people. Noel (talk) 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

'trolling' is slang for 'disrupting (without even making a point)', and Ollie is a very good example of that. dab (ᛏ) 11:18, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And where there is consensus that someone is trolling, they should be banned, for at least a month IMHO. Filiocht 11:21, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well, a month might be a bit harsh. It depends on the facts of the case. (In some, I'd go higher.) Noel (talk) 12:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it funny to read the bloody google argument. Since when has google become god for verifying information? Danny is a respected user and so is Belizian. Danny had reason to block as vandalism was in progress. He should have done it for a shorter period like 2 or 3 hours maybe. User Carpp was deleting information plain and simple. And at those kind of moments the following goes: wikipedia is intended to build an accurate and up-to-date encyclopedia. it is not an exercise in democracy. With the emphasis on up to date. Current events might have been the wrong place, but since nobody had started a Revolution in Belize in 2005 article yet it was the only place to put it for now. I know most wikipedians do not consider a revolution in Belize worthy enough as they are to American/Euro centric in their thinking. There are no Europeans/Americans wounded or dying so nobody writes about it. Wikipedia is a project to accumalate ALL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE and not to accumalate ALL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT WESTERN COUNTRIES AND OH YES WE MIGHT WANT TO PUT IN A BIT ON THE REST OF THE WORLD AS WELL. Although the block was to long, I still support Danny for doing that. I would have probably done the same. Vandalism is vandalism. And to the people yelling that Danny should have read the rules: he wrote half of them, just look at the history Waerth 12:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From reading Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not I was under the impression that Wikipedia was not a general knowledge base. Under the section "Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base", it lists:

News reports. Wikipedia should not offer news reports on breaking stories (however, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that). Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news. See current events for examples.

I explained on Belizian's talk pages that I did not believe this belonged on the Current Events page. I never would have removed information from an article such as Revolution in Belize in 2005.

As for Google being 'god', I certainly don't believe that. However, when Google has zero mentions of a news story, a user should be mention why this story merits being posted on Current Events. As I mentioned above, a simple note from Belizian on the Current Events talk page could have avoided a lot of problems. Carrp 13:20, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Try editing current events. The comments there ask you to cite your sources. I disagree Carrp should have been blocked. He should have been told off, but there's no need to get reactionary about it. Btw, please don't shout; it makes you look immature (regardless of the veracity of your arguments). Oh, and lest I be accused of being an American/European capitalist/socialist pig, I'm an Asian who has never set foot in Europe or any of the Americas before. Johnleemk | Talk 13:14, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The whole western bias thing is a complete red herring here, I'm afraid. his is about a) blocking someone without warning and b) calling someone a vandal for making a good-faith edit deleting unverified material. As dab says above, this is not a breaking news site and all information posted must be verifiable. Filiocht 13:17, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

agree with Filiocht. How is having (co-)written the rules a reason bend them? Admins are janitors, and are not to abuse their powers in content disputes. They should also have the nerve to discuss first and revert (or block) later. Google is a source of sources, nothing else. If google doesn't know your source (e.g. printed material), just cite it, but cite your sources you must. This may have been a content dispute, but we don't know, because Danny didn't bother to ask. Maybe Carrp would just have said "fine, put it back", case solved. It certainly wasn't vandalism. dab (ᛏ) 13:32, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I will react to all of you here instead of going to answer all different threads to keep a semblance of order. Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Filiocht it isn't a red herring. Wikipedia does have a bias on articles with regards to areas outside of the western intrest. I am struggling with it daily on nl: wikipedia for over a year, so are other Dutch users in other parts of the world editing on nl:. Here on English wikipedia someone asked me just today should we really mention all the stations on the Bangkok metro? What a stupid question offcourse we need to. All the stations of NY are mentioned are they superior to the Bangkok ones??? No offcourse not, these kind of questions you will see many times with regards to subjects that are outside of the European/American interest sphere. Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is, nevertheless, a red herring in this context. Why not address the other points I made? Filiocht

So we obviously disagree on this no pun intended. I do feel it is right in this context. This is purely a matter of taste and that is something that is almost undebatable. As to your other points, I thought I had addressed them in my previous rant. If not than I feel Danny has answered this. Waerth 14:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Johnleemk Yes I am an American/European capitalist/socialist pig living in Bangkok Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Carpp reread it and you will understand that there is no room for original research. An event that has happened and that might not be worldnews because Belize barely makes a dent in international politics but still has happened so is a fact belongs here. In these kind of cases it is called faith. Some wikipedia editors warrant faith because of the way they edit. This guy will not make it up thats for sure. I once wrote an article about a famous sporter in Thailand whom doesn't have any google links. Yet the sporter exists and is famous in Thailand so warrants entry here. One of the reasons I hate editing on the English wikipedia is because most people find policies more important than what wikipedia is. A gathering lace for all human knowledge. There is to much bloody politics involved on this pedia. And oh yeah I SHOUT when I want to, I have gone through enough shit in my short life (last event the tsunami) to take that right Waerth 13:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to shout, but accept the damage it does to your argument (i.e. other people may soon stop listening). I have also written about people who had no Google hits at the time of writing (thanks to our mirrors, they now have lots) but always cited my sources so nobody has ever deleted any of this information. Filiocht 14:02, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good for you! same here whenever I was asked to put up a reference I will . Some references are just my own eyes sometimes, as Danny pointed out when we were a smaller community we knew whom to trust and whom not. Just because something is written in the media doesn't make it true, many media's have agenda's and that agenda is not alway to put the truth out there. Just because something was missed by CNN doesn't mean it never happened. Welcome to life Waerth 14:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is about "received knowledge". It seems Waerth is taking part in some completely different discussion here. or shouting contest, as the case may be. dab (ᛏ) 15:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I guess it is time for me to add my two cents here. Let me be straightforward. I do not regret making the block. Valuable information was being added to Wikipedia--information that no one else was reporting at the time--and it came from a reliable source--Belizean, who lives in the country and was witnessing the events unfold and feeding reports from the local radio. In the context of Current Events, that is certainly noteworthy. The material was consistently removed, and I continue to regard that as vandalism, though I understand how Carrp did not see it as such. Regardless, this is what current events is for. I might suggest people refer to the history of the page when the space shuttle exploded. We had it on current events before it even hit the news stations because, and I recall this very well, someone heard the explosion from their home. I did suggest to Belizean that he also report on what happened on Wikinews, but that project is still in its earliest stages and does not have the authority (yet) of Wikipedia. Quite frankly, Current Events is where I generally go to for news on the web. It is up-to-date, taking in information from so many different sources, and trustworthy. I do, however, regret that I blocked Carrp for 24 hours, when an hour block would have sufficed in that instance. That is why I did not reinstate the block when it was lifted. Of course, the information was removed again shortly after as "not notable." I think that is what Waerth refers to as a Western bias, and that is something that we should certainly try to avoid. As for "What Wikipedia is not," in fact we are aiming to be a repository of all human knowledge, both past and current. Jimbo has said that constantly, and I personally have used those exact words when I accepted the Golden Nica Award on behalf of Wikipedia. That information should be encyclopedic (hence, no FAQs, etc.) and it should be NPOV (hence, no advertising). It should, however, be as current as possible. In fact, that is the beauty of this project. It is constantly updating itself with the latest information available (Tsunami information and the exploration of Titan come to mind). So, as for that statement in "What Wikipedia Is Not," it should probably be removed, and I will advocate that. As for warnings, there is an inherent problem in Wikipedia right now. Back in the good old days, everyone knew everybody else. We knew who the trusted users were, and we knew whose information was trustworthy. Similarly, we knew who was just gaming the system. In fact, one highly respected user would go over all the Recent Changes daily, welcome all the new users, and still have time to make a prodigious amount of edits (he is still in the top 10, btw). That has changed. The tightly knit village has rapidly expanded into a city, where even some of the best users are relatively anonymous. While it undoubtedly has its advantages, it also has its drawbacks. Whereas sysops once knew each other (and this was long before IRC), today they don't. This sparks distrust, even among the sysop community, and a reliance on rules that were put in place under certain circumstances, which may well have changed considerably as a result of our remarkable growth. Nevertheless, I still believe that the most effective rule of all is common sense. Common sense derives from experience (with other users, with the project as a whole, and with life in general), as well as circumstances. Right now, more than ever, this is important, as the rules were added sporadically and randomly, and may often conflict with other rules. In fact, anyone can edit the rules, and this has been seen to happen. Therefore, until these rules are codified and set in stone, I will continue to act out of common sense, first and foremost. I apologize to Carrp for any inconvenience that this may have caused him, and assure him that this was not a personal invective against him, but rather an effort to maintain the reliabilty and up-to-date nature of our information. I also believe that Wikipedia is a general knowledge base. It must continue to provide all of teh most up-to-date knowledge available. After all, that is what an encyclopedia is--and that is what I will continue to promote in all of my Wikipedia-related activities. Danny 14:04, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a judicious assessment, and certainly fair enough. I agree that wikinews is a very good source, and, had I been aware of it, I would have voted to keep the Belizian's report, too. Yes, both common sense and experience are important, and I think it's obvious that Danny has his share of both. dab (ᛏ) 14:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Using block as a first resort rather than a last? Blocking peopel without warning first at least trying to comunicate them is hardly a way to increase trust. I mean we normaly give at least 1 warning to even the most anoying outright vandelsGeni 14:37, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know. I meant Danny's partial apology, and his show of good faith. I imagine once I've been here for three years, I'll also think that 'newcomers' don't know their asses from their elbows, that's just human. I agree that blocks without warnings should be restricted to very clear cases, like people uploading random pornography and replacing articles with "penis". Anything else should warrant fair warning. dab (ᛏ) 15:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am completely floored that removal of information which could not be verified, after making a good-faith effort to verify it, and being unable to do so, can possibly be labelled as "vandalism". (Which is not to say I'm 100% cool with removing it - for one, as I said above, I think we're being a little too strict about sourcing, and for another, Google is the wrong place to go to try and find something like this, as they update rather slowly - you'd need to go directly to the BBC or CNN and use their on-site search.) But calling it "vandalism", let alone blocking someone for it? That's utterly unreasonable. Noel (talk) 14:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR breaches by Robert Blair

Robert Blair (aka 207.69.13*.*) has breached the 3RR as follows: [20] [21] This information was brought to the attention of Fvw who chose not to act.

-- Robert the Bruce 03:17, 21 Jan 2005

(Added by Robert the Bruce 03:17, 21 Jan 2005 / 05:51, 21 Jan 2005)

I see no evidence of User:Robert_Blair violating the 3RR in either of those articles. The reverts he has done have been spaced so that there is no more than three in any 24 hour period. SWAdair | Talk 07:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious that he was not logging in so as to avoid an obvious 3RR breach, hence the appearance of IP range between. It has been established that the user of that IP range and Robert Blair are one and the same. - Robert the Bruce 03:44, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irate

Please block Irate. Irate and his/her IP 4.35.195.185 have violated the 3RR on Clitoris. Vacuum c 15:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

No I haven't please block this scum for claiming so. --Jirate 15:14, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

ACtually it's Vacuum he has reverted 4 times between 16:35, 2005 Jan 21 and 15:04, 2005 Jan 22. --Jirate 15:20, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Then please explain how an IP managed to find the page and revert the article 7 minutes after my last edit? Vacuum c 15:22, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

You had better ask them. It's not my IP address.--Jirate 15:23, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

If this is a sock puppet issue, then I don't think that there's any way for admins to know for sure, it could just be another user reverting, or it could be Irate. I think developers can find evidence to see if two users are sockpuppets, so I recommend that you contact them, Vacuum. I, for one, am not going to block somebody on speculation that they violated the 3rr if I don't really have much evidence besides the fact that they reverted the same thing. The template is up for deletion. Clitoris is a perfect place to have that template, but I agree that it isn't necessary. If you want to get rid of it, the best way is to vote at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion, not to keep on reverting. I've put up an informal poll on Talk:Clitoris. If the community is in general agreement (within 24-hours) that the template should be removed, then remove it. Revert wars don't usually end up accomplishing much. -Frazzydee|✍ 15:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the inability of the sysops to be able to see whether the IP address is that of the suspected offender is a real problem. It is therefore quite possible for a user to revert three times while logged-in, then three times while not logged-in and then three times for each sockpuppet. It is ridiculous. I suggest you raise this issue as a matter of urgency. - Robert the Bruce 16:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vacuum does not get to delete this, until he has suffered the consequences . They should be blocked under the 3RR rule that they have broken. There is not supposed to be any exceptions now, I beleive. --Jirate 16:10, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

I have already told vacuum to be careful about it. Users are almost always given a warning before they are blocked, so if vacuum reverts again, you can bring it up here. -Frazzydee|✍ 16:13, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No they aren't. I have been blocked several times without a warning. The rules require you to block them.--Jirate 16:17, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

blocked several times? and what does that tell us about your style of editing? ffs, man, WP is about building an encyclopedia, not about these stupid games. dab (ᛏ) 22:32, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The rules permit an administrator to block three-revert-rule violations without warning. Courtesy suggests warning the user first. The rules do not require administrators to do anything. -Aranel ("Sarah") 16:45, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A vote was taken on the strict enforment of the 3RR, that removes any right to debate. This user housld be blocked now, if they are not then it is a sign of the coruption amongst, wiki admins. Where was my warning before my banning.--Jirate 16:49, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my oversight in breaking the 3RR. If I am blocked, I will accept it without complaint. Vacuum c 17:25, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

There's no debate as to whether Vacuum violated the 3RR, I think everybody is in agreement that e did. However, I (and I presume other sysops) believe that it was an accident. We don't want to block good-faith editors for accidentally doing something an hour or two before they were 'allowed' to. That's why they're warned first. Some are ignorant of the exact wording of the 3RR, and others don't know it exists. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vacuum

Just in case some hasn't noticed. Vacuum has violated the 3RR on Clitoris and should be blocked for 24 hours. It should also be blocked for trying to claim that I had broken the 3RR, when I had not. --Jirate 16:42, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

This will make an interesting test case. As one who has been accused (incorrectly) of breaching the 3RR in the past I would like to see what action would be/should be taken against such false accusers. - Robert the Bruce 16:47, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was blocked incorrectly on the word of VioletTriga, in the past.--Jirate 16:54, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

If the IP 4.35.195.185 is Irate's, then yes, Irate has violated the 3RR. If by chance it was not, then that's no reason to block me by itself. Just how did an anomymous user find Clitoris and revert just 7 minutes after my last edit? Vacuum c 17:32, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you explain why it should be me?--Jirate 23:56, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of VfD tag

User:202.84.222.179 has once again removed the VfD tag from Kash Jaffrey. He did it 14 times on the 19th before being blocked, and I have no reason to belive he won't continue the behavior. --Carnildo 20:30, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on it, I think this kind of stuff should go on WP:VIP though. --fvw* 21:04, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

He's been warned several times, and blocked once, apparently without the message getting through. At this point, it's "disruption" (or whatever that catch-all is); if he does it again, block him for a week. Noel (talk) 00:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He's been blocked for 48 by RickK at about 00:49, Jan 23, 2005. Noel (talk) 12:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pumpie

Our boy genius, User:Pumpie is at it again, making many edits, some of them factual, some pure fantasy, and some just weird. I invite everyone to help figure out which ones are which.... dab (ᛏ) 22:24, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, I noticed he'd produced an article about Organismos Sidirodromos Ellados, Greek Railways, and I tried to translate it into something approximating English. I wouldn't mind so much if Pumpie had an idea what proper English looks like, and if he's producing railway articles, that he had a clue about railway terminology and technology...! -- Arwel 00:57, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

he honestly seems to have no clue about anything, but he seems to believe in 'learing by doing'. And he is not alone with this, on WP (we should receive public funding as an educational institution, soon!) dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Zain engineer

"Zain engineer", has inserted a redirect into a POV/NPOV revert war at Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Is this an abuse of special admin powers or can any of us use this technique. If it is open to any of us, please direct me to the instructions for how to use or revert it. -- thanx, --Silverback 23:27, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, he just did a plain old "move this page"; any user can do that. You can move it back; as long as nobody has edited the redirect, anyone can do that. Noel (talk) 00:12, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He just did it again, so I tried my hand at it, but it was not clear to me whether I avoided the dread double revert or not. Unfortunately, this also appears to be a way to trick persons into an inadvertent triple revert violation. I know one of my reverts was while this page was a different page, but the history shows it as if it were to the original page. I wonder if moves should be restricted to those trusted with admin powers.--Silverback 00:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

After a couple of deletions, I've moved it back to where it belongs. RickK 00:55, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

It appears that User:Zain engineer may have violated the 3RR:

21:52, 22 Jan 2005 Zain engineer (Rev. Its quite funny that when there is 'concensus' and 'reverts' at the same time. i am some what at Eid holidays but when i saw this funny thing i felt I should contribute)
23:10, 22 Jan 2005 Zain engineer (Rev Your Edit comment clearly suggested that u accept there is no concensus. So any edit which was done by using 'concensus' argument was invalid. So this is better working until we find concensus)
23:56, 22 Jan 2005 Zain engineer (So if it is all about title then why moved? First justify the move by wikipedia policy)
00:54, 23 Jan 2005 Zain engineer (that was not NPOV. That was removed due to 'irrelevance to title' so if title is changed it bcomes NPOV! I didn't revert I edited and mentioned this issue in article! we should solve this move issue)

However, with all the page moving and reverts, I believe the last one was intended to be a revert but didn't end up changing anything due to a move. At a minimum, if Zain isn't already in violation, he's used up his 3 reverts until 21:53, 23 Jan 2005. Carrp 01:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Somehow the talk page got screwed up, possibly due to a mis-spelling, Please assist. See Talk:Children and minors in the Iraeli-Palestinian conflict (sic)--Silverback 04:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Jayjg | (Talk) 06:18, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, that was my fault. I moved the article back and didn't get the Talk page moved correctly. RickK 21:06, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

At 22:50 Zain again moved the article to Israeli violence against Palestinian children. To be more accurate he created a new article since he knew Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was protected. This situation has no chance of being resolved if Zain keeps moving the article. Carrp 22:56, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, RickK deleted it, and he re-created it, and I've turned it back into a re-direct. You can always turn it back into a re-direct as well. I'm getting a little impatient with this nonsense, I may end up deleting it too if he doesn't stop fooling around. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Zain is mainly interested in fooling around. I'm not going to bother trying to deal with his reverts and moves anymore. I think Children and minors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is pretty much a lost cause at this point. Carrp 23:26, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thing is that method is incorrect. For example what if I think 'holocaust' is POV Title as it ignores the deaths of Germans in world war. What if some body moves it to a move 'NPOV' Title. What ever decision must be made it should be made within the policy. Zain 23:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves Why this exists? the orignal move was totally illegal. It has to be moved by this process. the move was done without process. That's why we got into a policy problem because orignal move was done out of line of wikipeida policy. Zain 23:23, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A VfD was done, and it was agreed the contents should be moved, or title changed. A second vote was taken on the Talk: page itself, and of the dozen people voting, it was nearly unanimous that the article should be moved/title changed. The small minority thought it should be deleted altogether. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:25, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well those votes on talk page don't count at all in the policy so me along with many other simply ignored the vote. The votes (if requeried) should be done in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves. That vote was useless. it was not according to any wikipedia policy. And Funnies thing is that you connected it with vfd. So if it was bcoz of vfd why it wasn't moved immediately after vfd???? Why it took so long?

Zain 23:35, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not making sense again. Jayjg | (Talk) 00:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which statement you were not able to understand? Zain 00:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, the page was not immediately moved because VfD (currently) offers only a recommendation to move the page. Further changes to the article are to be decided on the talk page as needed, just like any other article. Do note that WP:RM says that it's only used when the talk page produces no consensus. As it happens, the vote was nearly unanimous with the only dissent expressed that it should be deleted altogether or simply turned into a redirect. Cool Hand Luke 09:59, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)