text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1

Contents: December 14, 2004 - January 5, 2005

Red Ensign/Canadian Red Ensign
I protected Red Ensign earlier due to a revert war. Now User:AndyL has broken out the first section of the article and made a new article leaving out the fact that some fascist group uses the flag as a symbol. I'm not sure whether it's well-documented or not, but I doubt creating a new article using information from a protected one is considered a correct course of action. Should I act against AndyL or should I protect the other page as well?

 * Seems to be sorted, sorry. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 11:44, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams removed my statement of complaint in ArbCom case against her
See ! I am now a direct participant in this arbcom case, and she has removed my statement of complaint. I have put back my statement. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:10, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * IIRC you can file a separate request for arbitration. The arbitrators can then vote as to whether to merge these cases. I think this points more to holes in our arbitration policy than any wrongdoing of CheeseDreams'. Johnleemk | Talk 10:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Really? Damn. So she was right and I was wrong. OK, I'll do this. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, you still can apply for a temp injunction, though. Actually one proposed decision already being voted on is to block her for 90 days for removing your request, so I wouldn't say you were totally wrong just yet. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I've already stated on the talk page of the proposed decision that that is totally absurd. That 90 day ban on that matter needs to be removed. I notice that I got a proposed 30 day ban for also removing a statement (which I didn't realise I did - I noticed the 30 day ban after I read the decision). Two things here: assume good faith needs to be applied equally. It was only after Ambi and Jayjg noticed the ban and mentioned it on the talk page that Fred voted against it. And yet, CheeseDreams did the same thing for the same reason and she's getting a 90 day ban? So much for the ArbCom being seen as neutral and fair. Secondly, if I did the same wrong doing as CheeseDreams, why the heck am I getting a lesser ban? Exactly how is that fair? That's ridiculous, and I'm not happy about it. Now we've got a possible cloud over the arbitration as CheeseDreams may say that the arbitrators are being unfair. And she'd have a point. Great. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Accusation of breaking the revert rule against Sam Spade
I've been provided with the following evidence against Sam Spade. Since I blocked Adraeus for breaking 3RR on the same article, I should be consistent, but this is a little less clear as I'd like it to be. Can someone confirm I'd be correct in blocking Sam based on this evidence?

 * The following is an edited version of an email I received. (It originally spoke of a 2RR based on the voluntary injuction I suggested).

 * Sam Spade has broken the 3 revert rule for the Atheism article a number of times now. He insists on capitalizing all instances of "god" against all consensus. For the last 2.5 days now Sam repeatedly replaces any subsitute phrases (diety/dieties) entered in the article as attempts to compromise. He thinks that by re-editing the phrases he finds offensive and not actually reverting, he is able to side-step the 2/3rr at the Atheism article. You should also be aware that this particular point has historically been an issue for Sam, and the subject of a past RfC against his actions in promoting it, and so he can be considered already warned. We've tried reasoning with him, but Sam still insists on promoting his own POV on this point, and we feel that he's been given more than enough slack, and now he's crossed the line. If Adraeus' actions resulted in 24 hr ban, Sam's certainly qualify as well. Please take action to reign in Sam.

4: 22:05, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (God or gods) 21:22, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Changed to 'Deities' again. The whole point is to take away from the focus of the christian god to the more general term.) 21:11, 14 Dec 2004 Ambush Commander (Let's compromise. God and Deities (Gods redirects to Deity anyway)) 18:52, 14 Dec 2004 81.179.230.27 (Deities replacing god again.)

3: 17:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (various, mainly God or gods) 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 Titanium Dragon ("God or gods" to "gods" or "deities", save in first occurance to preserve link to God entry (otherwise is redundant, "omni" God is a god by definition); "policies" changed to "policy" (grammar))

2: 12:49, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (merger of my version w an appropriate contribution by andreas) 12:39, 14 Dec 2004 129.59.26.46 (Changed a couple of references to "God or gods" to "gods" or "deities")

1: 12:23, 14 Dec 2004 Sam Spade (repair) 11:39, 14 Dec 2004 Adraeus (rv. BM's non-consensus-based POV edits)

-- [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems like grounds for blocking to me, but I wouldn't block just yet. Let's see what others think. Johnleemk | Talk 10:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, we have to apply the rules consistently. Filiocht 10:22, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

It's true that not all of us have access to the mailing list - but that is by choice. One person does not, at this moment, have access to this page. The only place Sam can discuss this block is on the mailing list. So I will discuss it there. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, I've put him on a 24 hour block. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 10:29, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Though I like Sam, I agree that this is the right course of action. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I too like Sam. Sam has mailed a complaint about this blocking to the email list. I'm not sure about it. I would feel a lot happier if a specific warning had been given "Trying to get around the 3RR like this is liable to get you blocked anyway" or some such thing. Having said that - I don't feel strongly enough about it to undo the block at the moment. (I'll wait and see what Sam says on the mailing list). Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * If there are problems with stuff agreed here, they should be discussed here, and not on the mailing list. Not all of us have access to the mailing list, or would even want to. Filiocht 13:28, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Mailing lists if you want to check this. I think there's no reason why it shouldn't be discussed there. There's numerous discussions there also duplicated on WP talk pages. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 13:40, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, right now I don't have access to the mailing list. But I'm prepared to give my 2 cents and someone can relay it. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to relay anything you say - but Sam can still read this page - he just can't edit it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake)
 * Well, for the record, it doesn't look to me like Sam broke the 3 revert rule, strictly speaking. I think he should have been warned and that the matter should have been deliberated on prior to a decision to tempban. AndyL 14:10, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For those not reading the email list Sam has stated that he was not reverting " AFAIK I made 2 reverts in a 24hr period, not 4" I've been looking at the edits and I'm not convinced that Sam was deliberately trying to get around the 3RR. I'm going to investigate further, but at this moment I'm tempted to lift the block. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:11, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sam takes pain to adhere to policy by the letter (rather than by the spirit), and it is likely that he made a third revert within seconds of the expiry of a 24h period. It is also justified to apply sanctions legalistically, therefore, but obivously if it is not clear that he has broken the 3RR, the block should be lifted. otoh, a 24h block is not draconic, and he can obviously still make uncontroversial contributions anonymously. dab (ᛏ) 15:15, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sam's email
I wrote "Since it was clear that the god --> God etcs were likely to be contentious, why didn't you make the substantive edits without them? then you could have gone back tomorrow and tried again or whatever?"

He replied "Actually, I thought I was obeying MGM's voluntary injunction, and acting in an  mmaculate manner. I had absolutely no clue whatsoever that the edits I was making could be considered reverts by anyone."

IMO he should have been warned first. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 14:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I cannot see he has technically broken the 3RR, and I support his unblocking (not that this will quench the edit war, but there you are). dab (ᛏ) 15:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock him. I do not think that mgm acted maliciosly or that the blocking was any kind of abuse of admin powers. However this is a difficult one, and since there was no warning, I don't think it was fair to block Sam Spade. Having said that, i don't want anyone to think that I am endorsing Sam's edits, and I would caution Sam to strive to stay within the spirit of the rules as well as the letter of them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 15:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree of course that MGM's block was not malicious. It is a difficult case, and after due warning, the block might have been appropriate. I am afraid there is no patent remedy against this type of edit war other than the excruciating way of RFC and arbitration. dab (ᛏ) 15:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

w00t!

I am very happy that I was unblocked, esp. since I had decided that if I wasn't I should give up editing here, and that would have sucked. I have given up editing atheism, at least for the near future. I don't plan to begin a RfC against MGM, and agree the block was not malicious, but I would like an apology, esp. since it upset me so much, and came as a severe shock. Anyways... God bless you, everyone! :D

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I hereby apologize to Sam for blocking him when he didn't break the 3RR based on the policies described in Revert and Blocking policy. However, I would like the rules to include reverts hidden by useful edits in the future. There's no way to know for sure whether someone is trying to avoid the 3RR this way. Would such a proposal get some support here? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 17:03, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am sometimes uncertain if a given edit qualifies as a revert or not. dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe Sam violated the 3-revert rule, or that people are correctly understanding his point in wanting 'God' specifically mentioned in the Atheism article, rather than subsumed under 'gods' or 'deities'. It is not simply an insistence on having Atheism be treated as the denial of the Christian God. It may seem odd for an atheist such as myself to be defending Sam, but perhaps that will lend some additional credibility to my support.

First, regarding the reverts. It is true that Sam consistently takes the opportunity to change 'deities' or 'gods' to 'god or Gods', or sometimes just to 'God'. However, these are rarely simply reverts, or even just edits by themselves, at least not yesterday. He was doing other edits at the same time, generally edits that improved the article. Please study the alleged reverts more carefully. I was carefully following the edit history yesterday in the Atheism article, and I would be very surprised if Sam violated the 3-revert rule, either directly, or even with simple edits that amounted to reverts.

Second, while Adraeus and some others accuse Sam of simply being a "POV-Warrior" in making these edits, this is partly because they seem uninterested in (or perhaps incapable of) understanding Sam's POV. If they did understand it, they would realize that Sam's POV is not bizarre or weird and that the article does indeed need to reflect Sam's POV (as well as others, of course) in order to be NPOV. The point is that there are significant schools of thought in monotheistic religions such as Christianity, henotheistic religions such as Hinduism, as well as in pantheism, panentheism, religious monism and others, according to which God is not merely a deity or a god -- is not a supernatural being alongside other beings, but rather is the "ground of Being", "Being itself", "Existence itself", etc. Paul Tillich, a very well-known Protestant theologian said once "God does not exist" -- meaning God is Being, the ground of being, the power of being. So, when Sam insists that the Atheism article not include God as a god, he is not simply pushing a Christian POV, but trying to make the article more accurately reflect several significant schools of thought. You can say that he has not done a good job in getting this across to others, and it is hard because people constantly happen by and casually change 'God or gods' to 'deities'. And even the regular editors seem to regard the statement that "God is not a god" as bizarre, but it is not grounds for blocking --BM 17:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * it would seem that this belongs on Talk:Atheism, and that you could be useful in mediating Sams pov into an acceptable form to the other editors there. (of course, even if your pov is valid, if you fail to convince people, it is still useless to make stubborn changes that are reverted anyway) dab (ᛏ) 17:28, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who was it who said that the first thing you want to know about any given atheist is exactly what god they don't believe in? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:19, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * great quote. make sure you work it into the article if you remember who it is by. dab (ᛏ) 08:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Voluntaryness
Sam is, or at least was (you might need to check the edit history), of Wikipedians committee, and thus signed up to a 1RR policy. CheeseDreams 21:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

B-Movie Bandit?
62.16.202.204 (contribs) seems to fit the profile for the B-Movie Bandit. Can anyone confirm or deny? --Viriditas | Talk 12:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The B-Movie Bandit specialised in substubs. This anon seems to be creating normal stubs/articles. I don't see anything wrong. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, maybe they upgraded the bot? Also, the articles aren't listed as stubs.  Do you think these articles (like Sarah & Emma Smith) could or should be nominated for VfD? --Viriditas  | Talk 13:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Why don't you just add stub tags and see where they go before suggesting VfD? 131.211.210.157 13:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That's one possibility. --Viriditas | Talk 13:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The only reason we're even discussing this is because they could be edits of the B-Movie Bandit. This hypothesis has not been proven, and even so, why should we judge articles by who authored them instead of their content? If these articles were created by, say, TBSDY, nobody would give them a second thought. Let's just mark them as stubs and let this anon be. As long as the articles conform to our guidelines and policies and aren't messy substubs, it doesn't matter who wrote them. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Done, thanks for clearing that up for me. --Viriditas | Talk 13:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of powers in Clitoris
Admin Schneelocke locked a page in which he is involved in an edit war. Worse, he ignored an ongoing discussion in which both sides have worked hard to find a consensus, and have reached agreement on a temporary fix. Dr Zen 00:45, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hmm. The power of the clitoris. Indeed. - 203.35.154.254 02:05, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Pfui. I actually read the whole of Talk:Clitoris, and a few related pages besides, and my eyes were fairly well glazed over by the end. Frankly, I don't think it makes much difference that Schneelocke may have had some modest prior contact with the page - any admin who was brought in de novo would almost certainly have taken one look at that tome and protected the whole lot anyway, while a) they figured out what the devil was going on, b) the dust settled, and c) people chilled out and became a little less fixated on this.
 * And I'm not sure I agree with the assessment of "both sides .. have reached agreement" because clearly some people didn't agree, hence the revert war. I think a more accurate assessment might (I want to qualify this because of the afore-mentioned glazing-over of the eyes - I might have missed some things) that "some people on size A had changed their minds and agreed to a compromise with people on side B, but others on side A had not". Absent a poll, it's hard to say what the count is of A-switchers, A-stayers, and B's. Noel (talk) 04:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I am involved in the discussion, so you'll have to bear in mind that my viewpoint is not that of an outsider. As far as I'm aware Schneelocke has had no involvement with the page in question except as an administrator. I could be wrong, but I did search the talk and page histories pretty hard when this accusation--which if true I would take seriously--was raised. Other administrators are also alleged to have been involved improperly, but last time I looked the accusers were being extremely evasive about who exactly did something wrong. Frankly after making an honest attempt to reach an agreement with the minority who object to the picture, I am wondering if my actions were wise. By trying to broker an agreement in which the "objectionable" picture was replaced by a link for a few days, I seem to have provoked a revert war between admins and the minority users, which ended once again in the protection of the page. I remain optimistic, though. I'm that kind of guy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and "Historicity of Jesus"
I'm confused. Is Talk:Historicity of Jesus locked? Why am I reading this here? Noel (talk) 12:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This devolved from an ask for advise to a full out battle about the content of an article. Will shift to the talk page of Historicity of Jesus. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the devolution was rather apparent, actually! :-) Thank you most sincerely. Noel (talk) 13:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whiter than white?
If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others. 01:30, 18 Dec 2004

Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality

(This unsigned comment was left by User:CheeseDreams. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 01:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC))

 * Do you have someone in mind or is this a hypothetical?
 * I have someone in mind

 * Do you know how to spell warrior or mete?
 * I could go on with my questions, but since I gather you are mainly just trolling, I'll stop there. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:45, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2 isn't very many questions. I'm not convinced you could go on. CheeseDreams 18:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dear CheeseDreams, your survey did not seem to be well designed, so I have refactored it. By the way, I'm an atheist and I consistently score extreme left, extreme libertarian on the Political compass site. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The survey was deleted for being an ad hominem attack on a Wikipedian. Mackensen (talk) 02:18, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks require them to be irrelevant to the nature of discussion.
 * However, this is a very pertinant question. If Sam Spade is a bad candidate for becoming an arbitrator precisely because he is a right wing POV warrior, then why should a current arbitrator be permitted to arbitrate if they have the same guilt?
 * CheeseDreams 18:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The reason a current arbitrator should be permitted to arbitrate is that he or she was duly elected. End of story. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:13, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * A person's political opinions, past (or present) legal/professional troubles and occupation... these things should not be factors in determining aribtratorship. An arbitrator needs to be able to interpret and enforce community consensus -- it does not matter if he is liberal or conservative, or a disgraced lawyer or Santa Clause himself, nor even if he manages to adhere to basic human decency.  If the arbitrator is acting outside the bounds of aribtratorship, file a RfC or whatever.  If not, stay out of his personal affairs and get on with your life. Tuf-Kat 01:01, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

 * Absolutely. I could not agree with you more. I'd hate it if someone did this to me. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * One could argue that a lack of good judgement in non-Wikipedia matters is likely to translate into a lack of good judgement with regard to Wikipedia. I'm commenting on the argument itself, not the particulars of this incident. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:21, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One could also argue that lack of good behaviour on Wikipedia (the sort that lands you in front to the AC) is likely to mean your the sort of person to try anything to stop the AC ruling against you, including trying to undermine the arbitrators themselves. If an arbitrator is unfit to arbitrate, this should be decided by the community at election times and by Jimbo and the board at other times. It should not be a matter for those who are up before the AC for their own bad conduct. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 08:23, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't it be decided outside of election times? If information comes to light that wasn't available at election times, then surely it is important to discuss. E.g. profumo affair CheeseDreams 15:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I never said it shouldn't be decided outside election times. I said it was a matter for the board to decide outside of election times, not the people being arbitrated on. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 17:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:53, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * True as well. As I said, I was attacking Tuf-Kat's argument, which seemed to say that there's nothing an arbitrator could ever do outside Wikipedia that would cause us to question his judgement inside Wikipedia. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This witchhunt/smear campaign is another example of completely inappropriate behaviour. Jayjg 18:25, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It isn't a smear campaign. It is evidence of an arbitrator doind something outside (and inside) wikipedia that causes the question of his judgement. CheeseDreams 15:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * This is probably irrelevant, but am I the only one who thought this was related in someway to Fred Bauder (FrBaArbQuality)? Johnleemk | Talk 11:20, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why do people always call me right wing on here? And arn't I a NPOV warrior, rather than the reverse? Maybe these questions answer each other ;) Sam]] Spade [[Christmas_around_the_world|wishes you a merry Christmas! 11:45, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody did (except CD of course). The discussion above is more academic, viz., would it even matter. Although I certainly expect you would show up in a corner of the political compass, and probably one opposite to my quadrant :) dab (ᛏ) 12:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dead center, thank you very much. All the better to NPOV you with, my dear :D Sam]] Spade [[Christmas_around_the_world|wishes you a merry Christmas! 17:53, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with anyone considering my past behavior with respect to my service as an arbitrator. The material CheeseDreams discovered is accurate enough and was a very difficult period in my life. I was unable to defend myself against a false charge and had to abandon my law practice. I serve as an arbitrator with a clear conscience and fail to see how not paying costs for transporting and housing a witness relates to my work here. It only relates to the Arbitration case concerning CheeseDreams because she happened to discover the matter. I understand her trying to use this information to shift the focus off of her case, but the underlying problems which landed her in front of the Arbitration Committee remain. Fred Bauder 17:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Her statement, "admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier" is distorted. I have opposed left-wing POV warriors and they have labeled me right wing, but that is hardly the case. I' m just one of the few who have stood against them. But again, the connection with CheeseDream's Arbitration case remains tenuous. One might suppose, if it were true, that a conservative person would frown on characterising Jesus's saying and parables as koans, but searching my book inventory for "high" and "low" church books proves nothing. In short, while grasping for straws CheeseDreams found a cudgel. But flail as she might, unless she is willing to focus on her own behavior we get nowhere. Fred Bauder 17:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln revert war
Well let me kick off then. Two anons have been revert warring over Abraham Lincoln, ignoring the 3RR entirely. I warned them, after which one of them continued (against a registered user who joined in at that point but hasn't broken 3RR yet). --fvw *  13:42, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)

 * Blocked User:68.41.239.188 for 24 12 hrs after they wiolated 3RR at 13:35 (all times GMT) after being explicity warned not to at 13:07 and again at 13:13. (I know they saw the warnings, they deleted both of them). The other anon stopped after the warning, so I'll let them go for the moment. Noel (talk) 14:34, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I decided to shorten it to 12 hours; they weren't a vandal, just would not listen to warnings. Noel (talk) 16:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:80.250.128.5
Can someone verify if User:Vfp15 can be tied to User:80.250.128.5? The block on the other anon editor today affected Vfp, if this one can be tied to him he broke 3RR as Duncharris suggested, but he is part of the dispute and shouldn't have blocked. Mgm|(talk) 20:43, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * User:Vfp15 complained to me via email regarding this incident, suggesting the block was unjustified. I have suggested he pursue the official channels, and will notify him of the discussion here.  18:19, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups 3RR violation
From WP:RFP, dab reports:

 * User:Antifinnugor has broken the 3RR on this page (see page history), and should be blocked for some time (I don't block him myself because I have been involved with him before). Also, the consensus is that this page should be a redirect, so it would make sense to protect it, since there will be no edits to it as long as this consensus is not overthrown on Talk:Finno-Ugric languages.

This is Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups; checking this out now. Noel (talk) 18:17, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, after reviewing the history at "Critique" (clear violation, see details here), I banned User:Antifinnugor for 12 hours only, to impress upon them that we are serious about these rules, and have enforcement mechanisms. If they act up again, let us know.
 * I'll leave it to someone else to sort out the redirect issue. Noel (talk) 19:01, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sigh, in line with policy, I had to block User:Wiglaf for a 3RR violation (details here) too. I made theirs shorter than Finnugor's, as i) they were less egregious (only 4, as opposed to the 7 Antifinnugor racked up), and ii) they were only trying to put in place community consensus. Noel (talk) 19:40, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I would say that a violation is a violation. I am uncomfortable with admins trying to interpret the degree of bad behaviour and setting the length of the block accordingly. it's bound to lead to cries of "unfair". IMO deliberate violations after being warned should recieve a 24 hour block. That way all partied know what will happen if they break the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:07, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sigh. Look, I understand where you're coming from. But try looking at it from the other side. I felt really uncomfortable blocking Wiglaf at all, and only did so because policy said you had to sanction both sides, when both sides had exceeded the 3RR. If I had had to give Wiglaf the exact same block as I gave Antifinnugor, even though his actions were not equivalent, I would have thrown up my hands and declined to become involved. Trust me, I'd be just as happy getting on with editing articles; I don't need grief when I try and apply rules with a little proportionality leavened in. Noel (talk) 14:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Noel I wasn't trying to give you grief, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. I do not think what you did was wrong. All I'm saying is that, in order to avoid exactly the kind of comment that Dr Zen made below, it might be a good idea to block all violators in an edit war for the same amount of time.Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, but if I'd blocked them both for the same amount of time, somebody else would probably have given me grief for meting out the same results when the two cases had major differences! You can't win. Noel (talk) 17:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is exactly what we discussed when the vote was going on. We suggested that admins would not be evenhanded and voila! Here we have it. A revert is a revert. Just because you agree with the guy reverting does not stop that.Dr Zen 04:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have zero knowledge of the content they are arguing over, I never even read it; and AFAIK, I've never had any interaction with Wiglaf before. So I fail to understand in what sense "I agree with the guy reverting". I looked at what had gone on and made a decision based on the fact that the two people's actions were not identical. Noel (talk) 14:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * And what makes you think Noel agrees with Wiglaf? Really Zen are you trying to resolve a dispute or inflame one? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:58, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * My apologies to Noel but this is exactly what we discussed, Theresa. I Admins interpret the policy and are not evenhanded. I don't think they should. If one "side" gets 12 hours, the other should get 12 hours. Then no one can feel aggrieved. The policy does not, so far as I recall, specify greater punishment for greater breach. I think a revert is a revert. The whole point of the rule is that no one does four. That's the sin; that's what should be punished. Interpreting the reverter's behaviour, deciding one is worse than the other (or as we discussed a "vandal" or a "troll") is precisely what I think shouldn't happen.
 * I note, Theresa, that again you have accused another editor of showing bad faith when you disagree with them. Dr Zen 01:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If I were Wiglaf, I'd certainly feel pretty darned aggrieved if I got the same penalty as AFU. The policy also does not rule out "greater punishment for greater breach" - and I'd love to see the discussion if you tried to get a prohibition of that added.
 * If it makes you happier, try looking at it this way: I assessed a penalty of 4 hours for each 3RR violation, to be served consecutively - and AFU, with more violations of the rule, wound up with a longer penalty. Noel (talk) 11:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * No, it doesn't make me happier. I feel that a block for the fourth revert is fair, and should be applied evenly.Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Fine. Next time there's a case, you can decide how to handle it (I'll implement your decision, if it's within the rules), and then the rest of us will all stand around taking pot-shots at you because we think you made a poor decision (for reasons A, B, C, D, E, F and G). Noel (talk) 16:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Sigh -in what way am I disagreeing with you? I was the one who said i was uncomfortable with admins applying blocks of different times to either side.That's what you are saying isn't it? I accused you of inflaming the dispute, because you accused Noel of blocking Wiglaf because "you agree with the guy reverting". That is somewhat inflammatory dont you think? Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 03:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Noel said that Wiglaf was trying to put in place "community consensus". The implication is that this makes his breach of the rule more agreeable. I disagree. I don't think edit warriors should be less punished because the views they are reverting to are more popular. I know we agree, Theresa. That is why I made the comment. I was agreeing with you. Where we seem to disagree is that you don't feel Noel sided with Wiglaf.Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Noel acted very correctly. He blocked Wiglaf, even though Wiglaf was re-instating the consensus version. (not 'even though he agreed with Wiglaf'; the blocks are unrelated to the content of the dispute, but entirely based on the page history (number of reverts)). Fact is that AFU reverted 7 times and Wiglaf 4 times. This is sufficient basis for making AFU's block longer. Both blocks were reasonably short, and have expired already. dab (ᛏ) 09:23, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * that is, "should have expired". This bug is annoying. I'm unblocking them both. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I must have misunderstood the policy. I've already had someone suggesting that you are closer to breaching the "spirit" of it if you revert twice than you are if you revert once, which I couldn't find in the policy. I thought the policy was intended to prevent edit wars by banning reversion more than three times in a day. I didn't realise that the intention was to have a sliding scale of punishment for doing it more or less. Do you mind pointing me to the part of the policy that suggested that this would happen? And Bishonen, just because you warn one side but do not warn the other, does not mean the side warned should receive more punishment! This is precisely what I and I think others feared with this policy. Perceived bad users are punished more heavily than perceived good ones, for the same offence. This helps entrench them as bad users. If you did not also warn Wiglaf, BTW, you too were not evenhanded. Be fair, and be seen to be fair. Dr Zen 01:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not just a question of number of reverts. Please note that Antifinnugor was warned several times, before and while he was exceeding the 3 revert limit. For example, here's my edit line when I reverted him, after he'd reverted the 5th time. He reverted again. I then warned him on his talk page, repeating a link to the Three revert rule that somebody else had already given him, and asking him to please stop breaking the rules; he replied, thus showing that he had read my message, then reverted again, for the seventh time within the same 24 hours. After all that a 12 hour-block seems like a mild response. If any users still, after this information, think Antifinnugor's infraction's the same as Wiglaf's because "a revert is a revert," they must be mounted on some old hobby-horse.--Bishonen | Talk 12:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes, that too, although I assumed that as a long-time editor Wiglaf knew of the 3RR, and just lost track of how many times he'd reverted. Noel (talk) 14:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * of course. but admins should still 'blindly' block 3RR violations, purely based on page-history evidence. The alternative would be that each admin would have to dig into the details of each individual case before being able to determine appropriate action. A 24h block may take away some heat, temporarily, but it will not solve the problem. There will be ample opportunity to comment on AFU's behaviour once his RFC (still a draft) is submitted. dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The policy says "for up to 24 hours", not "for 24 hours". I.e. discretion to use lesser periods is allowed, I did so, reserving the longer 24-hour maximum for vandals, who are also, according to policy, only supposed to be given 24 hours for a first offense. I personally don't think 3RR violations merit the same punishment as vandalism, and would again (see my comments to Theresa above) avoid acting rather than hand down such a block.
 * Anyway, someone said in the 3RR discussion something to the effect of "this is just a symbolic punishment anyway". That's absolutely correct - being blocked for a couple of hours isn't a real check on someone who's determined to make trouble. Lesser times serve just as well as longer ones to get a message through to those who are receptive to it. Noel (talk) 14:33, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well maybe, it depends when you do the block. If you were to block someone at say 10pm local time for 12 hours and that person only edited during the early evenings, they mightn't even notice the block. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 16:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * AFU is back, and evidently not of the receptive kind ;o) . dab (ᛏ) 17:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * dab is permanently redirecting the above mentioned page to an other page, that states quite other things,  which is clearly vandalism. He has no idea about the contents, he just acts due from unknown reasons (probably hate?) Besides, he animates others for vandalism, like Wiglaf. He is absolutely not willing to discuss, since he does not know the subject deep  enough to be able to discuss, he just reverts without an end. This is somehow no good. antifinnugor 17:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, I guess someone else can deal with AFU this time. Noel (talk) 17:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * it's ok. Sorry it turned out to be such a pain for you (although, as far as I can see, nobody attacked you directly for your action. It's just that this seems to turn into some sort of 3RR precedent case). I know it may sound like taunting, but 172 has acted upon AFU's request for protection, and I am quite amused to see that this has resolved this particular case for the near future :o) dab (ᛏ) 18:42, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * btw, I fully agree that admins should be allowed discretion on how to apply "blocks up to 24h", i.e. the blocks may be shorter, as long as no side of the dispute is favoured, and in this case, Jnc gave a clear explanation of how he arrived at his decision. dab (ᛏ) 18:45, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that while Dr. Zen and a couple others expressed concerns during the 3RR vote that admins would not be evenhanded, there were others of us who expressed precisely the opposite worry: that admins would be expected to act like mindless robots. We are intelligent people here, and there is no reason to pretend we can't tell the difference between 4 reverts and 7, or between a user making a mistake and one who blatantly ignores the rules after being warned. Isomorphic 03:27, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * indeed. otherwise, admins should all be replaced by very small shell scripts :o) dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to put a reply to Dr Zen's reply above, inlined above my original post, so I'll start afresh here for the sake of chronology. Zen, are you saying it would have been fairer to not warn a user in full spate of over-the-limit reverting, but just stand by and give him unlimited rope to hang himself with? Unless, that is, I set off those warnings by the pedantry of digging into the History tab to locate any other users who might have "used up" their three reverts (something people do all the time, and then stop, as I'm sure you know) and plant warnings on them too, against the remote possibility that one of them can't count to three (sorry, Wiglaf)? Coming in new to an old conflict, I was hoping to help AFU, even though I had to take the other side of the argument--to establish contact with him on a non-inflammatory level. Did you bother to read the talk page link I provided? You and I haven't met, you know nothing of where I'm coming from, so you just figure my motives have to be bad and flame me in passing. Nice going. But I apologize to other people for responding to flamebait on this page. Anybody who has anything more to say to me, I'd appreciate it if you'd take it to my talk page.--Bishonen | Talk 12:23, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I think it would be fairer to warn both and for both to receive the same punishment. You are forgetting that you suggested that having been warned is reason to give him greater punishment. That is what I take issue with and only that. I am not criticising the warning in any way, only the latter notion. I am not discussing your motives and I am sorry you feel you've been flamed. I am discussing the general point because I think it is important that breaches of the 3RR are treated evenhandedly, with all those who breach it in any given dispute getting the same punishment, regardless who does or does not agree with their views, regardless who has or has not been warned.Dr Zen 23:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dr Zen, you are apparently not aware that Assume good faith is one of our most fundamental principles, certainly more fundamental than the 3RR rule. Given the facts, it is possible to assume good faith on the part of Wiglaf.  Noel chose to do so.  It is not possible to assume good faith on the part of AFU, who deliberately chose to ignore warnings.  That is the fundamental difference between the two cases, and it would not be "even-handed" to ignore it. Isomorphic 07:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

66.42.54.36 at Israel
This IP editor has inserted POV and reverted to it repeatedly in the Israel article. He has been warned twice now. Jayjg |  (Talk)  23:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In case I wasn't clear, and I probably wasn't, that was a 3RR violation notice. Jayjg |  (Talk)  03:42, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * That wasn't POV, it was blatant and stupid vandalism. No need to invoke the 3RR.  List such things on vandalism in progress if needed, but there's no reason to mention them here. Isomorphic 10:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The first three (, and ) were vandalism. The next two were POV edits (this one and this one). Then it was back to vandalism (this one). Hmmm. I'd have given them a warning after the first vandalism, and blocked them after the second. If they'd stuck with POV edits they'd have had to be handled differently. Noel (talk) 11:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR violation at Rachel Corrie
User:Pravda changed sentence "Her death sparked controversy because she was the first Western protester killed in the conflict and a U.S. citizen, and because of the highly politicized nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict to "Corrie's death sparked controversy because she was a U.S. citizen and peace activist killed during a non-violent protest" and "the U.S. did not conduct or request an independent investigation, and Israel has cleared its soldiers of responsibility while refusing to release documents from the investigation" 7 times in 13 hours. . Was warned about complex reverts, and despite newness of account, this is an experienced editor, well versed in reversions and Wikipedia policy. Jayjg 06:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * How do you know it's actually a veteran editor? (Not disputing your claim;  just asking for information.) Isomorphic 07:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * On the user's fifth edit (and first day) on Wikipedia, he reverted to an old POV version of the article which another user had created and which he and the other user had spent many weeks trying to insert. The last copy of this version was buried 30 edits and 11 days in the past (one hoped, for good), yet somehow this neophyte user found it and reverted to it.  As well, the day he joined Wikipedia he was already quoting Wikipedia policy.  New users are rarely well versed enough in Wikipedia to do either of these things.  Finally, the user had created a number of sockpuppets in the past for the purposes of reverting articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as for the purpose of violating various Wikipedia policies. His last known sockpuppet was recently permanently banned from Wikipedia; hence, new sockpuppet. Jayjg  | Talk 21:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Jay, this all seems a bit coy. If there is a particular individual you are accusing, why are you not naming that person? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:40, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Does it matter who it is? If you need to know, it's obviously another Alberuni sockpuppet, as was Wiesenthaler, as is RomperRoomReject. Jayjg |  (Talk)  03:46, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The article involved is Rachel Corrie. This person seems to have stopped once a warning was given, but they may be argumentative and needing have their own way (sigh, we know the type), so will need an eye kept on them. Noel (talk) 12:21, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Is this vandalism?
I've asked a question at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism about the violation of the 3RR on Template:WikipediaSister. Would appreciate the views of admins in particular. violet/riga (t) 01:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template talk:Wikipedialang
some ugly reverting has been going on at Template talk:Wikipedialang. Technically, nobody has violated the 3RR. I am listing this here to draw attention to the problems we will have with enforcing the 3RR. I have lots of IP addresses to burn myself, and could go about reverting stuff with impunity. I guess in cases where it is obvious that reverts from different IPs are coming from the same editor, a block should be permissible. But this of course will open disputes as to which cases are 'obvious'. dab (ᛏ) 12:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The IP addresses were from around the world; it's pretty clearly a coordinated effort, presumably on an IRC channel or similar. The template was locked - David Gerard 23:07, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Just out of curiousity, why does the history for that Talk: page show so many deleted versions (versions which I assume from the usernames who created them, without looking at them, are OK revisions)? Noel (talk) 18:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * good question. Also, why is there no deletion log?! (i.e. we don't know who deleted these versions) dab (ᛏ) 16:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Probably because prior to 1.4, the system wasn't good about keeping that info; it had it for a while after the page was deleted, but seemed to lose track of if after a while. Noel (talk) 03:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The versions in the history jump from "00:42, 18 Jun 2004" to "05:10, 3 Dec 2004", which seems somewhat odd. Checking further, the deleted versions run from "23:23, 3 Jun 2004" to "05:11, 3 Dec 2004" (note slight overlap), but there's a version at "00:42, 18 Jun 2004" labelled "moved from MediaWiki talk:Wikipedialang" (note time match with start of gap). The deleted "05:11, 3 Dec 2004" version has a CSD notice on it for history merge. Sounds like the history merge somehow didn't get completed, or something? Anyone know of any reason I shouldn't undelete the versions that fit into the gap? Noel (talk) 03:21, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)\

 * Done. Noel (talk) 04:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Alberuni
Jamesday advised me (on inspection of various technical details) that he is pretty much certain that Pravda, RomperRoomReject, Goines, Kosudo CONMEBOL, 888, Abdel Qadir, SLUR, Crypto, Weisenthaler are all the same user. Abdel Qadir is the earliest username, so I've blocked the others indefinitely as socks to get around 3RR and personal abusiveness warnings, and put a warning on his talk page. When dealing with any of these, keep the other names in mind - David Gerard 01:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Just to round out the story, Jamesday advised me (on inspection of various technical details) that he is pretty much certain that all of them, as well as Jewjg, ThinkPink, Peter Phipps, and NeverAgain, are sockpuppets of Alberuni, as I (and others) have been saying for weeks. (O.K., some of them like Peter Phipps, Crypto, Goines, Kosudo CONMEBOL, and 888 were surprises, but that was only because Alberuni hadn't gotten around to using them for mischief yet; the others, though, were obvious). By the way, just to understand the kind of inventively loathsome hatred that was going on here, have a look at his newest sockpuppet NeverAgain.  The user page image, that of a famous Rembrandt painting of a Jew, is called "Jonah666".  Jonah, of course, was the prophet who endangered those around him, and 666 is the number of the beast.  The picture itself says "perennial" when you wave your cursor over it, an homage to Adolf Hitler's phrase "the perennial Jew".  And of course, the phrase "Never Again" is one often used by Jews as regards the Holocaust.  On top of everything else, the image may well be a CopyVio of this. The whole thing is chilling, and I'm not surprised that good editors were abandoning Wikipedia in the face of the at best tepid (and sometimes even supportive!) administrator response this onslaught. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  14:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, with all due respect, I hardly think it's an admin issue. It wasn't until Jamesday told David Gerard that these were really sock puppets that we could actually do anything. I mean, I'm loathe to block suspected sock puppets on a whim and an instinct. I'd like to see some proof first. But now there is proof I have great pleasure in blocking Jewjg from EVER editing again. I actually asked David to let me have first crack at him. David is dealing with the rest. I'm only sorry that Jayjg had to go through all this: I've also been on the receiving end of Alberuni's abuse. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your efforts throughout this whole episode, Ta bu shi da yu, and you're right that administrators do not yet have the right resources to easily prove sockpuppetry. With any luck that will be rectified soon.  Jayjg  |  (Talk)  14:51, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * All known socks have been blocked indefinitely, and Alberuni for a few days to get this mess sorted out - David Gerard 14:52, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I also feel that WP has inadequate defense against hate speech and sockpuppetry.  ←Humus sapiens←Talk 04:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Last time this came up, no-one could come up with a definition of 'hate speech' that didn't come down to 'I know it when I see it'. Sockpuppetry is a trickier one - David Gerard 22:23, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * David, "I know it when I see it" can be a useful rule of thumb. The Wiesenthal/Alberuni abuse wasn't a borderline case, but was clear-cut, deeply offensive, and aimed at a specific ethnic group. Yet I was told that to block a user for personal attacks, the case would have to go to the ArbCom, but couldn't be dealt with in a summary way by an admin. I don't know whether that's true, but if it is, it seems wrong to me that someone can be blocked instantly and without warning for violating 3RR, yet can't be blocked for serious and sustained racial attacks without going to arbitration, especially when the user (Wiesenthal) confessed to being a sockpuppet. Slim 22:42, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * It's really a variety of personal attack. That's what we need enforcement against IMO - David Gerard 23:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Stop moving the damn page!
I mean it. It's impossible to edit it. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:57, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Do I sense a possible use for the "protect from moves only" feature?Pakaran (ark a pan) 18:12, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, this would be "Personal attacks from User:Auto movil", on this version of this page you were referring to? (It does help to provide some context in your otherwise totally cryptic comments... :-) Noel (talk) 18:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Er, sorry. I was referring to this page being moved to Administrator's noticeboard. Which is incorrect, and kept getting moved on us, thus making it impossible to add info to this page. I've protected that page to stop the moves from happening. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

GNAA attack
There appears to be a GNAA attack in progress using open proxy lists. User names have been faked using nonprintable characters - don't cut'n'paste a username to block it. See User talk:Jimbo Wales and watch RC - David Gerard 10:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Could someone block User:Improv%AD? --fvw *  13:17, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)
 * Let me put it this way: http://www.q-cat.com/goodproxies.txt + http://jgillick.nettripper.com/switchproxy/ makes Jack an unhappy boy. That's the combination they're using. It wasn't hard to discover this. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Saroj khanal
Someone has been making a mess of the Saroj khanal, Saroj Khanal and its VfD. Lots of Copy&Paste moves. Could someone check Special:Contributions/Irishpunktom and clean up please? Ta. --fvw *  15:04, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

3RR violation at Modern anti-Semitism
User:Deeceevoice has violated the 3RR at Modern anti-Semitism     (note, the last is a complex revert, to get around the 3RR). Insists that his POV editorials do not require sources, because they are simple facts. Was warned twice about 3RR. In response scoffs at the 3RR, says he is "trembling in his boots". Jayjg |  (Talk)  20:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Deeceevoice does contribute some great stuff to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he won't be able to for the next 24 hours. Looking over the rest of the article's edit history now - David Gerard 21:57, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3RR violation at Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD
User:Neutrality has broken the three revert rule on Wikipedia:Proposal to expand WP:CSD as follows:

 * 21:02, 2004 Dec 29
 * 17:02, 2004 Dec 30
 * 19:57, 2004 Dec 30
 * 20:24, 2004 Dec 30

The first link shows his edit, the second shows the result... that he reverted by completely undoing my edit back to a previous version each time. At one point during the day, he even protected it to prevent edits he disagreed with. -- Netoholic @ 21:22, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

 * So are you suggesting that you both be blocked? My own feeling is to let this one slide... -- Jmabel | Talk 22:42, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

 * I didn't violate the policy, and no, this should not slide. Admins (and arbitrators-elect) should set a better example of behavior, and also be subject to the same penalties as everyone else when they violate them. -- Netoholic @ 23:00, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

 * This is a project page edit, not an article edit. You were trying to add new proposals to it in mid-stream and postpone the vote unilaterally, as per the history. Reversion of such a move strikes me as entirely sensible. Reading WP:3RR, it says 'pages', not 'articles' ... I put a note on Neutrality's talk page asking for comment before acting on this myself - David Gerard 17:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * My understanding is that Arbtitrators should not participate in revert wars because, as Netoholic says, Arbitrators are meant to set a better example of behaviour. Bearing in mind the responsibilities of his new position, Neutrality's second revert - assuming there was not already a revert war on that page - was one revert too many. jguk 17:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * The 3RR obviously applies to articles. It was never intended to prevent the type of reversions that I did on the project page. It was a very sensible revert. Netoholic cannot be allowed to unilaterally add proposals and postpone votes against the express wishes of the author. He is free to try to create policy in a more reasonable way. This was not a revert war. There is no moral equivalency. This was Netoholic being highly disruptive. Neutralitytalk 17:48, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

 * You keep saying that, but I posted about this additional proposal on the talk page back on Dec 19. No objections were raised at all, so I added it with no disruptive intent.  When it became clear that some people objected, I proposed postponing the start of the vote, per Survey guidelines.  At no time did I do anything so "disruptive" as to warrant your actions.  Other proposals have been added to the vote page without such diligence, but I suppose those aren't "disruptive" because you agree with them.  You've behaved reprehensibly. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

 * Neutrality also thought it would be a good idea to edit the 3RR page, changing "page" to "article", in a breathtakingly cynical act of attempted policy manipulation 1. This was not done in good faith. Neutrality broke the 3RR. The double standards applied by other admins does not inspire confidence. I have yet to hear a reason why Neutrality is immune from the 3RR. Can I get some immunity as well? --Mrfixter 19:35, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Heh. I tried to communicate this same problem, but my comments were deleted from his talk page as "idiotic". -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

 * Methinks Mrfixter and you are very close, if you know what I mean. Neutralitytalk 07:39, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * Could it instead perhaps be that more than one person recognizes that you've been making poor choices? If you're going to accuse me of sock puppetry, I invite you to talk to the developers and confirm that, or you should STFU about it and instead listen to these complaints.  I have never seen a need for a sock puppet, and certainly wouldn't do it now on this page, since I clearly am not afraid to bring up these concerns. -- Netoholic @ 08:16, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

 * Wow Neutrality, nice red herring. Innuendo about sockpuppetry does not provide you with any cover. Reply to the accusations. Btw, Netoholic is not my sockpuppet, nor I his, not that makes any difference to you breaking the 3RR and then trying to manipulate policy. --Mrfixter 13:21, 3 Jan 2005

 * As yet, this violation has gone un-enforced. Can an admin please take action? -- Netoholic @ 07:49, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

 * Sigh. It's been a while since I looked at the history (since the changes to CSD were the kind of endless, silly Wiki-policy debates that I just can't stand, let alone have time for, so I hadn't followed them as they happened, and had to go read the history), so I'm going from memory here, but...
 * This whole thing struck me as really unseemly, and I was personally taken quite aback to see an Arbitator involved in this sort of thing - to basically echo what someone else said above, Arbitators really ought to have a "Caesar's wife" style when it comes to Wikipolicy and Wikiquette.
 * You are quite correct to point out that you had made your proposal on the Talk: pages some time before, with no negative comments. Alas, I'm not as up on policy about votes as I ought to be (and no time to read up now), but still, it seems to me that you certainly acted in the spirit of Wikiquette, in posting them to a Talk: page and letting a good period of time go by before acting on them, and in view of that, I personally would have found a rather different response to your changes more appropriate.
 * It is however also true that the 3RR page used the word "article" in one place, and "page" in another, before any of the editing started.
 * My suspicion for the lack of action is that there are lot of people here who feel the same way as I do - they don't like the way it played out, but can't put their finger on anything and don't want to get involved in what's already a big mess. Yes, that's not right, but alas it is human nature. Noel (talk) 16:26, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Hunnhh - I found the following comment, dated 29 Nov 2004, at Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert rule:

 * This rule has always applied to all pages, regardless of whether they are in the article namespace or not. The poll at Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement was based on this interpretation.

 * Well, clearly some people didn't agree with that. Noel (talk) 13:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * how can admins (and arbitrators) get into a revert war on a project page? tell me this is a hoax or something. Yes, I do think policy should be enforced legalistically on admins, just to show we mean to stand by the rules. Right. Sigh, but I can't be bothered to follow this, so tell me who should be blocked, and for how long, and I'll do it, if nobody else does. (by 'tell me' I am obviously addressing uninvolved parties). dab (ᛏ) 19:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey, yeah, block User:Neutrality for 24 hrs, as per 3RR. As an admin and arbitrator, Neutrality should know better. Neutrality has not followed the rules. Thanks dab. --Mrfixter 15:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it has to be said that the 3RR is a total mess now, having become the favoured tool of POV groupings to eliminate dissenting voices on, for example, Christian and Israel related topics. It's easy to do, just keep removing any minority view until you wind someone up wnough to snap and break the rule, then get them blocked (I'm not saying that this is what happened here, but I am inclined to believe that there is at least one example further down the page and an Elememt of this in the CheeseDreams debate). My own view is that it is a bad law, and, as such, should just be scrapped, but I doubt I'll have much support in this, so I'd propose a debate on how to improve/refine it. Maybe pages where the rule has been broken could be protected for a 24 hour 'cooling off' period with nobody banned? Filiocht 11:13, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:68.189.249.219/User:A bancroftian64
Last night I blocked User:68.189.249.219, a run-of-the-mill vandal screwing with the George W. Bush article, for the standard 24 hours. Not too long ago I got an email from "A bancroftian64"  giving me some sob story about a friend using his computer so I unblocked the IP address. Almost immediately, User:A bancroftian64 and User:Melgibson999 began vandalizing, so I blocked both of them. Just wanted to warn everyone not to fall for the sob story if they get a similar email. Gamaliel 02:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog
Sollog is back again, major reverting happening at Sollog. I've used up my reverts for today, could peoople keep an eye on it please? --fvw *  17:25, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

 * Such a pity it's not 'simple vandalism' - David Gerard 17:40, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah, that is a lot easier to clean up. On the bright side, this means I have an excuse to bow out and let others do work :-) --fvw *  18:11, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)

 * User:Tohes has been warned for personal attacks. User:Tohchina has been blocked, as has an IP. Check Talk:Sollog. If a dev could check these for sockpuppet matches (to check there's not sockpuppeting going on to get around 3RR), that would be most appreciated ... - David Gerard 20:25, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Can't we just work on the assumption that they're sock puppets? I'm trying to stay neutral here, but the writing style (especially the occasional CAPITALIZATION of SIGNIFICANT words) is pretty OBVIOUS.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 05:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was being a bit of a devil's advocate there. Pakaran (ark a pan) 06:48, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected Sollog again ... it will need many eyes - David Gerard 15:19, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker
Please delete Requests for comment/Mbecker. It was filed inproperly, and it is long past due for deletion. — マイケル   ₪  00:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * What do you mean filed improperly? It was cerftified by two users, so it seems bonafide to me. --fvw *  04:17, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

 * They did not try to work things out with me before filing the RfC as pointed out at Requests for comment/Mbecker.   —  マイケル   ₪  07:10, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Even the appearance of a formal cert was cobbled together after the event. One of the complaintants' only attempt to resolve the dispute was to call mbecker "a dickhead", and ten minutes later he posted a complaint in RfC. The other complainant made no attempt at all but went straight to writing up his complaint. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Deleted - David Gerard 15:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mazur
There's an edit war going on at Mazur, both editors have been warned they'd violated the 3RR but have continued to violate it after that. Despite all that nastiness, have a wonderful new year everyone! --fvw *  04:19, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)

 * Blocked both users, left messages for the documenting 3RR violation. Noel (talk) 05:05, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Libertas, 3RR violation on History of post-Soviet Russia
User:Libertas, who's presently on a bit of a trolling spree, has just broken the 3RR on History of post-Soviet Russia. RadicalSubversiv E 05:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Looking into it now... Pakaran (ark a pan) 05:41, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked. S/he disregarded and removed warnings, and has been around (as you pointed out) long enough to know better.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 05:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Chan Han Xiang
Something weird is going on. Check out Special:Contributions/Chan Han Xiang. Either his account has been hijacked or he's gone bananas. I've blocked his account for 24 hrs 'cause I can't tell which and I don't like neither. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm betting on bananas, after his RfA: Requests for adminship/Chan Han Xiang. --—Ben Brockert (42) UE News  06:22, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of fixing his self-vandalism, so please don't edit or remove any of the pages he moved/created/edited. --—Ben Brockert (42) UE News  06:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm done. His other recent activity was trying to get one of his twice-deleted articles undeleted. If he moves his personal pages into the article space again, I'm not going to bother moving them back before deleting them. --—Ben Brockert (42) UE News  07:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

 * He emailed me indicating it was deliberate, that he wants all his pages deleted, that he will leave wikipedia maybe forever. His block has expired; we'll see what happens. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User has been escalatingly fruity for quite a while, please see evidence presented on recent Requests for comment/Chan Han Xiang. I suspect it was the opening of that RfC on 30 December that tipped him over into bananas, and a kind of despair. The nutty retaliatory RfC Requests for comment/Gtabary he opened on his opponent seems to have already been deleted. I know it's not the best time of year for it, but I wish some more people would comment on Requests for comment/Chan Han Xiang.--Bishonen | Talk 22:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User vandalizing September 11, 2001 attack and Jews articles
How can this user be blocked? He/she appears to have a blank user name. Rmhermen 06:52, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * The user name is composed of 4 of the non-printing character 0xAD. In order to block the user, you need to get that character on your clipboard, which we're working out how to do.  BTW, from talking with the GNAA on their IRC channel, they're very likely responsible.  See WP:ViP for more discussion of this.  Pakaran (ark a pan) 07:15, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, why, why are any characters allowed in user names that don't show up in the History and aren't easily entered in the special page for blocking? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:44, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should limit the acceptable characters for user names. I expect that would require a developer. Rmhermen 15:02, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a bug, not a feature. I do agree that it would be a rather urgent one to fix... dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree; this should be fixed, and at the very least this evil character, i.e., ought to be disallowed.  Here's somewhere you can read about it:  It's a soft hyphen, and will not display.  When used as a username, it will be quite invisible, and will not even display a space (since that is the purpose of a soft hyphen).  Other ways of making the character include   and  .  I'm not sure why Nunh-huh was able to copy and paste the username and Jmabel was not. Antandrus 16:38, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't copy&paste it either. Rmhermen 17:13, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends on OS. I use Gentoo, an up-to-date version.  I tried to get it by copying the URL from a link, pasting that link various places (xterms, etc) and then copy the characters from off the end.  No matter what I did, it either didn't paste out, or pasted out as   |pak aran 22:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation at Red Ensign
User:ArmchairVexillologistDon has broken the 3 revert rule at Red Ensign. Can someone please block him? AndyL 07:13, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Alison Moyet
Anonymous user User:24.91.174.93 contributed text now at Alison Moyet/temp, which is copyrighted. Anon claims to be the copyright holder and representative of http://www.alisonmoyet.com/. Replaced article text with some legal threats here, here, here, and here. See also User talk:24.91.174.93. I cannot verify the copyright ownership, but it may be believeable. Added a merger request to Alison Moyet for Alison Moyet/temp. Contribution is appreciated, legal threats are not. Any comments or suggestions? -- Chris 73 Talk 07:57, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * do I understand that the "cease and desist" concerns not copyright violation, but the removal of the "official" article text? i.e. they threaten us because we refuse to host the official blurb? this is just bizarre. If he does own the text, he agreed to "merciless editing" by submitting it, end of story. dab (ᛏ) 13:36, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, they've threatened us for not replacing the current article with their blurb. IP blocked - David Gerard 23:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merged the two articles. Mainly created a discography and copied some text, cutting out the advertisements. Deleted Alison Moyet/temp, but the text can still be found for example here -- Chris 73 Talk 02:02, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

The André Nilsen gang
The André Nilsen gang is back, they've recreated the article as soon as the protected placeholder was removed and are currently relinking. I've currently used up my reverts on Oxford Council on Good Governance, could someone please re-remove the linkage there? Also keep an eye on all of Special:Contributions/130.67.144.146. --fvw * </SMALL> 20:41, 2005 Jan 1 (UTC)
 * A mini-bio plus a link is currently being inserted here. Can't we have a policy against creating links to articles that have been VfDed or something? --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 15:14, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Copyvio problem
I'm not sure how to proceed on this one (and I'm about to be offline for 20 hours or so). While copy-editing recent extensive additions by Jugoslaven in Spanish Civil War, I found myself first noticing that he/she (I'll presume "he") was adding minute detail, then wondering where he was getting his material. (See Talk:Spanish_Civil_War) As you can see from the exchange, I now think he took a lot of this from. I am not sure what to do with this extensive addition of apparently copyrighted material to an existing, rather good article.

I've also worked out that nearly all of his other contributions are probable copyvios; I've reported those in the usual manner. I can see from his user talk page and from an exchange on User talk:Everyking that I am not the first to bring this up with him. I am not sure what to do in approaching a user who has already been warned about plagiarism and persists. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:08, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

This request for assistance has now been here over 24 hours and no one has responded. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe, despite its not being explicitly mentioned in the blocking policy, that repeated copyvio despite warnings qualifies as vandalism and merits blocking. As for editing an existing article with plagiarized material, just revert it. According to WP:CP, it technically can be removed from the page history, but only if the copyright holder specifically requests it. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 03:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * So you think that rather than try to work with him at all, or even say anything, I should just block him? That seems premature to me. I was more looking for advice on how one might approach him.

 * Also, it would take a lot of work to demonstrate that all of what he did in Spanish Civil War was copyright violation -- it's not all from one page, but it seems to be all from one site -- though I guess it may be a matter of better safe than sorry. I'll do this.

 * In any case, I'm glad to hear that we don't have to worry about it being in the history unless requested to remove it. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a quite obvious copyvio, even if it is from several external pages. Talk to him, and if he insists on adding verbatim (or only minimally rephrased) copies of external content, block him for repeated copyright violations. Also try asking the owner of the external site for permission—their material seems to be good. Lupo 07:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So, I've been following up with him (see his talk page and mine) and he seems to half get it. He claims to have permission for what he added at Spanish Civil War; I told him I wanted to confirm that, since he clearly did not have permission for some of what he added elsewhere; I let him know I was writing to the relevant site to confirm; he reinserted a bunch of this at Spanish Civil War while I'm still waiting to hear from the site in question. I don't really want to ban him -- I think he is well-intentioned but confused -- but it seems that a lot of what I'm saying is going right past him. Can someone else weigh in? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:18, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Life is short, and there are (as you note in your essay) large areas of knowledge we cover poorly that we really need to work on. Dealing with people who won't wise up counts (for me) as time lost. If they don't start listening (give them a blunt warning so they really should get the message), block them. Noel (talk) 05:44, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll repeat my advice from above: send an e-mail to the owner of the material on the external site and ask for their permission! If they agree, fine, if not, block the offender. Lupo 12:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I've (long since) done that and haven't gotten an answer; meanwhile, Jugoslaven claims to have done that and gotten an answer in the affirmative and has been restoring the material. I have no specific reason to doubt his word, and since I have notified the site I assume I will hear from them sooner or later. I'll be a lot more comfortable about this after I get an answer one way or the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Bot issue
In my opinion the bot CanisRufus has gone a bit far afield. A quick check of the talk page seems to indicate that I'm not the only one. I would appreciate it if some of you would review the UserContributions and see if you feel the edits appropriate. Note that our standards for bots are higher than normal contributors. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 10:20, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Removing the redirects, such as Mammalia and bacteria seems pointless at best. -- Walt Pohl 08:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Sud-Pol
I find some of the pictures User:Sud-Pol is uploading quite inappropriate. Should I discuss, or am I being too sensitive? Mgm|(talk) 12:25, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd warn him once and orphan all those images and put them on WP:IFD. If he persists, I'd block him. I don't think you're being squeamish: such images are fine for a family album, but not here. There is absolutely no need for an encyclopedia to show 3-year-old girls in diapers in articles on Laptop or Ballet, for instance. Neither is the 5-year old shown in Diaper appropriate: a baby might be, but 5-year-olds usually do no longer need diapers. (And that image looks set up anyway.) In fact, since he uploaded only images of young girls in diapers, I'm inclined to think that User:Sud-Pol has an unhealthy fixation on this subject. Lupo 12:39, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Ok, I've orphaned them all and left a message at User talk:Sud-Pol. The only one remaining is the one at Dress-Up, because (a) I haven't found a suitable replacement, and (b) I feel it is somewhat on-topic and not as close to a fetish photograph as the others. Now, where to list them: WP:IFD or WP:PUI? Also, could somebody else please do it—WP is horribly slow for me right now. Lupo 13:59, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd go with WP:IFD as I expect it has a faster response time. Unfortunately not the time to list them myself. Mgm|(talk) 14:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't look innocent. User:Bishonen has also noticed the inappropriate image name for Image:Archiefucker.JPG uploaded by User:Sud-Pol and asked for comment at Wikipedia_talk:Images_and_media_for_deletion. All the user's contributions are related. We shouldn't be cautious about this - I'd say a straight banning is in order. -- Solipsist 20:58, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * No, it certainly doesn't look innocent, and I never intended to say so. But things like this happen every so often on WP, and I cannot get really upset about it anymore. It's just annoying, and we have to get rid of these images somehow and preferrably quickly, too. Blocking the user is necessary only if he continues this behavior. If he stops it, the images will go anyway through WP:IFD (and be deleted). Unfortunately, they're not speedies, and I am not aware of any fast-track policy for deletion of content that may be potentially damaging to Wikipedia itself, such as harboring child pornography. Maybe we need such a process: then we could use it to fast-track delete these images. Lupo 22:10, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I took advantage of a brief spell of relative quickness of Wikipedia and listed them all on WP:IFD. Lupo 22:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Transport copyvio
Anyone know what happened with Henry_Watterson_Expressway? See as there is a minor controversy on misc.transport.road. According to the poster, Sherman Cahal, he alleges that we've lifted the entire article (one paragraph!) from his website and have changed around some wording to make it different. His website is now in the article and is. I think our biggest issue is the lack of references. I would request comment on this from admins to see what their take on this issue is. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing the copyvio - vs . The original wording (from Interstate 264) is almost identical to that at HWE; it's paraphrased from Sherman's site. Anyway, in  he "Corrected plagarism issues with my site, Ohio Valley Transit"; so apparently he doesn't have a problem with the current state of this article. --SPUI 14:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Broken redirect cleanup
The recreation-protected article it links to has been removed already, so could someone remove Andre Nilsen? It's a broken redirect and thereby a CSD. Thanks. --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 17:59, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

Path of Change
It appears that User:Vjrott has changed Your first article into an article on a Czech politcal party, then moved it to Path of Change. I'm not sure the correct way to handle this while still preserving page histories in the right places, so I thought I'd mention it here. – Jrdioko (Talk)  02:36, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Seems to be solved now. 131.211.210.157 09:54, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Chuck F violates 3RR
Chuck F, chronic problem user of Requests for arbitration/Chuck F fame, has just violated the 3RR on Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. (Note that his first edit was a revert, for a total of four. RadicalSubversiv E 07:28, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Scientology
Someone's removing critical bits from Scientology, but has refused to give justifications for deletions, even after being asked to do so on their talk page. I've used up my reverts and am going away in a bit, could someone keep an eye on it? --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 07:53, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

 * On it. One appears to be a home cable connection (blocked), one appears to be a dialup in .cz. User:ChrisO and User:Modemac also try to keep Scientology-related things sane - David Gerard 19:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * reads "Scientology-related things sane" and mutters something about "contradiction in terms" ;-P Vamp:Willow 21:10, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * "A steady flow of flying saucers is still dropping off more entheta beings." - David Gerard 00:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, I bought one of his books a few years ago. Was lucky enough to choose one from the science-fiction shelves, not the self-help shelves.  Pakaran 06:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

192.197.82.203 on Ernst Zündel
Abusive IP user has violated the 3RR on Ernst Zündel. Was warned, and deleted the warning before reverting again Jayjg  |  (Talk)  21:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't add "used txt spk in edit summary" to the block reason, but I was sorely tempted - David Gerard 00:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Help!!!!!!!!!!
We need quick relief on Talk:Soviet Union. If all that one user said until now about other users and particularly about me is not the subject of Wikipedia sanctions, then we have a big problem. This user has already caused the resignation of longtime valued contributor, User:Evercat, after provoking him on IRC. More resignations will follow unless action is taken. The abuse has been substantial enough to warrant a non-Arbcom block for personal attacks and trolling. 172 10:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree completely. Note also that Libertas has been warned repeatedly about this behavior on his talk page, and on Talk:Soviet Union by myself and others. RadicalSubversiv E 10:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

172 has aggressively and successfully asserted control over the Soviet Union article, supported by someone of self-identified similar political views RadicalSubversiv. I have been careful not to revert him, but to politely suggest well sourced edits to make the article neutral.

His request for others to do what he wishes to do and block me must be seen in the context of his previous conduct, which goes back a long time, where he has threatened other users, used profanity, distorted sources and in some cases just plain lied.

I have engaged in the Talk process as I thought appropriate. The Soviet Union article itself is protected. Now he wishes to assert control over the contents of the Talk page.

He has requested no fewer than a dozen times for users to block and ban me, in concert with left leaning associates like RadicalSubversiv. They have accused me of not being a real user, of being linked with discredited users I've never interacted with or hardly have, of using AOL IP's when I don't have access to them, you name it.

And why? Because I have a different perspective to 172 and his left wing associates and regard the article as failing even the most generous neutrality test. I have responded carefully to the arguments and to claims made by 172, I have said nothing about him personally and have no wish to do so. 172 has been the subject of an arbitration case where similar aggression was evident.

The archive of the Talk page indicates a level of abuse I didn't think was permitted at all, riddled with profanity and obscenity. His claim that I have engaged in such behavior does not withstand any scrutiny. 172 offered to withdraw from writing on the article and the talk page and I believe should be gently encouraged to do so. He has had a long time to enforce his will and some might think it's time to give someone else a chance.Libertas

 * I don't disagree that 172's editing on Soviet Union has sometimes been territorial. But that doesn't justify Libertas repeatedly trolling and making personal attacks on Talk:Soviet Union and elsewhere, activities no one else engaged in this dispute has done. RadicalSubversiv E 10:49, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Radicalsubversiv, you have "trolled" me repeatedly, following me into articles you hadn't previously edited, accusing me falsely in the terms outlined above etc. 172 has acted similarly. This matter can be resolved but not if you don't accept compromise, as I am very willing to do. Libertas

 * well, do we have any guidelines for non-arbcom-sanctioned short-term blocking for extreme trolling/ranting/harassment? (if we don't, boy do we need them). I am all for acting on impulse of common sense, but you'd need to be able to point to some policy if your block is later criticised, even when acting with the most pure intentions. dab (ᛏ) 11:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Dbachmann, sentence first verdict later, is that what you're proposing? Libertas
 * yes, in obvious cases of policy violation, after fair warning, by admins previously not involved in the dispute, for 24h at first, and up to a month in cases of repeated violations. WP would become sheer madness if we could not do that. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the relevant policy would Blocking policy, but I'm not an admin. In any case, Libertas has agreed, at my suggestion, to remove his comments from Talk:Soviet Union which do not pertain to the article's content. My opinion would be that he should not be blocked unless he resumes the disruptive behaviors in question. RadicalSubversiv E 11:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * that's right, thanks. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The user in question is currently engaged in cleansing his comments from the past week. This is objectionable; by changing his own wordings, it is confusing the context in which all the replies were made. This will just make it easier for more of my comments to be twisted around and used against me. I have little doubt that this behavior will continue until all of us have bended to the will of a single user. 172 11:31, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Not to worry. Unless they are a developer, they can't delete their comments from the history, so if you have to make a point in the future, all you have to do is link to an old version that contains the un-expurgated comment. (I emphasize "have" because we've all done things in the past that sometimes we'd like to forget, so if this user improves, let's not nag them with their past, OK?) Noel (talk) 15:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am following Radical's advice about removing provocative and irrelevant comments, it wasn't my idea it was his. I confirmed with him as evidenced on our talk pages that I could edit my own comments. I am only editing my own comments. I can assure you I don't want to spend my time doing it but I am taking up Radical's suggestion. Is there anything I can do that won't offend? Libertas

 * well, you could leave a note like 'comment removed', just for the orientation of new-comers. If the removals are a gesture of good-faith, I suppose they will be recognized as such. dab (ᛏ) 11:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * AOL. Noel (talk) 15:58, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * An uninvolved party should do this. If I did it, I would almost certainly be accused of acting of bias somehow. But it should be done, as it renders a completely distorted picture of the dialogue... The point of this request for help, after all, was to encourage some sort of intervention to prevent such behavior in the future, not to rewrite the records of the past. Thanks for your input. 172 12:20, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * sure. I think you should just archive the whole ugly thing, wholesale, and see if you can write a short summary what you are arguing about. There seems to be a valid dispute at the core, and it just got out of hand. If Libertas and you agree to sort it out concisely, there is no need for intervention. And Libertas has shown prepared to start over, I think, by complying with rad's suggestion, even if this has temporarily added to the confusion. dab (ᛏ) 12:26, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:62.253.219.130
This user is creating nonsense articles again after earlier warnings for quite some time. Can someone look into his blocking history and increase the block time this time around? Mgm|(talk) 13:17, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm blocking them for 1 month and reverting their garbage (including some that should have been cleaned up a few months ago...) - UtherSRG 13:46, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'd like to ask everyone once more to please check their past edits when reverting vandals (I'll admit to forgetting to do this myself too, but it is very important). --fvw<SMALL> * </SMALL> 14:07, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * a month seems like the upper limit, considering that this is a broadband IP (ntl.com), and may be assigned to a new user any day. dab (ᛏ) 18:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR at the troubled Clitoris article
No surprise to see a 3RR violation at the Clitoris article and no surprise to see that it involves User:Irate. Both he and User:Cookiecaper need to be blocked for 24 hours but I'd rather not do it myself after previous problems between myself and Irate. Would appreciate a neutral admin being involved, but please be aware that this issue has been going on for months and is still having edit wars (thus, in my opinion, there should be no leniency). violet/riga (t) 18:34, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not involved anymore (have given up), so I blocked both for 24h. JFW | T@lk  18:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I no longer take part in the discussions. I suggested one system of voluntary censorship but I don't think the argument will stop until the user has an option in their preferences; even then I don't expect a speedy resolution.  Thanks for that anyway JFW – please let me know if there's any comeback about it. violet/riga (t) 18:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They are both on the wikiEN-l mailing list complaining now and as they both reverted only three times but not more they appear to be in the right. Fred Bauder 02:29, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I was under the impression that the third revert was the blockable offense. I don't really care, I'll unblock these characters on your authority. JFW | T@lk  07:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am not involved in that article but was recently blocked by an Admin who I was in dispute with. He blocked me without warning and without any reference to any rules. He resigned as a result.

I think this highlights a real problem. Blocking is a drastic penalty and except in very clear cases of vandalism should not be done without a disinterested party making the decision. That seems not to happen very much.

And while I am not at all familiar with the clitoris article and could just imagine the nasty pubescents running amok there, I found JFW's comments on this page disturbing.

JFW said "I'm not involved anymore (have given up), so I blocked both for 24h."

- Not what I could consider to be a disinterested party and in any event an outrageous basis for blocking them (maybe there was a better unstated reason)

and then when called to account by Fred Bauder responded

I was under the impression that the third revert was the blockable offense. I don't really care, I'll unblock these characters on your authority.

 * If JFW doesn't know the rules, how can s/he be entrusted to enforce them
 * If JFW doesn't care about the situation, how can s/he continue to hold this authority over others.

I think the threshold for these unilateral blockings is too low. I think many people entrusted with the power are not coping well. And I hope some reforms are considered. Libertas

 * I know nothing about this other than what I have read here, but I have to say it reflects poorly on all concerned and the response to Fred Bauder beggars belief. We admins need to know the rules before applying them. I'm inclined to think that blocking logged-in users should require some kind of consensus (maybe using this page?) rather than being at an uninformed or potentially biased whim. Filiocht 10:03, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Irate broke the 3RR and blanked an attempted solution at the clitoris (censored) article. Cookiecaper, I note, had not done four reverts and believe I miscounted there - apologies to him. The article needs sorted and while attempts have been made I find it shocking that the argument there has gone on for months without getting any closer to resolution. People continuing the edit war on the article itself need to be stopped, though in this isntance I see Cookiecaper as someone attempting to suggest a fix (though one that some do not agree with). I used to be involved in the discussion too but have now withdrawn, knowing that a solution isn't just around the corner. Do not be harsh on JFW as he too has been party to the ridiculousness of the discussions there. violet/riga (t) 11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Your liying and you still owe me an appology. As yuo do for you previous attempt to slag me off. I suggest you should be blocked until you learn not to be so rude, stupid and dishonest. That you've decided to make stuff up about clitoris, to cover your shamefull behaviour, is typical. A non warning vote had been taken long ago.--Jirate 13:35, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

JFW should make very sure s/he knows the applicable policies before blocking someone. Especially in cases of "not being involved anymore" (in such a case I do not think any intervention is advisable). Otoh, admins are "not expected to be perfect", and honest mistakes will be corrected quickly by other admins. Admins are expected to have an above-average level of policy-adherence and civility, and are naturally expected to apologize to those affected by their mistakes. If the war gets out of hand, just protect the page. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * But it should be admins that are not part of the argument that look into rule contravention. violet/riga (t) 13:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not concerned with blaming anyone. People who repeatedly revert the same material day after day, or otherwise engage in lengthy and fruitless edit wars are a bane. That someone may error in such cases as to a particular rule is understandable. However efforts should be made to avoid such errors and if noticed they ought to be corrected. Fred Bauder 11:12, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, (t) opinions should not be given any weight it seems to be a spitful, vendictive and incompetent user. Some method of warning users and admins not take anything said by this user seriously, and that all admin priviliges be removed, if they have any.--Jirate 13:35, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

 * Users are far more likely to be censured in some way for repeat violations of Civility and No personal attacks, since these are Wikipedia's most important policies. I strongly recommend that you review these policies. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  15:12, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I recomend you learn what they mean as well and stop assuming your within them because you think your a nice boy. I'll bet you the Vile Trige doesn't think that it's nomination of myself and the comments here violate the No Personal Attacks rule but I think they do. I also think that not answering questions is incivil. Wikipedia rules protect the passively rude while perscuting the active. They are also open to social manipulation as demonstated here.--Jirate 15:21, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * nonsense. WP policy rightly persecutes 'active' incivility. You are abusing this noticeboard for some sort of personal crusade. If you have issues with users, there are other channels for that. And the sooner you realize that rudeness will get you nowhere, the better for everybody. dab (ᛏ) 15:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm here disussing a admins abuse of their power/influence. That you think that is a personal attack is worrying. That you think the rudness is only a problem when it's is active is extremely worrying.--Jirate 15:52, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

Yes, an adminstrator, but adminstrators are not summarily striped of authority should they make a mistake or two. Irate and Cookiecaper are the users who were edit warring. That they committed no technical violation of the 3RR does not take away from the background of disruptive behavior involved. Fred Bauder 14:11, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well perhaps they should be to weed out the trigger happy ones. I would contest the Vile Triga normal mode of operation is the most disruptive.--Jirate 14:23, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)

My feeling is that the 3RR is far too lenient. Those people were clearly edit warring, the rules should permit them to be blocked in order to discourage loutish abuse of edit powers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:40, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, frankly. It just means you have to do 5 diffs (one for the original edit, and then one for each of the reverts) - and then you usually have to do another 4 or so (if they have a single opponent), document the lot, etc. It can take quite a while (during which one cannot be doing the fun stuff - i.e. creating content). Alas, I doubt the rule will be changed. Noel (talk) 15:04, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Well of course your welcome to campaign for a change in the rules, but unless the rules are changed the only people who broke them are admins.--Jirate 14:45, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC). PS I regard loutish behaviour as not answering quetions when they are asked and using WIkipedia as a social get together.

 * oh dear an even more subjective judgement. Who defines "clearly edit waring"? The 3RR rule works as well as anything could and prevents revert wars from going critical. That is all you can do. People are always going to dissagree. If you see something in an aticle you think is worng you are going to want to change it. 6 reverts latter there is no option open but to disscuss this on the talk page or make comprimise edits. Geni 15:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jirate: I have no idea what "questions" you're talking about. Please discuss any issues you have with me in a sensible manner either on my talk page or somewhere else appropriate - I have done nothing wrong other than point out the problems you have caused. I also ask you to stop bastardising my username as I see it as a personal attack. violet/riga (t) 21:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * You've accused me, on this page, of breaking the 3RR. I have not done so, you seem to maintain that I have. Point me to the breach or retract your allegation. As for problems caused, I haven't caused any IMHO, it is you that have. That you consider me playing around with the letters in your sig offensive, compared with your antics, is laughable. I have no idea what the first phrase of your statment is about unless it a smoke screen to distract from the ensuing dishonesty.--Jirate 22:27, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * I see your edits on clitoris (censored) as a violation of the 3RR, though you'll probably be pedantic about that. I wouldn't be saying you don't cause problems if you didn't - just looking at the way you handle comments on your talk page shows parts of that.  As for my first statement, well clearly you are forgetting what you yourself have posted above. violet/riga (t) 22:38, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Pedantic, you mean apply the rule as it is written down rather than in your own Violet World. The quality of you arguments in general is up to the level of your second sentence. I'm not forgeting what I posted, though I am capable of discerning from it, what is addressed to you and what is general comment, and your not refering to any bits addressed to you. That you don't like the way I handle my comments doesn't make me a bad person, though your behaviour here in my opinion is putting you on the way.--Jirate 22:49, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I really cannot be bothered to discuss anything further with you and feel you can't say anything bad against me. Cut out the personal attacks and I hope to not have to come across you again. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Truely pathetic. --Jirate 18:19, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)