text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive6

Contents: February 5, 2005 - February 11, 2005

User:Bell Bottom Blues
Will someone please investigate whether or not User:Bell Bottom Blues is a sockpuppet of User:Blackcats? Thanks -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

sysop blocking a contributor for personal reasons
Hello. My name is Amir, an occasional contributor to Wikipedia. I just wanted to post the following here so that everybody knows that how pathetic and small-minded some sysop can be. This guy blocked me because i educated him, free of charge, on my personal talk page, to which he had invided himself over:

This person's edit to the Bahá'í Faith article was "Attention: The pictures that you see on this page, as it is obvious from the colours, are aesthetically enhanced pictures for the purpose of religious promotion. Enjoy the "pretty pictures" but keep in mind that they are retouched pictures."

What he quotes above is correct. When he made the same edit, I blocked him, as I promised him I would. I have no stake in the article, I'm not Bahai, the only edits I've ever made to the article (and I'm not even sure if it was to this article, but possibly others in the Bahai series) was to revert vandalism. His edits are not only vandalism, they're anti-Bahai. His edits to Christians in Iran are of a piece. His claims that I'm doing any of this for personal reasons are bogus. RickK 08:25, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * But why should you block him? His addition seems factual rather than POV (although I can see better ways of making the point he wants to make). POV insertion is not, of itself, a blockable offence - if it was we'd have a much much longer Block Log. It seems like a run of the mill content dispute rather than something he should be blocked for, jguk 08:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You think this edit is factual?!!!!???? RickK 08:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Say what?!? The "pretty pictures" bit is demonstratively that person's POV. Totally inappropriate. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The pictures certainly look retouched to me, jguk 08:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The first and second images appear to be the sort of work a good professional photographer can produce, while the third is pretty clearly a computer rendering. But that doesn't excuse condescending remarks about "pretty pictures" as the article lead, and it particularly doesn't excuse repeated insertions of those remarks.

 * Not to mention the little matter of what appears to be five reverts over the course of fourteen hours. --Carnildo 09:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * And an examination of the discussion page of that article reveals that it was other users who brought up the subject of artificiality of the pictures, and after that was discussed the note was inserted in the article.

Whether there's a 3RR violation is a separate issue. So is whether there are better ways of making the point than referring to "pretty pictures" (there are!). My comment is that this is a content dispute, and that Amir should not have been blocked for adding that comment to the article. (Whether he should have been blocked for 3RR violation is a separate matter.) jguk 10:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * If there was no violation of 3RR, he should not have been blocked just because the admin thought that his edits were POV. If he does it consistently, then the case would go to arbcom. Since when admins got the authority to block people for what they personally think is POV edit? Is that some new kind of policy? OneGuy 10:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't see how images being retouched can promote a certain religion. RickK, instead of blocking him, you may have had more success if you explained to him why you found his edits inappropriate and why he runned the risk of being blocked. Mgm|(talk) 13:27, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

The description of the pictures as retouched is factual. The way in which this statement was made was slanted. Amir's edits on Baha'i-related articles taken as a piece are slanted against the religion. I think RickK used the discretion granted him to warn this user he stood to be blocked for continuing to make slanted edits. I support this action. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:02, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It does not matter whether the edit is factual or not. "Factual" is not the issue here.  The issue is  No original research and  Neutral point of view.  If Amir is infering from the colors that the photo was retouched, then his claim is an example of original research.  If, on the other hand, Amir can cite some source (according to this article; according to that website), then the claim can be made.  Note, it would be made in the "According to ..." style, which would also ensure compliance with the NPOV policy because it admits that others disagree.  Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, and these two policies are what keep us honest. Slrubenstein 15:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The pictures are not the issue. Amirs edits were vcrap, of course, and should just have been rolled-back. This is not what we are discussing here, though. The point under discussion is that to Amir's question RickK replied This is not something a sysop should say, ever. A sysop should rollback and point to the NPOV policy. Then he should warn that repeated policy violation will lead to blocking. If the user still persists, call the issue to the attention of other editors who will revert the edits quickly. "I am a sysop and will block you because what you say is obviously crap" is not right, imho, even in cases where the edit in question is, indeed, obviously crap. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And who are you to determine what is appropriate and what is not? --Amir 07:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a sysop who will block you if you do it again.

 * I agree with you, 100%. Slrubenstein 17:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * They're retouched, like postcard photos that tourists buy. My point is that it isn't unusual and is almost impossible to say without sounding like you're making a big deal out of it (for instance, inferring as Amir does that the retouching has some significance). Amir is clearly deliberately making a big deal out of it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The article content dispute isn't what's being discussed here though. It's whether sysops should block (or even threaten to block) because the quality of an edit that is clearly not vandalism is thought to be poor, jguk 17:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with you, too -- this is not at all a valid block. My comment above was just taking advantage of this discussion, as it has revealed some serious confusion over what even constitutes a bad edit. Slrubenstein 17:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked Amir1. There seems to be consensus here that the block was improper, I agree with this. Rhobite 19:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Since my intergrity has been questioned on this issue I will stay away from all of the vandalism that the User makes in the future. I hope someone else will keep track of him, because his edit history is one of contstant anti-other-religions rants and vandalism. Did anybody even bother to check the other things he's edited? RickK 19:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello all. Thank you for the unblock and for having bothered to discuss this situation a bit.  I want to first say I am sorry for having reacted to Rick's unfriendly approach the way I did.  I should have handled it smoothely. Regarding Rick's calling my edits on Bahai articles "vandalism", this truly hurts.  Even if that one page-top note can be classified as such, still I have a long list of other contributions to those articles.  Because of my contributions (and others modifying or editing or improving my contributions) the articles are now slowly moving from the state of being pathetic religious promotional leaflets, into something that is gradually resembling worthy encyclopedic articles; but they are not there yet.

 * I also would like to point out that the logic of what I told Rick isn't wrong. Adminship is not a license to kill.  In an open Internet collaborative project, the general mentality should be to encourage people to stay not to treat them in a way to make them leave the project.

 * Finally, I have nothing against any religions, although I am myself irreligious (mind you, not "anti-religious" there is a disticntion), and while I believe people should be free to practice any faith they want, I have a propensity to fight religious or ideological promotional deceptions and try to expose them or at least balance them out with some facts to the best of my ability. If in this process my verbage has been substandard, one can help to improve it, but labeling it "vandalism" is clearly not fair.  --Amir 22:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, guess what? There's now a full-out revert war going on at Bahá'í Faith. Y'all have fun dealing with it. RickK 09:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * That's an excellent way of washing your hands of any blame for escalating the edit war. Do you think it's possible that your block and your confrontational attitude worked to fan the flames here? Rhobite 20:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nope, not a single bit. It was the undoing of the block that precipitated the problem, because you gave Amir1 free rein.  RickK 21:42, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jtdirl
Three revert rule violation on Pope John Paul II. hist
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:
 * 7th revert:

Removal of the honorific style "His Holiness".

Consider for Lamest edit wars ever as well.

Reported by: jguk 12:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see in the time it's taken me to write this User:Proteus has already blocked him! jguk 12:42, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed. The last revert was actually made immediately after I'd warned him he was risking a block by reverting a ridiculous number of times. To be quite honest I'm amazed at such behaviour from a fellow administrator. Proteus (Talk) 12:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Robert Blair 3RR violation
Folks, I'd like to report a 3RR violation by User:Robert Blair. The reverts in question are partial reverts, please pay attention to certain sentences in the first paragraph of the introduction. See in particular sentences starting "Some argue that non-circumcision..." onwards. I'll give as the first link a diff of the two similar versions, and as the second a diff between the alternative version. Note also that "207.69.137.207" is known to be Blair.

 * 1) 18:59 4 Feb substantially reverts edit made for NPOV.
 * 2) 02:24 5 Feb substantially reverts edit/revert made for NPOV and removes disputed notice!
 * 3) 03:53 5 Feb is almost a pure revert, undoing revert.
 * 4) 13:24 5 Feb reverts revert and again removes the disputed notice.

The user has been warned about the 3RR on his talk page, previously. - Jakew 15:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * seems to be more than a 24 hour period, hence no 3RR unless the rules are interpreted loosely hang on a sec, the second diff is an anon IP. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:20, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * These four diffs violate the 3RR  , and I included one anonymous IP adress (3rd diff), since it had an almost identical revert, and it seems reasonable to believe that it is the same user. I have blocked the user for 12 hours only instead of 24, taking into account the uncertainty with the anon IP. The block and can also be seen the other way, and if another admin sees the need to unblock, please be my guest. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:40, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, as noted above, this IP block is known to be Blair's. When challenged previously about his logging in and out, Blair explained that his computer did not, for some reason, hold a login. If there's any doubt, compare 207.69.* edits in the edit history with Blair's in this or any circumcision-related article. - Jakew 16:44, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Extended block to 24 hours in view of IP adress info, also there are comments on User talk:Robert Blair that the user is also identical with the user Robert the Bruce, which is not allowed to edit circumcision related articles, see Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. In any case, I think a 24 hour block is OK. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:51, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think Robert Blair is Robert the Bruce, due to their diametrically opposed points of view. Rhobite 20:54, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Nor me. What is the appropriate course of action when a user evades a ban, as below? - Jakew 22:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Still editing
Please be aware that the same user is still editing, despite being blocked (still as 207.69.*). See: here. Additional: as I understand Wiki's blocking system, it would appear that the user logged in and then dialled up again to get a new IP for purposes of the edit: - Jakew 11:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 03:30, 6 Feb 2005, Chris 73 blocked #16021 (expires 03:30, 7 Feb 2005) (Autoblocked because you share an IP address with "Robert Blair". Reason "3RR and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce".)

Willy on Wheels returns? User:RdSmith4
has been moving page X to "Page X has been vandalized". Carrp 16:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't me! :-) I'm cleaning it all up. — Dan | Talk 16:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

GNAA script
Thought I'd better mention this here: The GNAA have written a script called "Wikimolestia" to add minor errors to various articles. So far, it messes up grammar in a fairly obvious manner and changes random numbers. It first ran from 24.73.149.165 - see its contribs for an idea of how the script works, and be on the lookout for it in the future, as they've threatened to continue using it via various anonymous proxies. Blocking on sight would seem to be indicated in this case. — Dan | Talk 21:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * They also change numbers. E.g. remove two years on a date, or 420->380, etc. Thanks for the warning -- Chris 73 Talk 00:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

This vandalism script was written for the Wikipedia community by User:Rolloffle. Thanks, Rolloffle! silsor 00:55, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I guess they have found a list of proxies to post this through. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Aren't we blocking these on sight now? Ambi 04:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know... if we are: excellent! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have been blocking on sight. Only three incarnations so far; feel free to list new ones below. — Dan | Talk 05:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have a policy to block all GNAA members on sight? We have better things to do than clean up after selv-proclaimed trolls, even if they happen to make a non-troll edit once in a while. Thue | talk 09:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue here. The issue here is that they are using a bunch of proxies to crap all over Wikipedia. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I know it isn't specifically what is going on here, but given that we believe he has written a wikipedia vandalism script I am still wondering why he hasn't been blocked long ago. Thue | talk 12:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * On one hand, there's the argument that doing this would be the same as arresting the author of a security exploit. On the other hand, he clearly intended this script to be used, even including a crawling function for mass vandalism, and the script did get used, either by himself or by him deliberately giving it away.  There is precedent for a hard ban on people who run vandalbots (Wik).  It would be nice if he would come out and say something before anybody bans him. silsor 19:59, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

We might want to check these lists: Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.samair.ru/proxy/proxy-17.htm
 * http://www.proxyblind.org/list_proxy.shtml

 * See Wikipedia talk:Bots. The wait is only for the block table access fix I sent to wikitech-l to be applied to en.wikipedia.org (it didn't make it into yesterday's security upgrade alas), so that having a larger block table doesn't cause any slowdowns. I've got 1540 to block in the first run, I think that should slow down most vandalbots and such enough that they aren't a serious problem anymore; If that's not enough I'll add in a few more lists until it is. --fvw *  19:34, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Marcus2
Three revert rule violation on Wladislaus IV of Poland.

--Emax 00:47, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1.
 * 2.
 * 3.
 * 4.

 * As this user has been discussing on the talk page, I would prefer not to. I think we'll lock the page instead on this one. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * For the exact reason i was blocked 3 days ago (and i also have used the talk page).--Emax 12:26, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:198.165.90.75
On Bahá'u'lláh

(Geni 07:10, 6 Feb 2005)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

 * Blocked as an open proxy. And sign your requests please. Jayjg (talk)  07:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Darn ok then Geni 07:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Front page goatse and Mr. Diaper?
There's a twist to the front page hack: one user (User:Spoogie) uploaded the image, but a different one (User:Hooxer) added it to the front-page template a short time later. Presumably they were working in concert or mutual sockpuppets, trying to make it harder to check contributions. If this was the intention it seemed to have worked: Hooxer was blocked indefinitely, but not Spoogie (until now; all his edits were vandalism in any case).

Another interesting point is that a Sud-Pol (Mr. Diaper) sockpuppet (User:Lampo) was uploading a couple of images at around the same time that Spoogie uploaded the goatse image and Hooxer added it to the front-page template. So (this is just wild speculation here), is it possible that three user accounts were used in concert instead of just two? Perhaps some developers could check IPs for Spoogie, Hooxer and Lampo between 13:30–14:30 UTC on Feb 3.

-- Curps 07:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Soska657
What about User:Soska657? -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:42, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chuck F / 203.112.19.195
User:Chuck F, who has just been given a 2 month block by ArbCom, is now editing anonymously from 203.112.19.195. RadicalSubversiv E 11:23, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I blocked this address as well as his other IP. For those who haven't followed the Chuck thing, Chuck mainly has two static IP addresses, which I don't believe have ever been used by another editor. I don't think it'll be a problem to block them for the duration of his 2 month ban. Chuck frequently uses open proxies to evade blocks, so we will have to continue watching his "hit list" articles like Ron Paul, Libertarian League, Libertarian socialism, Libertarian capitalism, and Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. Admins who see an anonymous IP removing content from these and other libertarian-related articles should check if it's an open proxy, and if it is, block it indefinitely. Make sure to note it so that Chuck's two-month ban can be reset. Rhobite 20:52, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

My userpage
Could an admin please turn my user page into a redirect to my talk page? (It's protected.) Vacuum c 19:28, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * It isn't protectedGeni 19:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I redirected for zher anyways. BrokenSegue 20:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne
Three revert rule violation on Carbon dioxide. [ hist]

 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:
 * 5th revert:
 * 6th revert:

Reported by: Vsmith 00:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Doesn't appear to have been warned about the 3RR, warned on his talk page. --fvw *  00:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 09:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Not so. JG has had multiple warnings about the 3RR and is fully aware of the rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Crichton#JonGwynne_breaks_the_3_reverts_rule

 * He has added another edit in which he claims No reversion whatsoever - completely new, however, the same contested info is re-inserted. See (a comparison of his edits before and following mine). Vsmith 16:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks very different to me . Certianly different enough not to count as a striaght revertGeni 16:24, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This isn't surprising. Frick and Frack (WMC and VS) have been harassing me both singly and in unison for quite some time now.  Everything they say should be taken with a healthy dose of skepticism - something of which neither of them approve.--JonGwynne 16:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 17:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) Supporting Vsmith: JG has indeed made a substantive revert, disguised with other material. Please can the admins check these carefully: the disputed text The actual increase in overall atmospheric CO2 is 110 ppvm - which, by itself, represents 0.01% of the total volume of Earth's atmosphere.... Some environmentalists object to attention being drawn to the proportion of the increase because they feel it it an attempt to marginalize the increase. They prefer to point to the 40% figure, possibly because it is larger and seems much more dramatic than 0.01%. has been re-inserted in these reverts, which JG has mendaciously attempted to assert are not reverts. He has already been warned today for breaking 3RR: how many more is he going to get away with?

 * I think the real question is how much more censorship and vandlism are you going to be allowed to commit. Perhaps the admins will take a look at the numerous complaints of you imposing your POV on various pages here and decide that your objections are groundless.--JonGwynne 23:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The closest to this in the version it is claimed he reverting to would be "Because carbon dioxide is an atmospheric trace gas, the actual increase in the quantity of atmospheric CO2 is 110 ppvm - or 0.01% of the total volume of Earth's atmosphere." This has been servearly bulked out. There are also a large number of text changes so I feel this goes beyond a complex revert. Geni 17:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (William M. Connolley 18:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)) This and  both re-introduce the disputed text I listed.

Despite the warming yesterday, JG has broken the 3RR rule again, this time on Temperature record of the past 1000 years [history] with:

 *
 *
 *
 *

 * Once again, WMC's mendacity (or carelessness, depending on one's interpretation of his errors) is on display. If he had taken the time to compare the article versions in question, he'd have clearly seen the differences between them and he wouldn't embarrass himself making unsubstantiated claims.  Or perhaps he did and made the claims anyway. --JonGwynne 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 1 against 2
 * 1 against 3
 * 1 against 4
 * 2 against 3
 * 2 against 4
 * 3 against 4 (note: this is the only match and is clearly labelled as a "revert")
 * --JonGwynne 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

JGs editing style has now lead to carbon dioxide being protected. (William M. Connolley 21:20, 8 Feb 2005)

 * Funny, I was going to say that it was the persistent censorship of valid data that drew admin attention to that page. Still, those of us who are interested in "getting it right" are proceeding to do just that.  Yet William is nowhere to be seen...  except here inventing things to complain about.--JonGwynne 07:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 8 hours. silsor 21:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Imposter
There is a new user User:Gsornenplatz (notice the "s" not a "z") who has on his user page: "Screw the arbcon as they are a clown court. I will get revenge by running another vandalbot. Wik 16:25, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)".

Just thought you should know. Carrp | Talk 16:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He is vandalizing (moving to random strings) right now. Jordi·✆ 16:33, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hadal blocked them for 24 - I would have made it permanent, actually. Noel (talk) 16:39, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I just did make it permanent. The account is obviously a sock, obviously created for no purpose other than to vandalize, and is spoofing another username.  The last of these is sufficient for an indefinite block, IMO, since we have a policy against confusing usernames.  Isomorphic 20:56, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the history of the Atheism article
Sam_Spade has been vandalizing the atheism article today, and seems bent on insisting on completely rewriting the article to suit his POV against consensus. He's been reverted twice by two responsible editors today already. Sam has a long history of POV obstructionism at the atheism article and his actions have resulted in page being protected many times, most recently by MGM. Please have a look and consider protecting the article again. I see no other option to prevent Sam from engaging in more vandalism.--FeloniousMonk 17:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * POV is not vandalism. I'm trying to keep an eye on this article. But input from other admins is much appreciated. Mgm|(talk) 19:00, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Mgm and I have both left remarks to that general effect on the relevant talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:53, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gsornenplatz
This page-move vandal has been listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users as a Willy on Wheels reincarnation; however, he left a note signed "Wik" on his userpage - is this someone posing as Wik, or Wik himself? I doubt it's possible to know for sure (and it probably doesn't matter), but perhaps someone has more insight here than I do. — Dan | Talk 19:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Imposter. silsor 20:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I just blocked the account indefinitely as a username spoof (I believe there's plenty of precedent for this.) I don't know or care who made the account, but it was clearly intended for nothing but trouble.  Isomorphic 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good, I was about to do that myself. Imposters are blocked indefinitely. Jayjg (talk)  21:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course, Gzornenplatz/Wik will still be editing - but I'm sure he'll use a much less obvious sockpuppet name that this! jguk 21:55, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stormfront
Is there anything specific we are supposed to do when Stormfront people post articles? I am thinking of Wiedergutmachung in particular. Adam Bishop 20:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have started a discussion on Talk:Wiedergutmachung requesting sources for the article content. silsor 20:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Eventually planned Neonazi-Attack
Dear english Wikipedians, hope this is the right website for this:

On http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=173563&page=4&pp=10 Neonazis plan to "invade" Wikipedia and manipulate articles in their purposes.

Heaving read and analysed the whole thread, I think this has to be taken serious. Please distribute this warning in the right channels and manners, I´m not experienced in this.

Greetings from Germany, and tell us how we can help if necessary! Benutzer:Jesusfreund on German Wikipedia, --217.95.54.218 21:23, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This is nothing new. All of the Islamic related articles here are already infested with Islamic Apologist POV pushers.  The admins do not seemed too concerned about it, however.  It seems you can POV push all day long, but don't you DARE revert that fourth time in 24 hours or the long wikipedia arm comes down on you. Looks like they, like the syscom members, only go after the easy prey.

 * In any case, I already saw a small anonymous edit on the David Duke page today. Someone already is trying to whitewash Duke's image. 168.209.97.34 07:44, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There we have some anti-Semites claiming that Jews "took over" Wikipedia, and here we have another one claiming that Muslims "took over" Wikipedia. Interesting huh? OneGuy 21:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I never said or hinted at the fact that any one group has taken over wikipedia. However, certain groups of articles are currently being dominated by certain people.  While the Muslims appear to be all over Jewish related articles the Jewish appear to live Islamic articles pretty much alone.  I find very little Jewish influence in Muhammad, Islam, etc etc. 168.209.97.34 08:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That's again you being paranoid, like thatt stormfront site that claims Jews took over Wikipedia. I have seen many Jews edit Islam related articles, some of them NPOV and some not (prime example of that was User:RK OneGuy 19:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * scary. put some holocaust/nazism related articles on your watchlists, everybody! Some of them seem to be realistic about their chances for success, though:

 * I'm curious to hear about successful editing attempts, but I wouldn't be surprised if any attempt is futile. It might be a better idea to create our own wiki.
 * Been watching this for the last few days. I don't think it is going to be too seriousGeni 22:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (yes, do that, please!) :oP dab (ᛏ) 21:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hello dab. Is your posting immediately after mine and considering the nature of my article, just a coincidence?  --JoergenF 22:31, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Personaly I fail to see the significance after all you are not part a Neonazi invasion.Geni 22:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, I am not Neo-Nazi, but I asked dab a question. Do you have multiple ID's?  --JoergenF 22:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Since dab didn't post the original directing your question at dab made no sense.Geni 22:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, OK. Thank you for your quick response.  Whoever dab is, he must be a very important person to have such an attentive and responsive secretary.  Give my regards to dab and have a nice day.  --JoergenF 22:52, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

what the hell is this about? is someone being a bit paranoid? the above was copied from WP:VP. I didn't copy it. I only replied to it. I don't think you are a neonazi, ffs, but I do not know what your wiedergutmachung stuff is doing on this page either. dab (ᛏ) 22:58, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wait a minute, User:OneGuy copy-pasted this from VP, apparently indeed in reply to JoergenF. So, it appears OneGuy (not me) was insinuating that Joergen may be part of this 'attack'. Not that it matters, though. Joergen appears remarkably slow to grasp the well-meant hints towards 'cite your sources' on Talk:Wiedergutmachung, and may, indeed, be trolling for suckers. dab (ᛏ) 23:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I posted it here in case some other admins are not aware of this. This person just recently joined Wikipedia and was able to find his way to this board? All his edits are related to Holocaust and other such articles OneGuy 00:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * as I said, it does hardly matter whether JoergenF is consciously part of the stormfront "attack", or if he is just coincidentally nurturing a pov similar to theirs. he may find people a little more impatient because of the stormfront context, and a little more insistent on precise citation of sources, but otherwise this is just business as usual: write about whatever you want, but keep it from the neutral point of view (no rhetorics!), and cite your sources. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you please judge?
Dear fairminded Admins, can you please take a look at Wiedergutmachung and its short history and the discussion area? I am not jumping to fast conclusions yet, but I feel that it is best if bring it up here sooner rather than later. Best regards, --JoergenF 21:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please help me!
I am a victim of continues vandalisms and abuses because I want my password to be the same as my login name. You can read my case in my [user page]. Also please read [my request]. I hope some admin is going to help me. Faethon22 21:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Wikipedia accounts are not urinals.  Please change your password to something private. silsor 22:14, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Practically speaking, I don't see how Faethon*'s accounts differ from open proxies, myself. —Korath (Talk) 22:37, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm with Korath, this is indeed the equivalent of an open proxy, and I am inclined to block these accounts as soon as the password is made public. If that is not acceptable, I encourage anyone to log into them and change the password to a random wallop on the keyboard. —Stormie 08:46, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's what I do when I'm the first one to get to the accounts. I don't know what people have done to the other accounts. --Carnildo 09:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you want to run with scissors, don't cry when you put your eye out. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The guy is clearly a troll. If he wanted his password to be the same as his username, why did he announce that on his talk page? OneGuy 23:07, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe someone hacked it. After all, if you're that dumb to make your password your username... your stupidity is your own demise. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:23, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Ditto Cyrius. If you want your password to stay unchanged, you have to keep it a secret. Sorry. There's not much we admins can do to protect your password if you insist on announcing it to all and sundry. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:38, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Furthermore, a look at user contributions shows that this person has edited only (1) his/her own user page and user talk page, (2) User talk:Andrewa, (3) Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Iasson, and (4) the Administrators' noticeboard. And if you have any doubt he/she is a troll, just read that third one. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:45, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems someone has already changed this person's password to something else. BrokenSegue 00:13, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I created Faethon32 WITHOUT posting my password, and someone robbed my account again!
Have a look at [Faethon32] account! Whats happening there? Isnt this against policy? I have created Faethon33, and they robbed it too, again without postin my password! Faethon 21:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * The policy is to select a password no-one's likely to guess. What has been done to you is wrong, but just as you share some blame if you get burgled after you leave your front door unlocked, you share some blame here, jguk 21:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * (via edit conflict) Well, let's see. You made multiple accounts following a regular pattern of naming, each with a password identical to its username. People logged in to these accounts and changed the password. Instead of choosing a secure password, you came to this high-visibility page to make a big fuss about how people were hijacking your accounts and how you wanted administrators to secure a password you couldn't be bothered to secure yourself. Many people saw your fuss and thus knew exactly what you were doing. Why are you at all surprised that anyone figured out the password for your latest account?

 * If you want your password to stay unchanged, make it something other than your username. If you persist in choosing unsecure passwords, you have only yourself to blame when your accounts are hijacked. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:04, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * These are pretty polite responses to an obvious troll :)) OneGuy 22:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, Your stupidity is your own demise -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:10, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Take a look at the shenanigans on User:Faethon34's user page. Why is he under the impression that creating an account is so difficult that someone would want to "share" his? Although I'd like to assume good faith, I think it's fairly safe to assume that this is not accidental disruption. Carrp | Talk 22:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He is clearly doing it deliberately. All his IPs should be blocked for a week everytime he creates a new count OneGuy 22:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:66.20.28.21
This user, subject to arbitration committee restrictions has now created a userid User:Dixietwat (which British users will probably find funny) and is carrying on his agenda. DJ Clayworth 22:35, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You don't seem to be a developer. Can you provide proof of this? Mgm|(talk) 10:12, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not a developer and I don't have proof, but User:Dixietwat has an editing pattern exceptionally similar to User:66.20.28.21. He made an identical bizarre addition to Republican Party of Kansas, also Bob Dole, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Kay Summersby. His very first edit on Wikipedia was to revert a reversion I had done on 66.20.28.21 and make a sarcastic comment about me.

 * Also he is not technically under a block - the arbitration committee ruled that he could continue editing provided he did not make controversial edits and stayed away from certain articles. I gave 66.20.28.21 a 24hr block a few days ago for violating these conditions, and I've reverted his edits and reminded him that we are watching him. I wasn't going to give him another block unless he made more controversial edits. DJ Clayworth 15:02, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need help deleting image on Polish wiki
I listed Image:ShishaPangma.jpg on WP:CV on January 22 as it came from. Great picture but the source site does not mention that the photo can be used elsewhere. I emailed the image owner (off summitpost.org) and received a response back where he declined permission for using it on Wikipedia. I deleted the image off the English site but the image is also on the Polish wiki at pl:Grafika:ShishaPangma.jpg and used in the relevant article. I don't know Polish so I need someone to help me get it deleted there as well. Thanks. RedWolf 05:57, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * The people over there seem to be on it - there's now a large yellow notice with red warnings on it. Noel (talk) 17:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That notice was there before I deleted the image off the English site. Since I don't know Polish so I don't know what the warning is really about. RedWolf 01:07, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Many Europeans understand English - if you were to just write an English commentary there somebody would probably understand. Thue | talk 22:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation by OneGuy
OneGuy is currently on a whitewash Islamic POV pushing mission on Aisha. He is trying to add unproven and unclaimed statements to try to soften the blow to Muhammad's image from having sex with a 9 year old girl. He was warned on his 3rd revert that one more would be a violation, but he continued. He has made 4 edits within one hour 168.209.97.34 08:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule doesn't apply to vandalism. You are vandalizing the page by removing factual information that usual Muslim response is that Aisha was post-pubescent. See the talk page Talk:Aisha to see what another user Zora thinks of this anon. Note, this person is already on parole for vandalism Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 OneGuy 08:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * This user doesn't seem to think they're vandalizing. silsor 08:27, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Perhaps you should read what the definition of vandalism is. Also, you did not go to the Talk page until AFTER your 4th revert.  So don't pretend like you were trying to start a discussion.  Simple fact is that you violated the 3RR and I did not.  Do the crime, pay the fine.  Yes, OneGuy, rules do apply to you too. 168.209.97.34 08:30, 8 Feb 2005

 * This user is POV editing, not vandalizing, in my opinion. silsor 08:32, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, he removed factual information from the article, see Talk:Aisha. Plus, the user is also on POV parole OneGuy 08:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Problem is, it's NOT factual information. Do see Talk:Aisha 168.209.97.34 08:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * "Remov[ing] factual information" from an article is not vandalism, it's a content dispute. Vandalism is blanking an article, or replaced the contents with "your mother {make up an insult}", or something like that. And you're been here long enough that you should know that. Noel (talk) 15:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * By the way, he's a self-proclaimed atheist so I doubt he's trying to whitewash Islam. silsor 08:47, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, that is what he says. Yet read what he writes.  See his edits.  95 percent of them are Islam related and most of those are trying to paint it in the best light possible.  Strange how he never edits the Atheism wikipedia article?? 168.209.97.34 09:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I am atheist because I don't believe in supernatural (gods, soul, angels, etc.), not because there are "errors" in the Bible or "problems" with Islam. I am not anti-religious. I am interested in topics related to Islam, especially because I have Muslim roommates. I am not interested in philosophical arguments about atheism. Why would I want to edit articles about "atheism"? If not believing in supernatural makes me atheist, then I am atheist. If it makes me something else, then I am that. That's the end my interest in that topic OneGuy 20:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 hour as it is a dispute and not vandalism, especially not "simple vandalism" which is acceptable under the 3RR. silsor 08:45, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Why the kid gloves? Other people who violated the 3RR get blocked for 24 hours. 168.209.97.34 08:57, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry to cut the gloating short. This is a very minor case, and he didn't think he was violating the 3RR.  If you read the top of the page, an administrator has the option to block for any length of time up to 24 hours.  Also, I am not other people's moms. silsor 09:10, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * If I ever violate the 3RR rule in the future and someone complains about it can I ask for you personally to deal with the issue?  If he didn't know what vandalism was, then he very well could have used the extra 23 hours to read up on wikipedia policy and procedures. I wish the "I didn't know I was speeding" excuse worked with our local traffic department. 168.209.97.34 09:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * No, if you do it you will be blocked for one week because you are already on arbcom parole Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34 ... sorry, I just like pulling his strings :)) OneGuy 21:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

although I have taken sides with OneGuy before, he does strike me as somewhat disingenious here. He should know that this was not vandalism, and I would have recommended a block of 24 h ( why are you saying "it's a dispute and not vandalism", silsor? It's neither, it's a straightforward 3RRvio). dab (ᛏ) 09:45, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * By "dispute" I meant an actual argument between two people - obviously not vandalism. Vandalism is a word that gets tossed around a lot in edit summaries when it shouldn't. silsor 22:09, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Some do delete stuff from the articles. Today, Dab blocked a user for removing things from Islam page . Dab reverted his changes, but he should have looked at this user's other edits because he did the same with other articles List of Islamic terms in Arabic, Liberal movements within Islam, Ayatollah. These changes were not reverted till five hours later OneGuy 22:22, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * as soon as they argue their point it ceases to be vandalism, but obviously blanking without comment is. Disputing a statement and then removing it is, well, a dispute. I don't remember actually blocking this user, but in any case, nobody complained about it, and I can't think of any justification of the edit you link. dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Thc420
See User talk:Thc420. The User is making threats against me. I blocked him for 24 hours and will do it again if he continues. RickK 08:48, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Block totally justified. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:02, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Justified, true, but blocking people who you are in conflict with yourself is not adviseable. Better ask someone else to do it in the future. :) Mgm|(talk) 10:15, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think this is a pretty clear case, but yes, verification by another admin is always good if the admin is involved in the dispute. In this case, RickK listed the incident here after blocking, so other admins can look at it. This is a good enough verification for me. -- Chris 73 Talk 13:39, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Improper speedy deletion
Someone has deleted Image:Goatse screenshot.jpg. This image is relevant to the poll on Talk:Goatse.cx (as well as the article itself). I don't see any speedy criteria that cover it. --SPUI (talk) 11:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks like it's been deleted a couple of times, by both Neutrality and Curps. If you re-upload it, please make sure you put a big note linking to the active poll/discussion. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately admins cannot undelete images. It will have to be reuploaded. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It won't have to be, though it no doubt will be. Reuploading images that have already been deleted according to process...and goatsex has been... is not appropriate. It's essentially the same as recreating a deleted article. - Nunh-huh 23:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Where was it deleted according to process? Which speedy criterion covers it? --SPUI (talk) 02:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It was deleted long before your arrival at Wikipedia, multiple times, each time a vandal uploaded it. That your version includes part of the Safari window doesn't make it a different picture. - Nunh-huh 05:32, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Rick.K?
This user account (note the ".") seems to have been created a few days ago to spoof User:RickK's user and talk pages. No other edits, and nothing links to it, but a block would seem like a good idea on principle (assuming it's not the real RickK that created it :) sjorford// 14:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've deleted the talk page and the user page and blocked the account indefinately. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 16:31, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Theresa. RickK 23:13, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

User:Emax
Three revert rule violation on Danzig (disambiguation). [ hist]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Note: I am one of the other parties in the reverts, hence I did not block him myself. The user is aware of the 3RR. On a previous 3RR block the user evaded the block using anonymous dialup IP's. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have reverted John version 2 times, and your (different) version 2 times, its not a broke of the 3rr. Pls take a look on -- 172.179.195.134 02:14, 9 Feb 2005

 * It is 3 reverts per anticle not per version. Blocked for 24 hours Geni 02:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * So look on the current version... Seems you have not even checked my edits... Its interesting that in this case  the user wasn't even warned and in that case  - only 1 hour block... Once again im banned for nothing. -- 172.176.207.70 02:27, 9 Feb 2005

 * You reverted 4 times then made an edit that produced what I think is a new version. BTW I would advise you to stop editing for the duration of the block. If you really feel the need to complain contact another admin by email or contact the mailing listGeni 02:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Stevietheman

 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)

I'm a party to this dispute - this is the third revert war Stevie has run on this page in the last week. User complained to sysops, was warned by User:RickK Stirling Newberry 03:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours -- Chris 73 Talk 03:04, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Addendum: Stirling Newberry also violated the 3RR, , , , and was also blocked by me for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Hence the danger of reporting 3RR abuses on this list! :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * 172 unblocked User:Stirling Newberry, claiming ambiguity. I assume the edit in question is, which reverted the addition of an anon in the previous edit. 172, next time could you please add a note here if you unblock someone after a 3RR block? Also, could another admin look at this? Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 04:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Tricky one. Unless that link was spam it was not simple vanderlism which is the only thing exempt from the 3RR. So yes it was technically a violation of the 3RR IMO. Aside from that when a block is dissputed (as in this case) the user remains unblockedGeni 05:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Is 172's claim of ambiguity documented someplace? a private email perhaps? an edit summary? If not, where is the evidence that the block was disputed, it appears to have just been reversed.--Silverback 06:49, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I only found out by accident through the block log: 03:46, Feb 9, 2005 172 unblocked User:Stirling Newberry (ambigious as to whether or not there is a 3RR vio). I have received no notice from 172 whatsoever. To be honest, I would have preferred a small note here or on my talk page, just so that I know. I also added a small complaint related to that to 172's talk page. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:57, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the spanking. I deserved it.  Not sure why Newberry wasn't also blocked, but that's neither here nor there.  His actions are well-documented, and I'll stack my work against his any day. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 04:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Further, Newberry's account is incorrect. There were two edit wars.  If an edit war begins at the first revert of a revert (my understanding), then certainly Newberry started them both.  In fact, he even declared a "war" the first go-around in his edit comment. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 04:37, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Can you two try to get to a compromise? Maybe ask other users for their input? The 3RR should also give both users some time to cool down. About Newberry's block: I also thought the block was appropriate, and don't quite understand why he was unblocked, as i don't think he was reverting vandalism. But, even lamer than an edit war is a blocking war, so I did not block him again. Anyway, please try to find a common solution. Happy editing (to both of you)-- Chris 73 Talk 14:04, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I will try my level best to gather more opinions from various editors so as a group we can make a final decision on the "Slashdot blurb" matter. Re: the external links, that's already at a resolved state, as far as I can tell, except that Newberry never spoke to his lack of deference to other editors. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk 00:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

151.203.229.38
this user broke the 3 revert rule of my edit (which essentially restored an old section) from 16:09 Feb 09 2005.

He was clearly aware of the rule, as my coments made it clear, also he visited the talk page where rmherman has put information about the rule, and said himself that THE RULE DOES NOT APPLY TO HIM since my edits were vandalism. They clearly were not, and moderator rmherman, who has different opinion from me, agrees on that (see my talk page). I have respected the rule, even though I was insulted repeatedly by that user. Will you enforce the rule on him?

- MarkSop 17:58, 9 Feb 2005

 * You inserted the claim that the bombing was a war-crime 6 times today, 151.203.229.38 reverted you 4 times. I've blocked you for 24 hours, and him for 20 hours. Jayjg (talk)  18:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not true that I have inserted the claim 6 times, in fact one of the edits does not contain the claim (and they differ in other, and there is substantial difference between the posts). The claim is there 5 times, and surely first time is not a "revert". Also, If you count all of my posts than you shold count all the reverts of 151, and he has reverted 5 times. So I have at most 4 reverts to "war crime" claim, if you count like that, and 151 has 5 reverts to the same version. Yet you have given me ban for 24 hours and to him 20 hours. Is it because you did not count well, or are there some other reasons? To punish me for complaining here? I was not aware of breaking the rules, and I was the one who stated respect for them, yet I get punished more - what is your justification for this? It stops well short of treating all sides equally, if you have given both the same ban, then it would perhaps be OK with your interpretation, but this way you stepped from this rule! Also, my password does not work anymore, perhaps I am still banned.

The way I was treated here is completely unfair. I did not break the rule, or at least did not believe that I did, as comments with my posts clearly indicate. The post that was reverted 4 times was substantialy different from the other 2 posts which merely changed one sentence. What is counted as a revert? Also, it is not true that I posted text "war crimes" 6 times - I have made 6 posts and one does not have reference to the war crimes at all, while wording is different in the oters. So, if you want to interpret that way, I made 5 posts wich you consider equivalent, while user 151 has made 5 reverts to the same version. And does the first post count as a revert, or only further posts? Wikipedia clearly states that people who violate 3 revert rule should be treated equally in the same incident, and so if you want to interpret that I broke the rule too (and this can be questioned), then why did I get 24 h and he 20 h? All that while I have stated that I respect the policy, while 151 has stated that it does not apply since my edits are "vandalism" (does he believe that or was that an abuse) - MarkSOp 04:15, 12 Feb 2005

Category:BMT Fourth Avenue Line stations
Atlantic Avenue-Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line station) redirects to Pacific Street (BMT Fourth Avenue Line station) (which it was moved to). The former has no categories listed. The only cause I can think of is that the original one was created twice, and only one was moved. --SPUI (talk) 22:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I got this sort of fixed. The category is OK now (I had to delete and restore the category to clear the bad entry), but now "what links here" on the redirect is showing nothing, even though some pages (e.g. the Admin Noticeboard Archive6) links there. Probably a database botch somewhere in there. Noel (talk) 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone has fixed the redirect appearing here (thanks), but now this category is showing up inside itself. I don't know what's going on here. --SPUI (talk) 02:27, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I tried deleting and recreating the page, that seems to have cleared whatever was causing the problem. silsor 03:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Neutra¦ity
User:Neutra¦ity just popped up, moving Neutrality's user page to his own and making some odd and random (now reverted) edits on various articles, particularly culture ones. He's been banned for 24 hours, though it should really have been indefinate. violet/riga (t) 22:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it's indefinite now. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See the last comments on the CheeseDreams and Everyking section above. Jayjg (talk) 22:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have requested an WP:RFAr on CheeseDreams. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article on a User Page
Can an administrator please look at: User:Nickshanks/United States

The user wrote on article on the page, which I guess is okay, but then placed the User page in two categories. I think there is a rule about doing that, i.e. User pages cant be in article categories. Opinins? I already talk paged the User. - Husnock 23:38, 9 Feb 05

 * Followup on that. This User has directed the text of Space program of the United States to his own User page.  I would revert it, but I know how Wiki feels about altering other people's User Pages.  This might be vandalism against the User and he might not even know about it.  In any event, lets fix it! - Husnock 23:45, 9 Feb 2005

As long as User pages are allowed to be POV, we can't allow them to be included in Categories. I would go in and delete them, regardless of the rule against editing other people's User pages. The User is violating the spirit of the NPOV policy. RickK 23:47, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. It used to be quite common for someone creating a large new article or doing a major rewrite on an old one to move the text to their userspace while doing so, so that they could work on it undisturbed. It looks as if that is what is happening here so I would "assume good faith" here and talk to the user before rampaging in to delete his work. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * I left the text on his User page but moved it also back to the Space Program article. This whole thing got started when the User used the "Move Article" feature to redirect the existing space article to his own user page.  In any event, a User page shouldnt be listed under categories.  I removed the caegories and advised the User via talk page. - Husnock 23:56, 9 Feb 2005

That sounds reasonable. I've come across Nickshanks before and he has always struck me as having good intentions. I am pretty sure that he moved the page into his userspapce in order to preserve the page history. However that wasn't the best way of doing it and he will now need an administrator's help to move the article back without losing that history. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:03, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Space Cadet
Three revert rule violation on Gdansk. [ hist] another 3RR in the Gdansk dispute. Since I am a part of the dispute, I did not block this user myself. The user frequently reverts pages without any edit summary or discussion on the talk page, making it diffiult to find a compromise (as it would not be difficult enough already) -- Chris 73 Talk 02:35, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

 * I make it 3 reverts plus what may or may not be a complex revert On blance I think it is. User blocked for 12 hours Geni 03:23, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Dnagod
Three revert rule violation on Transhumanism. Page history: Insertion of material Feb 09 at 2:57.
 * 1st revert: 20:41, 9 Feb 2005
 * 2nd revert: 22:25, 9 Feb 2005
 * 3rd revert: 22:55, 9 Feb 2005
 * 4th revert: 01:33, 10 Feb 2005

Reported by: SlimVirgin 04:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Dnagod is the user who has tried to organize Stormfront and members of his white supremacist and eugenics websites to sign up for Wikipedia. He has been trying to insert links into articles and onto talk pages of two white-supremacist websites that he is the webmaster of. On Transhumanism, editors have allowed him to do this under a "fringe" section in external links, but he wants to insert two further links to his manifesto too. These two links are being repeatedly deleted by a number of other editors, yet Dnagod keeps re-inserting them, and in so doing, has violated 3RR by reverting four times in about five hours at Transhumanism by inserting links to the manifestos of two white supremacist websites that he's the webmaster of. SlimVirgin 04:28, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg (talk) 04:38, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * You beat me by less than a minute (incerdently why does link 43 take me to Ludwig van Beethoven, Transhumanism history)?

 * Thank you, Jay. I just noticed the Beethoven thing. Link 43 was working fine before, with the left side showing Dnagod's first insertion of the websites that day. Now it's Beethoven. There's been some sort of weird glitch . . .  SlimVirgin 04:50, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Ah, no. There was an editing error in the link (several errors in the listing, actually), present in the original edit. I have fixed the errors, and also added timestamps for each revert. Also, referring to various links as "43" is not good, because if someone adds another link further up the page, the numbers in this section will change. Better is to tag them with names, e.g. original insertion, so you can't lose this way. Noel (talk) 14:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, yet again
Everyking just did a revert on the Ashlee Simpson article in violation of his ban on such behavior. He didn't even bother to put up an edit summary. I've blocked him for 24 hours. RickK 07:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * The "tough love" approach here, I think, is for the ArbComm to simply forbid EK from editing any Ashlee Simpson, ever. Nothing less will break this unhappy fascination, I think. Noel (talk) 13:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I can't agree with this. Though it's frustrating to work with EK, he nonetheless at least tries to make compromises when he edits. I've seen him revert, but that's not very often. After I blocked him he hasn't tried his two edit revert stunt again. I will oppose the ArbCom if they rule on this, even if I am a lone voice in the crowd. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Which would effectively be a ban on all subjects, since I would then leave. Everyking 14:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I used the phrase "tough love" for a reason. That suggestion was not meant to penalize you, but to help you. I'm sorry you don't seem to see it that way. Noel (talk) 14:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I cannot comprehend why you think I should be banned from editing those articles. Maybe you haven't familiarized yourself with the dispute much. I suppose in a sense it might help me to leave Wikipedia, as I'd have more time to devote to other things, but the purpose of my editing is not primarily to help myself, but to help others. Everyking 14:51, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I can comprehend it. True, I'm not nearly as familiar with the dispute as you, or those actively involved.  But it doesn't take an expert to see that you are an excellent editor on all other topics, yet completely lose all sense of proportion on Ashley Simpson related articles. If you really wanted to help Wikipedia you'd voluntarily stop editing those articles, and restrict yourself to doing all the other good work you do on Wikipedia, which is vastly more valuable than edit-warring over whether or not the fact that Simpson "co-wrote" her songs should be prominently included in the opening paragraph of the article. Jayjg (talk)  19:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Continuing spambot attacks
'I don't think there's general awareness of just how serious this is. The PHP page will probably need to remain protected indefinitely (weeks? months?). The last time it was unprotected on Feb 8, it was hit by 67 spam edits in 10 hours. The attack has has now spread to other pages like PL/I (mostly pages linked to from PHP) and those pages will also probably need to be vprotected almost indefinitely.

Nearly every attack by the bot uses a different anon IP and a different linkspam URL, so blocking and spamfiltering simply doesn't work. This needs to be an extremely high priority.

-- Curps 07:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There isn't much we can do, apart from revert, block, protect, and block open proxies. Hopefully the block list bug will be fixed soon so that fvw can run his bot again. --Slowking Man 07:59, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Except this spambot doesn't seem to be using open proxies... I noticed a couple of AOL IP addresses being used. So it would seem to be hacked zombie machines, and fvw's open proxy script wouldn't help. -- Curps 09:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're alone; this looks like a widespread, nasty, aggressive spambot. Someone using the exact same style of spam ("Incoherent fragment incoherent fragment more incoherence http://incoherent.fragmentDOT6xDOTto") has hit de:,, MeatBallWiki, and no doubt others that I haven't checked; it's probably going to spread. Harsh measures may be necessary. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:09, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's that predictable, wouldn't a quick patch to the Wikimedia software to filter it out work? --Carnildo 08:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If the links are repetetive, we can add the URLS to meta:Spam blacklist. If the links change every time, then this won't work. A brief check indicates that at least some links occur more frequently. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:13, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of the links are already listed. -- Chris 73 Talk 08:20, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * harsh measures? it's spam, right? so it should be possible to identify the responsible party. so I say we send a few wikipedians over to their office to shout at them. or have one of the inadvertently open proxies send us their log so we can find out where they really are, and generally make online life impossible for them. I don't know it it will work in this case, but it has worked before. dab (ᛏ) 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * That's more or less what I meant by "harsh measures". That, and (if it turns out to be warranted and possible) complaints to ISPs and the proper authorities. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I created Template:Spambot and Category:Protected against spambots to track the pages protected against this fuckwit. They should be deleted once a better solution is found. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I created Template:Spambot_notalk, when the page to be protected is itself a talk page (the spambot goes after those too). This avoid creating an extra bogus "Talk Talk" link (which the spambot will follow and spam to, as it did for Wikipedia talk talk:Recent additions 20). -- Curps 09:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See m:Talk:Spam blacklist for a list of domains seen so far. There are dozens, and new ones are used each time. Mostly subdomains of 6x.to and uni.cc, and also .ru and .su. User:Silsor is giving serious consideration to filtering all of 6x.to and uni.cc, despite the 3 or 4 legitimate external links that use them.

Nearly every attack uses a different anon IP (probably a hacked zombie machine) and a different linkspam URL domain. So traditional solutions of blocking IPs and spamfiltering domains don't work. -- Curps 08:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Th best solution would be to grab the entire list of open proxies and block them all indefinitely, like Fww was trying to do with his bot (but he left) OneGuy 08:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * He doesn't seem to be using open proxies. At least a couple of the IPs I saw were AOL IP addresses. So it seems to be hacked zombie machines, not open proxies. -- Curps 08:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Maybe what was suggested months ago should be taken seriously :) Disabling edits by unregistered users and stricter registration requirement (at least the second suggestion) OneGuy 12:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have blacklisted 6x.to and uni.cc for constant spam. The spam blacklist doesn't propagate instantly so wait for a bit. I am fixing the very few pages that have legitimate links to these domains. The only problem here might be legitimate links on other languages, but from looking at google, it seems that the other wikis have the exact same problems with 6x.to and uni.cc, and a fair bit of undeleted spam. silsor 08:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I see from an attempt to edit this section that the spam blacklist has propagated. Shall we try unprotecting one of the pages and seeing what happens? —Charles P. (Mirv) 09:24, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably not yet. The spambot also uses some .ru and .su domains.  We could try blocking all of .su (old Soviet Union, discontinued but then in 2001 they started selling domains), but the trouble is we have no way of searching Google to see if there are any legitimate ".su" external links.  The .ru domains would have to be case-by-case. -- Curps 09:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It looks like spambots are only hitting empty pages. Do you think it's safe to archive on Recent additions 20 or should I hold off for a bit? Mgm|(talk) 10:54, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * PHP and PL/I and PHP-Nuke were not empty pages. It is more accurate to say that the spambot doesn't care if the page is empty or not, it will create or overwrite in either case.  After deleting spam I created a legitimate Cybercash page and the bot came back and wrote on it.  Go ahead and create a real Recent additions 20 but then vprotect it again. -- Curps 11:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected PHP and will be monitoring it to see if the spambot is still active. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a long shot, but I don't suppose there's anyway we can get rid of that junk in the history, is there? At least the entries which are 100% duplicates of one another? One other disturbing thought occurs to me -- this happened right after nofollow was added to external links. Can we be sure this isn't someone with an interest in that debate (given that people have used the incident to argue on both sides of the issue, I can't say I think the person in question was successful, at any rate, if that were the case). - RedWordSmith 18:29, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I suppose we could purge the numerous spambot edits using the selective undeletion feature, though technically we're only supposed to use that to get rid of copyright violations and sensitive personal information. That wouldn't save much, if any, disk space—the deleted revisions are still stored somewhere—and it wouldn't make any difference to Google—older revisions are not indexed—but it would make the histories more useful. Still, I don't think this is really necessary: massive vandalism attacks happen all too often, and they've never (to my knowledge) been purged from the history. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PHP and PHP-Nuke are still very definitely under attack as I write... -- ChrisO 23:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He's back, now spamming www.pillsbook.com. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus violation
In looking over his recent edits, I found at least one violation of the Arbitration ruling which says he cannot revert an article more than once a day, meaning he can be banned for up to a week. Here are the edits:

 * United Kingdom (history) - Hardouin made a change in the population data, which is what Cantus is reverting. Within this connected series of edits, Cantus changes the population data. Hardouin changes the estimate back, and Cantus reverts.  And then again, Hardouin changes and Cantus reverts.  Dunno who's right here. Hardouin (who hasn't broken 3RR) has offered discussion, but Cantus is just making it a sterile edit war, which is why he's under a ruling that only gives him one revert per article.

-- Netoholic @ 18:02, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

 * The ruling says up to a week, I blocked for 48 hours, one day for each of the last two reverts, which clearly violate his parole. --Michael Snow 21:25, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why this block was lifted? I can see no evidence that Cantus did anything but foster a pointless edit war, while he had ample opportunity to talk it over with Hardouin. -- Netoholic @ 18:56, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

 * Raul654 unblocked him after Cantus provided some sort of explanation (I don't know what it was, I've asked about it but haven't heard back yet). I note that Cantus has discussed the matter with Hardouin since returning and has not resumed reverting over this issue. That suggests that the unblocking should be allowed to stand. Incidentally, Netoholic is involved in a dispute of his own with Cantus right now, see Template talk:Infobox Country. --Michael Snow 19:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Very low blow Michael. Thanks.  Cantus and I are actively discussing, with many people, the simple matter of ordering the standard infobox.  This has no relationship to whether Cantus violated his ruling on the UK article.  Your insinuation is simply a rude insult. -- Netoholic @ 19:47, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * I made no insinuation and pointed to no conclusions, it's simply information people might want to be aware of in order to get a full picture of the situation. The disputed edits on United Kingdom also involved this same infobox. Returning to the original issue, I think the situation is pretty clear. Yes, Cantus violated the ruling, so he got blocked, and since he's been unblocked he's back in compliance so there's no need to reblock. --Michael Snow 20:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "no insinuation and pointed to no conclusions" - Cantus' edits had to do with the population data... just because he used the Infobox to slip in that change once, doesn't mean there is any connection between he and I on this point. You of course drew my dispute in to poison the well about my involvement in reporting this.
 * I would like to hear the explanation. Why, after all, couldn't Cantus have explained it to Michael, since he was the blocking admin?  -- Netoholic @ 20:36, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * If I had wanted to poison the well, I would have brought it up at the initial block request, since I already knew about it then. As to why Cantus didn't contact me, well, only he can answer that, but he may have run into Raul on IRC (which I don't use), or he may have looked around for someone who was actively editing at the time (I wasn't online when Cantus was unblocked), or he may have turned to someone from the Arbitration Committee as a form of appealing the block. It's not particularly important, admins don't "own" blocks any more than editors own articles. I still would like to know the explanation he provided, though. --Michael Snow 20:49, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC) (More info: Cantus did actually try to email me before contacting Raul654, but as indicated, I wasn't online and didn't see the email until after he was unblocked and this discussion took place.)

Cantus asked me to unblock him on IRC, saying that this was an honest mistake on his part, and that he didn't see Hardouin's offer to discuss until after he was blocked. I believed him, and unblocked him, conditioned on him not reverting again. →Raul654 21:06, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't it about time we stop forgiving his "honest mistakes"? I mean, he is under a pretty strict ruling, and has been before ArbCom more than once.  In this case, one extra revert may be accidental, but the second one sure shows he knew what he was doing.  It does no good to have a ruling which isn't enforced.  -- Netoholic @ 21:25, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

 * For my part, I accept the explanation, both from Raul654 and, indirectly, from Cantus. Re: "It does no good to have a ruling which isn't enforced" - the ruling was enforced. As part of its enforcement, appropriate discretion was used in deciding the length of the block initially, and later in reducing the length of the block based on the explanation provided. We don't just mechanically block Cantus for a week every time he makes more than one revert. --Michael Snow 22:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for a full week block, but I'd expect more than a couple of hours or AT LEAST a very explanation as to why. Raul654's explanation is invalid because it doesn't matter whether Hardouin even offered to discuss. What matters is that Cantus reverted a page three times, when he is only allowed one. -- Netoholic @ 05:12, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * It's not the fact that Hardouin offered to discuss that matters, you're right. What matters is that Cantus returned willing to discuss himself, instead of reverting. And 13.5 hours is more than a couple. --Michael Snow 05:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And it was two revertions (one more than I'm allowed), not three. And by the way, the first ArbCom request against me was made by Wik. The second ArbCom request was made by myself, and not against me of course, but against Guanaco, but for some strange reason I still don't comprehend both me and Guanaco were punished by the committee. Perhaps this is part of the rules of engagement (you make an ArbCom request against somebody and be prepared to be punished yourself), but I was never aware of it at the time. I never complained about this because I actually got what I was looking for (de-adminship of Guanaco). What it is worrying to me is that these ArbCom decisions seem to be for life. —Cantus… ☎   05:29, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that at some point in the future you'll go before the ArbCom again, and they'll change your status to the correct level. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

 * May the above be considered a personal attack worthy of removal? —Cantus… ☎   05:39, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * No. Noel (talk) 11:37, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Category:Ashlee Simpson songs
OK, this is the THIRD place I've asked this question, hoping to finally get an answer. Category:Ashlee Simpson songs was deleted on February 4 after a valid CfD listing and votes. And it has since been recreated, and people are still voting on it at the CfD page. The time has passed, and the category should be re-deleted. If nobody explains to me why it should be kept, I'm going to delete it again (note that I did not delete it the first time). RickK 20:14, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I count five votes to keep and 13 to delete. That is NOT consensus. The category stays. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Eh? That's 72% delete, 28% keep: I thought 2/3rds was the standard "rough consensus". Signed, lurking user Calton 14:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Delete them all. Stuff that is recreated after valid delete votes should be speedy deleted. Jayjg (talk) 20:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Who is recreating this content, out of interest? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know. I asked here in hopes that somebody might know.  RickK 04:15, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, the most recent creation (at 07:15, 5 Feb 2005) of the category was by User:WJ, who has a grand total of 5 edits, of which the very first was re-creation of the category! Yeah, a new user - I don't think so! Noel (talk) 13:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, why was only one of the subcategories deleted? All the subcategories including the main category were all suppose to be deleted. The consensus on Categories_for_deletion was to delete Category:Ashlee Simpson along with Category:Ashlee Simpson songs, Category:Ashlee Simpson images, and Category:Ashlee Simpson albums.  I don't see how this vote was dwindled down to just an individual subcategory.  The only way this category and subcategories can be recreated is through Votes for Undeletion.  Can an admin please continue to delete them or stop their recreations?  Is Everyking involved in the recreation of these categories? (172.198.180.203 03:13, 12 Feb 2005)

 * Please sign your posts. And note that User:WJ's User page has been plastered with somebody's suspsicion that he is, indeed, an Everyking sockpuppet.  RickK 05:33, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you or anybody thinks it's me, they can get a developer to check. I have never used a sockpuppet to do anything. Everyking 06:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I didn't make it clear that I have no idea if WJ is a sockpuppet or not, and am not making the accusation. RickK 21:42, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * I am not making any accusation as to who it is a sockpuppet of, because I have no data on that. However, the edit history (something we do have data on) leaves me in basically zero doubt that this is a sockpuppet of an experienced Wikipedia editor with an interest in Ashlee Simpson. Noel (talk) 14:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * That person should help me out with the editing, then. Everyking 17:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Note also that I have never been very passionate about the categories, and I recently went and removed the articles from the categories myself. So the suspicion is utterly absurd. If I was going to use a sockpuppet, I'd have it do something I actually care about. Everyking 17:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree Noel. WJ is clearly a sockpuppet, but whose hand is controlling that sockpuppet is not clear. Jayjg (talk)  17:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Well, it ain't me. Like I said, get a developer to check. Everyking 17:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rienzo
Rienzo is still editing under User:67.15.54.16, and should be blocked, and the ban timer reset. As per arb com ruling - Requests for arbitration/Rienzo - CheeseDreams 21:09, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * I blocked this IP an hour or two ago after seeing the edits on your talk page. I only blocked for a week since I understand that other editors might use this IP.-gadfium 22:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have just found this edit by the same IP - . Perhaps Rienzo is Sollog? 81.156.177.48 00:35, 11 Feb 2005

 * More likely, Rienzo is an open proxy. After all, Sollog is famous for using them to give the appearance of supporters. --Carnildo 01:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet another edit by Rienzo from IP User:65.161.65.104 this time. This IP is also thought to be a Sollog sockpuppet. CheeseDreams 20:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and Rienzo is editing from User:MahBoys. CheeseDreams 13:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and from User:Sandor. CheeseDreams 14:18, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and from User:130.236.84.134. CheeseDreams 15:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I have blocked User:Sandor. This is my first-ever block, so please check to make sure I handled this right.  This seemed to fit the pattern described at Blocking policy.  The user made no edits to the main or talk: namespaces, but clearly zoned straight in to arguing with a particular user (CheeseDreams).  A user has been banned for repeated sockpuppetry in the same pattern.  I blocked for 3 months, as this was the lenght of time the ArbCom suggested for Rienzo. DanKeshet

 * Thanks. CheeseDreams 19:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon/CheeseDreams socks
If User:Tigermoon isn't a CheeseDreams sockpuppet, then he's sure doing a great imitation of one. He comes back after being blocked for proxy editing Cultural and historical background of Jesus on CD's behalf. The first thing he does is begin to revert it again, pushing aside a lot of work by several editors to restore an old version favored by CD. After being reverted by several editors (myself included), he is blocked (by whom, I can't recall) for violating the ArbCom order yet again. Then he returned as User:Red before blue (look at that user's contributions....VERY crafty...makes sure his user and talk pages are blue links, not red, before he reverts me). Anyhow, I was upset at this kind of tomfoolery (to put it mildly) and blocked the sock indefinitely...I'm not sure what the protocol is, since I was blocking the sock who had reverted my revert. I figured I should post it here as a record, and anyone who wants to take me to task can do so. I decided, in the interest of propriety, not to revert the sock's edit (since I had just blocked them)...Curps reverted their edit. If you want more details, you can let me know, but mostly I'm just posting here to keep everyone informed who still cares about CheeseDreams's latest antics. Jwrosenzweig 21:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There are many more sockpuppets than that, including User:Acidmonkey, User:Neutra¦ity, User:Fish lizard, and User:To register select a username so far. They have all been blocked indefinitely, but I anticipate many more. Jayjg (talk)  22:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

requesting a developer's help
Is there someone -- I guess a developer -- who can check this, and see if user: Srubensten is a bender is a sock-puppet of someone I should complain about to the ArbCom? Slrubenstein 22:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Borderer
Might want to keep an eye on this guy. RickK 04:04, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've blocked him for going on an obscenity-laden tirade after he said he was out of here because his POV edit was reverted. RickK 05:32, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I regret I have counteracted this. silsor 05:42, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * So you approve of this edit? And I really want to thank you for letting me know that you unblocked him.  Have you even checked the edit he made to the List of multiracial people which I reverted which started all of this?  And did you even check the edit he made to his User page when he said he was leaving?  RickK 06:02, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * I saw all those before unblocking. If any other admin feels s/he should be blocked that's fine, but I don't think you should be the one to do it because s/he was baiting and taunting you. silsor 06:05, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree that it's better if you can get some other previously uninvolved admin to do the block in a circumstance like this, but failing that, doing it oneself, and putting a note about it here so that others can review it is a pretty good second choice. Noel (talk) 13:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * agree. but when someone then does unblock them, I would just wash my hands and walk away. (no blocking wars!!) dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I didn't get into a blocking war. Once silsor unblocked him without notifying me, I didn't reblock. RickK 21:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that you don't feel fit to do the blocking yourself shows that you approve of the edit. RickK 06:08, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * The situation seems to have fixed itself. silsor 06:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? Because he said he's leaving?  He said that before he made his offensive edits.  RickK 06:34, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, because he started spamming the main namespace and I blocked him for a week. You even deleted one of them ;) silsor 07:54, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * (I'd just like to reiterate that not blocking someone is not equivalent to approving of his/her edits) dab (ᛏ) 12:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * If you unblock somebody you take responsibility for their actions. Unblocking does = approving of their edits.  If not, why unblock them?  RickK 21:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I wanted to mention this to you last week when I unblocked a user you blocked for inserting POV. I don't think that removing an illegitimate block confers any responsibility on the unblocking admin. We have a greater level of responsibility to make sure that our blocks are supported by policy in the first place - a responsibility which you have not lived up to sometimes. Rhobite 21:49, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Every block I have ever made has been for a legitimate reason. RickK 05:30, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * such as not approving of an edit? I readily believe every block you issued was made in good faith. policy, though, is built on the principle of, if in doubt, don't block. dab (ᛏ) 12:59, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * In this case though the block was justified because of Borderer's obscenity-laden tirade  OneGuy 22:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not shedding tears after this editor myself :o) some people are just not meant to be online. dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Bkonrad
Three revert rule violation on Template:CategoryTOC. [ hist]

Bkonrad reverted to his preferred version of the template (20:34, 2005 Feb 10), although a couple alternatives have been proposed.

 * 1st revert: 21:11, 2005 Feb 10
 * 2nd revert: 23:18, 2005 Feb 10
 * 3rd revert: 13:20, 2005 Feb 11
 * 4th revert: 15:45, 2005 Feb 11

Reported by: Netoholic @ 16:17, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Why is it that the turnaround time for applying blocks is under 10 minutes, except when it's an admin that broke 3RR? -- Netoholic @ 18:37, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * the real reason is that wikipedia was running rather slow when you posted it and I didn't feel up to looking through the dozen pages I need to confirm any blockGeni 00:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Does that mean you've now had a chance to confirm, and are going to apply the block? -- Netoholic @ 01:36, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)
 * yes Bkonrad has been blocked for 24 hours.Geni 02:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I really can't blame Bkonrad here. Your version of the template looks bad on my pretty plain (and common) setup: Firefox 1.0 on Windows XP, default monobook. I think anyone is justified in reverting a template change which negatively affects usability on hundreds of pages - even if that change was made in good faith. Rhobite 19:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * We'd have solved this a lot sooner if he'd resorted to discussing on the Talk page, rather than just reverting over the last two days. As such, his reverts were pointless since they really did not go toward solving any problems.  Also, your Firefox setup is not so common, whereas mine is.  I was trying to make a correction based on IE.  Check the revisions in IE and tell me that I wasn't the one trying to fix a usability problem.   Either way, "good intentions" are not part of the Three-revert rule.  I am sure if the situation was reversed, I'd be sitting on my ass waiting for the block to expire. After all, if you're right, then I could just keep reverting ad infinitum justifying it with the reason you give for not blocking him.  Shall I? -- Netoholic @ 20:00, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

 * It looks like they both reverted to earlier versions four times in 24 hours; am I missing something here? Jayjg (talk) 19:46, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You are. I made four edits, but two were for a double-line format, and two were to a single line one.  Bkonrad went back always to that same old revision. -- Netoholic @ 19:51, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * You reverted the previous version four times, did you not? Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 20:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I made four edits within a 24 hour span, but not four reverts (only two). I was testing alternate layouts to try to establish a working solution.  -- Netoholic @ 20:48, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed the edit history Netoholic made a total of 2 direct reverts within 24 hours. The other edits may or may no count as complex reverts. I reserve judgement on the matterGeni 02:31, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I originally created this template, and I've been trying to get Netoholic's rationale for insisting that the template not wrap text if a browser is sized smaller. He has not addressed my concerns, and insists that I must not be using IE, when in fact I am using IE.  Several people (including myself) have reverted Netoholic's changes not just Bkonrad.  He seems to be resisting the concerns of others, or perhaps he is not communicating his case well enough. I would be happy to try and reach a consensus with him, and have made attempts to do so on the talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Samuel, please don't water this down. Agreed there were many reversions during the course of this - and we've already identified the reasons for it being a browser difference - but this page is for discussing about Bkonrad breaking the Three revert rule.  -- Netoholic @ 01:34, 2005 Feb 12 (UTC)

Based on Bkonrad's explanation, I've unblocked him. --Michael Snow 17:55, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When someone runs out of reverts, their only recourse should be to discuss on the talk page. If someone exceeds that limit  That is how it is supposed to work.  He reverted once too much, and deserved a full 24 hour block for it.  He is free to do offline editing, or work under another name/anonymously.  3RR blocks should be fully enforced.  This really just looks like admin favoritism.  Had I done what he did, even making the same mailing list posting, I am sure I'd still be sitting out for the full block.  This is all bad precedent. -- Netoholic @ 00:44, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)
 * REMARKABLY bad precedent. He did something he wasn't supposed to and should have "suffered" the consequences. Michael, I disagree with your actions, especially since you've undone another admin's block (it's not like YOU blocked him and then thought better of it) and he didn't even ASK to be unblocked. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:06, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a precedent at all; other administrators have unblocked 3RR violaters who have a reasonable explanation/apology, and who indicate they won't do it again. The point of blocking is to discourage the behaviour, not punish. Jayjg <sup style="color:darkgreen;">(talk)  01:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The purpose of enforcing the three-revert rule with blocks is to prevent revert wars. If we can be satisfied that the revert war will not continue, the block no longer serves any purpose and should be removed. It doesn't matter whose block it was, nobody owns blocks any more than they own articles. Raul654 reversed my block of Cantus yesterday, for similar reasons. I agree with his action in that instance, and I believe unblocking Bkonrad was equally justified. --Michael Snow 03:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The block serves a bigger purpose than solving just one edit dispute - it sends a message that these actions will be punished whenever they happen.  By unblocking this person early, you now are sending a very different message.  I am not saying every 3RR block must be for the max 24 hours everytime, but you should not step on the decision of another admin.  In this case specifically, it was a clear violation of 3RR.  Unblocking early just seems unsavory.  24 hours is nothing, and he only had a few of those hours left when you unblocked.  Next time, you should just let it be - if only to avoid the perception that you are playing favorites.  I was blocked only once for a 3RR violation (and it was far less obvious and could have been debated), but I sat it out without whining.  All revert wars are avoidable, and even if I didn't really break 3RR, I certainly could have done something better.  3RR is a strong message, and one I now respect more than I used to.  To me, unblocking this admin early just seems like you are weakening that message.  -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

I have written a lengthy reply to Netoholic at User talk:Bkonrad/3RR. Basically, I was completely taken by surprise by the 3RR block as I had thought we were making good progress in the dispute. I find that Netoholic's resort to seeking legalistic retribution under the 3RR to be extremely unwikilike and counterproductive, as this was not in any sense a sterile edit war which is, by my understanding, what the 3RR was intended to avert. older ≠ wiser 16:29, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * You are free to comment on what you see as my "retribution", but do not give that as any justification for why you should be handled differently under the policy.
 * The 3RR page does say "The 3RR is intended as a means to stop sterile edit wars.", but I think you are looking at that too narrowly.  It does not say "stop edit wars in progress".  A secondary application of the punishment is also to discourage future edit wars.  Face it, in the time after the enforcement vote which adopted it, the environment has shifted and all of us have to count our reverts.
 * Since this rule's adoption, many people have been blocked for more innocent and less obvious violations than yours. The point is that we must apply the rule to everyone that breaks it, or it becomes useless.  As an admin, you are held to higher standards by the community – not only to avoid violating the 3RR rule but also to humbly accept the punishment if you do.  We should never get to the point that this rule is applied differently to admins, or even to people that happen to belong to the mailing list. -- Netoholic @ 17:34, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

 * I think you are looking at that too narrowly -- I think you, on the other hand, are looking at it far too broadly. Let's look at the guidance given in the 3RR: If you like, chat with other Wikipedians whom you respect, and ask them if they could take a look. If you and the person you've asked to help have both needed to revert three times, then it is probably time to ask for the page to be protected and to start looking into dispute resolution. Aside from this page, did you ask anyone else to look into this? Did anyone other than you have to revert my changes? Did you even ATTEMPT to contact me about why I was reverting your changes? While many "innocents" may have run afoul of the 3RR, that does not make it right, nor does it mean it is OK to use it as a legalistic tool for seeking retribution completely independent of trying to resolve whatever the actual disagreement is. That is most definitely NOT the 3RR that I voted to support and I would not support the rule unless that interpretation were explicitly discounted. You talk as if there is a consensus about this and a settled matter, when it is still an ongoing discussion.

 * You on the other hand, apparently with great care, reverted exactly twice on multiple occasions over a period a few days. This is precisely against the spirit of the 3RR which explicitly does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique.

 * Apparently you were more interested in punitive legalistic measures than in actually seeking to reach an amicable resolution to our disagreement. I am not trying to justify being treated any differently under the policy. I am saying that such a strict application of the policy is just plain wrong, regardless of whether it is me, you, or some anon. I never asked to have the ban lifted -- I expressed my concerns about the 3RR to the mailing list and Michael Snow saw fit to lift the ban. I recognize that I reverted four times and that within a strict interpretation I could be banned. So I don't fault Geni at all for applying the ban. But I was and am pretty pissed off at you for jumping directly to seeking punitive recourse rather than talking first. It is not the best way to approach solving disagreements. Nowhere in the 3RR is there any mention of using bans to teach lessons or set examples. I find such an interpretation to be profoundly contrary to wiki-editing and not at all conducive to a healthy community. older ≠ wiser 18:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * 3RR violations are always (with few exceptions) reported by someone that is actively involved with the edit dispute. I carefully edited to avoid breaching 3RR, and also to provide alternatives, but you chose to revert, failed to explain your reverts until prompted, and then broke 3RR.  Please stop whining that I was somehow wrong in reporting you for breaking these policies.  If you choose to be "pissed" at me, even though I've explained there are "No hard feelings from this end", then go ahead.  Just please avoid breaking the 3RR again. -- Netoholic @ 19:29, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

 * If you feel that the most important objective is making sure that anyone and everyone who reverts more that three times gets blocked without exception, then fine. However, you shouldn't be surprised that that objective may breed ill-will and is sometimes at odds with working collaboratively to resolve disagreements in order to produce a quality encyclopedia. You say I failed to explain my reverts until prompted, but so did you. You reverted me numerous times without any explanation. You just happened to be careful about not exceeding your "quota" of reverts (and for the record, I would never have reported or blocked you for 3RR without discussing it with you first). While I am presently still pissed at you, that will pass. However, it will be a very long time before I have any respect for you or your understanding of collaborative editing and building a wiki community. older ≠ wiser 20:01, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

66.20.28.21
Again. This user has developed a daily pattern of creating a new UserID every day, then making a few dumb/controversial edits. He is getting to be a kind of low grade nuisance. He can be spotted because he always makes the same edit to Republican Party of Kansas and/or Marc Ravalomanana (until I got fed up with reverting the latter). UserIDs he has used so far include:

 * User:DJ Diddlewitt
 * User:Dixietwat
 * User:Lovin Forkfull

He does make some good edits. However the original user is subject to an arbitration committee ruling that prohibits him from controversial edits. He also seems to have taken a minor personal dislike to me since I'm the only person monitoring his activities. So I'd like some advice please.

Have this user's activities got far enough outside the limits of the arbitration committee ruling that he deserves a permenant ban? Could some other people monitor Republican Party of Kansas so I'm not the only person involved in this dispute? Is there a mechanism that will stop him creating new userids? Any help appreciated. DJ Clayworth 16:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've already reverted on Ravalomanana a few times; I'll keep an eye on the RPK article too. Everyking 16:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:24.150.175.165
Three revert rule violation on Saddam Hussein. [ hist]

Insertion of material 21:36, 10 Feb 2005.

 * 1st revert: 01:31, 11 Feb 2005
 * 2nd revert: 01:52, 11 Feb 2005
 * 3rd revert: 04:22, 11 Feb 2005
 * 4th revert: 04:56, 11 Feb 2005
 * 5th revert: 16:10, 11 Feb 2005
 * 6th revert: [diff_link_here 16:59, 11 Feb 2005]
 * 7th revert: [diff_link_here 17:29, 11 Feb 2005]

Reported by: Susvolans (pigs can fly) 17:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Still at it. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 18:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * blocked for 24 hours Geni 18:16, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Jalnet2
Three Revert Rule violation on Race.

See.

 * first revert 18:27, 11 Feb 2005
 * second revert 19:34, 11 Feb 2005
 * third revert 20:14, 11 Feb 2005

He might argue that I did too, although I would argue that my first edit of the page today (16:00) was not technically a revert as there were eight different edits from five users, at least two of whom are legitimate, between my edit and Jalnet's previous edit the day before. If you feel I violated the rule too, you may as well go ahead and block me too.

I would also appreciate comment on the dispute between me and Jalnet. The fact is, this edit war has been going on for perhaps a month. These should give you all the background you need, , and todays exchange:.

The fact is, at this point I cannot have good faith in Jalnet -- because I have seen no evidence that he has done serious research on this topic, or understands even the basics. I have looked over most of his edits and he has made practically no substantive contribution to this article (Rikurzhen has probably contributed the most, but I have contributed a fair amount of content and many sources). Most of his edits involve changing wording. He claims he does this to assure NPOV, but I think (1) the article was NPOV before his edit (indeed, I would argue that it is a model of an NPOV treatment of a contentious topic) (2) his edits are at best weasel words and at worst, misrepresent the state of scientific discussion on race, and (3) are designed to push his own agenda, which is that the essentialist view of race is scientifically correct. Slrubenstein 20:41, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I can tell from the edit history and your entry on this page Jalnet2 has only reveted 3 timesGeni 00:49, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, if you look at WP:3RR, it's the fourth edit which breaks the rule. I admit the name is somewhat confusing! Noel (talk) 11:45, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)