text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive15

Contents: April 4, 2005 - April 7, 2005

User:SlimVirgin and User:IZAK are repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from Lavon Affair article
User:SlimVirgin and User:IZAK are repeatedly removing the NPOV tag from Lavon Affair and Immigration to Israel from Arab lands articles. User:SlimVirgin is also altering my Talk:Lavon Affair page edits and making bad faith accusations. Generally, the bullying behavior on display is not in keeping with Wikipedia policies. --User:STP 04:04, April 4, 2005

 * User:STP seems to be related to last night's vandalism from Dubai the 195.229.241.* vandalism of israel/terrorism pages. He keeps inserting the same POV boilerplate text about the Lavon Affair into all sorts of articles, and makes small POV vandalism. At the moment his is involved in an edit war over the insertion of an NPOV tag into Lavon Affair. Klonimus 04:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have not edited the Lavon Affair article since 29 Oct 2004 (see page's edit history at ) when I placed the NPOV categories Category:Arab-Israeli conflict and Category:Espionage on that page. I have not had anything to do with the present issue of the placement/removal of the template in the Lavon Affair. On the other hand, I have asked for further discussion and facts before the  template is inserted into the Immigration to Israel from Arab lands article by anyone. Thank you. IZAK 06:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User:STP has in fact been cited for vandalism by User:ElTyrant, see Vandalism in progress and is suspected by both User:SlimVirgin and User:Jayjg of being a sock puppet of  banned User:Alberuni see User talk:STP  and Mossad "Project"? No, it was Mossad terrorism . UserSTP is also guilty of using anti-Semitic slurs, such as: "traitor Jews can't be trusted"  ; "Judaism is a cult but Jewish cultists, of course, deny it" and added the blood libel: ":Ethnocentric Jews killed Jesus 2000 years ago and in the past century they have killed thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Jordanians and other innocent victims in their quest to maintain their racist state.", and again repeated it "The Jews killed Jesus, among many others"  ! So who is this guy to "complain" when he should be booted off Wikipedia ASAP. IZAK 05:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Can we not leave the NPOV tag until this is resolved one way or the other? silsor 06:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets of banned users can be reverted for any reason or no reason. Jayjg (talk) 15:19, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What about suspected sockpuppets of banned users? silsor 16:17, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultimately all sockpuppets are merely "suspected"; after all, even in the most clearcut seeming cases, its possible that someone has a twin brother with similar views and posting style living with him and posting as well under a separate userid. Ultimately admins have to go on the preponderance of evidence and common sense. Jayjg (talk)  16:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words, Jayjg and his pals reserve the right to do as they please for any reason or no reason at all. Wikipedia's rules and norms don't apply to them - after all - they're SPECIAL. --User:STP 18:40, 4 Apr 2005

If STP is Alberuni's newest sockpuppet, why hasn't evidence to this effect been presented and the account blocked? —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What's the point? His POV edits are being contained, his bigotry is ignored, and if this sockpuppet is blocked, he'll simply create another. Jayjg (talk)  01:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Point well taken; but what's the evidence that this is a sockpuppet? Sure, STP has displayed an Alberuni-like combination of hostility, paranoia, and bigotry, but Alberuni wasn't and isn't the only one who has those traits, just as not every fanatic devotee of William L. Pierce is necessarily User:Paul Vogel. —Charles P. (Mirv) 01:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I let you know weeks ago, you can e-mail me if you want more evidence; there's no point in teaching Alberuni how to make harder to identify sockpuppets. Jayjg (talk) 01:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What a creepy couple you two are! Illiterate, conceited, arrogant, biased, blind, emasculated, losers. C YA - Wouldn't want to be ya! User:STP 01:59, 5 Apr 2005
 * Does anyone else find the irony behind this comment amusing? - 203.35.154.254 03:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Should a suspected sockpuppet tag be added to STP's userpage? I'd add this myself, but seeing as I'm involved in this, it could be interpreted as a hostile action. --ElTyrant 22:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Some sort of evidence should be presented first. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * User:STP is trolling Jayjg's talk page with antisemtic comments. El_C 02:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like sockpuppetry is largely irrelevant. If User:STP is behaving inappropriately—which I gather he is—it's time to start an RfC and move this quickly to a point where either he desists or is banned. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am prepared to treat users who give "Judaism is an evil cult, and the Jews killed Jesus" edit-summaries as Nazi vandals and block them unceremoniously, after fair warning. dab (ᛏ) 05:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pending deletion
Deadjim has been marked as pending deletion after vfd, but as I understand it, it should also be blanked. It's been protected, so can an admin do this please? sjorford →•← 11:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:06, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

VfD user duplication?
You're probably aware of the ongoing controversy of high schools on VfD. On both sides of the argument, occasionally new users appear. Personally, I find the idea that a WikiNewbie would immediately come to VfD for his first edits, and have a strongly established opinion, somewhat suspicious. Is it possible to doublecheck if such a person is not a duplicate for an existing user, possibly used for voting twice? Radiant_* 12:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

 * You can ask a developer. Mgm|(talk) 12:21, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:GRider blocked for violation of Arbcom injunction
Please note that I have blocked User:GRider for 24 hours for violating the Arbcom injuction by editing Votes for deletion/Stephen Tyng Mather High School. See diff:. Carbonite 18:20, 4 Apr 2005

 * Everyone, don't forget to mention any injunction violations on the relevant evidence page too - violating an injunction does not garner AC sympathy David Gerard 09:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This injunction violation is presented in my section of the evidence, as I realised nobody else had added it. Thryduulf 11:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Ta bu shi da yu's talk page
I have just received an annonymous demand for information about an article regarding Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black and I have left a reply on my Talk page that I will be happy to respond, if I know who or what I am responding to. I also left an entry on the User's IP Talk page and this led me to look closer, and that is when I discovered that IP 128.143.218.12 is User:4640orFight about whom you had written ''Because you have given us so much trouble, I am blocking you permanently. If you have a problem with this, please take it up on the Wikipedia mailing list. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)''. Someone else had added: "sockpuppet of Noah Peters". As IP 128.143.218.12 the User has made several recent edits to pages about various judges. Just to give you a heads-up in case this person is a returning trouble-maker. MPLX/MH 19:45, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please block recurring vandal
User: has been vandalising the Pope John Paul II article today. His talk page consists only of warnings about vandalism and a previous block. A random selection of his contributions show up nothing but an extensive campaign of vandalism, inlcuding this telling edit. A short block did nothing, so a long/permanent block should be employed imho. Thryduulf 16:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Permanent block (wow, so many warning on their talk page...) Noel (talk) 16:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * this is a comcast customer in either Virginia or Illinois (locators disagree). I wouldn't block permanently, a month or two should do, otherwise an innocent user may run into the block in the future (duration of vandalism from this IP is some two months). dab (ᛏ) 16:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. Noel (talk) 16:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I would say 24 hours, and repeat if it continues. He or she will get the hint eventually, no need to risk anything with IP blocks. Everyking 22:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The talk page shows that repeated warnings (it consists of nothing else but) and at least one 24 hour block (iirc the block log showed another couple of short blocks for that IP that wasn't mentioned on the talk page) haven't stopped them. There have been a large number of edits, all vandalism dating back to January iirc. After reading dab's comment above I realisd that a permanent block as I initally suggested wasn't apropriate, but given the user's history a prolonged block (in the order of 1-2 months) is entirely apropriate imho. I'm not an admin, but if I were then I'd probably have placed a block of about that timeperiod on the user. Thryduulf 23:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of twoversions tag
Could someone please remove the "twoversions" template from Template:WWIIGermanAFVs? The template may be under dispute, but the three dozen pages it's used on aren't, and the presence of the "twoversions" tag is confusing people. --Carnildo 18:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:14, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks! --Carnildo 20:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:John Gohde
Three revert rule violation on.

 * 1st revert: 21:38
 * 2nd revert: 22:09
 * 3rd revert: 22:17
 * 4th revert: 23:12
 * 5th revert 21:09

Reported by: Snowspinner 23:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Blocked for half an hour. silsor 01:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Although these are reverts to three different parts of the article, they are definitely four reverts to the article in the day, and the adding of "not policy" is arguably vandalism. Snowspinner 23:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * Not all of these are full, direct reverts. Please provide links and diffs showing where each one is performing a revert. -- Netoholic @ 00:24, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * Which one is remotely unclear? Snowspinner 01:08, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

John has reverted the article again within the same 24 hours. An additional block, please? Snowspinner 02:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * The 3RR doesn't say that successive blocks are given for each revert over three. It says one block up to 24 hours for reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period.  As short as it was, John served a block already (which should illustrate why 30 minute blocks are lame).  I think we'd all suggest trying to work out the dispute, rather than gaming the 3RR system and continuing to engage in your revert war. -- Netoholic @ 03:01, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * The point of the 3RR blocks is to dissuade multiple reverts. Should the user come back and create a new violation, which an additional revert in the period is, this seems to me to be a new violation that requires more forceful dissuading. Snowspinner 03:11, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

This user has been blocked for 24 hours for returning to revert a fifth time after blocked for violating the 3RR originally. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That is not supported by policy. This user has now been blocked twice for violating the 3RR rule.  -- Netoholic @ 03:29, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * He was blocked. He kept reverting. He got blocked again. This seems very, very simple to me. Snowspinner 03:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * You kept reverting, you just waited 40 minutes after 24 hours to do it. Your block didn't dissuade you from revert warring on that page. If you both would spend the same energy on posting on the talk page, you might have reached some agreement.  I am still (see above) waiting to see you show how edits 3 and 4 above are reverts. -- Netoholic @ 03:49, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * Since #4 says "RV" in big letters in the edit summary, I'm not sure why you're questioning it. As for #3, it removes the same section as #1. How is this at all unclear? And yes - I waited the 40 minutes. And then I removed what I believe to be bad faith additions from a user who's contributions are largely personal attacks and POV pushing. As I have said previously, the fact that reverts are frowned upon does not mean they are not at times the correct solution - as you know well, having done your fair share. Snowspinner 03:54, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never reverted "what I believe to be bad faith additions from a user who's contributions are largely personal attacks and POV pushing".  I only revert bad edits, and I also use talk pages, rather than misusing the edit summaries to hold arguments.   Do you choose your reverts based on the editor? -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * "bad faith additions from a user who's contributions are largely personal attacks and POV pushing" are a subset of "bad edits," I did use the talk page, no. Snowspinner 13:47, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me address this. He reverted an article four times in 24 hours and was given a short warning block after which he immediately came back and reverted the article a fifth time.  Surely five reverts to an article in less that 24 hours merits a block? BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You know, I think Netoholic is right on this - he did already serve half an hour for some of those reverts. I've taken the block down to 23 and a half hours, with half an hour already served. Snowspinner 04:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner
Three revert rule violation on.

 * 1st revert: 21:30, 2005 Apr 5 result - full revert
 * 2nd revert: 21:43, 2005 Apr 5 result - full revert
 * 3rd revert: 22:04, 2005 Apr 5 result - full revert
 * 4th revert: 23:12, 2005 Apr 5 - This is a revert, in that Snowspinner removes some items that John Gohde added some days earlier.

Reported by: Netoholic @ 00:38, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * Blocked for half an hour. silsor 01:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I had not realized that the additional items were added by John - the page has been edited enough that I lost track of who was adding what, or of how old parts were. I apologize. Snowspinner 01:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * If no block comes of this, I am going to add "Blocks may be lifted or avoided if the user expresses regret" to WP:3RR. -- Netoholic @ 01:29, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * This is the diff between John Gohde's edit at 21:42 2 Apr and Snowspinner's edit on 23:12 5 Apr. You included these links above as evidence of the 4th revert. If this is indeed a revert, it's one of the more complex ones that I've seen. I think you'll need to show better evidence of a 4th revert. Carbonite | Talk 01:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well of course if you're going to do a diff over the course of 3 days, you're not going to see it mixed in with dozens of other edits. I provided links showing that Snowspinner reverted one section, by removing those bullet-point items. -- Netoholic @ 01:55, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * Netoholic, there is no need to add that to 3RR. Admins can already choose not to block under the 3RR or to lift any block, at their discretion. Quoting from the blocking policy, "Sysops must use their common sense and good judgement". There is no need to codify this practice in the policy wording itself, except for clarity. - Mark 01:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I find it better common sense to apply blocking rules uniformly, and document standards so that people are not surprised. -- Netoholic @ 01:55, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * When it was discussed, this is precisely what those who opposed it said would happen. One rule for admins, another for everyone else. (210.84.68.167 01:57, 6 Apr 2005)
 * I've blocked a few admins. The only real difference is that they are more likely to apealGeni 09:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is in the middle of the night here in Europe. I am not going to book either of the two but am going to bed now. Not due to any apologies or lack of the same, but I am exercising my discretion to prefer sleep instead of cyberfights... Having said this I think the eagerness with which you ,Snowspinner, appear to watch Gohde and you, Netoholic appear to watch Snowspinner, is slightly disconcerting... Refdoc 01:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, and I find that this page smells like legalism, pettiness, and revenge. Accordingly I have given each of them a half-hour block, which is also quite legal under the 3RR policy. silsor 01:50, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please show where John Gohde broke 3RR, as I've enquired above. -- Netoholic @ 01:55, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * reverts and  reverts . silsor 02:13, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Both of the first two links above happened at "23:12, 2005 Apr 5". Likely that John or Snowspinner clicked save or edit at the same time.  -- Netoholic @ 02:19, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * Likely, perhaps, but untrue. Snowspinner 17:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Bot User:KevinBot
This bot is transwiki'ing articles to Wiktionary, which is fine, but it is leaving behind  notices, which is not always OK. Among articles which were marked for speedy deletion are:
 * Fag hag (the current article is well beyond a mere dicdef)
 * Affluenza (an entire book was written about it, so it's hard to argue that an encyclopedic article could not be written).

Some admins have acted on these speedy-deletion notices. I have restored:
 * Virility
 * Sigilography (certainly an encyclopedic topic just like numismatics and philately)

Articles with encyclopedic potential shouldn't be speedily deleted merely because the current version is a stub. The fact that a dictionary definition may be applicable does not exclude the possibility that the topic may be encyclopedic as well; there are many topics which could have both obvious one-line dictionary definitions and long encyclopedia articles, such as "astronomy" and many others.

-- Curps 01:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Template:Deletetranswikied itself was only created recently (March 25). However, being a dicdef stub is actually not one of the speedy deletion criteria and was explicitly voted down in the latest proposal to expand speedy criteria, so the very existence of this template is a bit contradictory... one could argue it should be proposed for TfD.

At the very least, it should be used with care and applied only to page that currently are mere dicdef stubs and "obviously" have no encyclopedic potential. It doesn't seem that a bot can make this call. -- Curps 02:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kevin's Comments
Ok, to help clear this up. The bot does not decide wether to put the delete notice up. In fact, the transwikifier is not really a pure bot at all. I have put my eyes on all 1000 or so articles that have been transwikied. I, and not some automated bot puts the delete tag on pages that I thought should be deleted. I put it on articles that are dicdefs about non-nouns or that are articles about words.

I am not an administrator and I don't make the final determination on if the page should be deleted or not (even if I was an admin I wouldn't make that determination). Several times people have come behind me and instead of deleting the articles, they've removed the delete tag. To make sure everyone understands, it is not a bot deciding to put the delete tag on the page.

Quite frankly, this transwiki process has been more trouble than it's worth, and the next time there is a backlog of 1000 articles to transwiki I think I'll leave it to someone else. I've spent hours working on it, I've gotten a TON of grief and no love, I'm done with it.

For further reading see:
 * Category talk:Move to Wiktionary
 * Transwiki log
 * transwiki
 * Category:Transwikied to Wiktionary

Kevin Rector 03:57, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, sorry for the misunderstanding then, but since the edit that places the deletion notice is done in the bot's name (eg, ) it can certainly leave the impression that it's done automatically without human intervention.
 * I certainly don't object to your efforts in general, it's quite commendable. The main problem is the speedy deletion notices that should probably be much more conservatively applied, if at all (technically, these should all be VfD's).  Maybe the bot (or you) could leave some kind of milder notice in its wake. -- Curps 04:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Half the time the bot doesn't leave any kind of notice except a notice on the talk page that the article has been tranwikied. If I ever run it again (doubtful) I'll just not tag any of them for deletion. Kevin Rector 04:49, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * You've had my appreciation. You've saved me a lot of transwikification work that I would otherwise have been doing by hand.  (In fact, a few times I've just left an article in Category:Copy to Wiktionary alone in the hope that User:KevinBot would sweep it up, which it has duly done.)  And the fact that I've followed the 'bot (although I've been a bit busy with Wikinews over the past week and haven't been able to) has been partly to shield you from hassle.  (Both I and User:Kappa have been keeping a watch over the process.)  The bot has certainly done a much better job that some of the hand-transwikifications (from third parties) that I've had to clear up after over at Wiktionary.  Uncle G 14:43, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 08:57, Apr 5, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 20:21, Apr 5, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:33, Apr 5, 2005
 * 4th revert: 21:08, Apr 5, 2005
 * 4th revert: 21:08, Apr 5, 2005

Reported by:     Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 02:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * Okay, I verified these links. Blocked for a while. silsor 02:28, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * not posible there is only one out right revert and one near revert. if you want to claim the others are complex reverts we are back to the old "do not edit any contiversal page more than 3 times in a 24 hour period of the rule see these diffs.an outright revert not a revert an near revertposibly a complex revertnot a revert that is every single edit by Ultramarine I've pulled a block. BTW "a while" is not a very helpful way of describing a block lengthGeni 09:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * If they erased the changes of the other person and switched the text back to their preferred version, it is a revert. silsor 16:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * this didn't happen in the edit I have labeled as not a block that leaves 3 caditates for being reverts which is not enough to trigger the ruleGeni 16:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As you can see here, reverts .  silsor 16:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * We have a handy block log. silsor 16:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know however it is helpful for complete case histories to appear on this page and that includes the length of the block16:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I will do this. silsor 16:31, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Please don't remove somebody else's blocks unless there is a good reason. I won't reinstate it since that would be in poor taste. silsor 15:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * incorrect blocking is a very good reason. If you don't like your blocks being pulled then I would advise you against blocking under the 3RR because your blocks are likely to be pulled by many people for any number of reasons. You don't own a block any more than a person can own an articleGeni 16:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

 * Sigh... why do people have to be like this?--    Revolutionary Left   |  Che y Marijuana 02:01, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * The people who are taking care of requests on this page aren't supposed to do it with a bias, so I don't think that comment really helps. silsor 02:21, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous User: 66.81.x.x / 69.19.146.1
Three revert rule violation on. 66.81.x.x / 69.19.146.1:
 * 1st revert: 08:43, 6 Apr 2005
 * 2nd revert: 05:57, 6 Apr 2005
 * 3rd revert: 05:50, 6 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 05:17, 6 Apr 2005
 * 5th revert: 03:24, 6 Apr 2005

This anonymous user (clear from the edit summaries that it is the same guy) is engaged in a silly edit war with User:Philwelch on whether the "religion" of "Matrixism" should be included in the article, and, if so, in what manner. They've both been reverting like crazy. User:Philwelch has accused the anon of vandalism on the Vandalism in progress page, but it looks like a plain old edit war to me.

Reported by: Firebug 09:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I can confirm this but I've never worked out how to do range blocks.Geni 09:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a very large dialup range and shouldn't be blocked. It would be better to block individual IPs (I blocked the latest one for the same amount of time as Philwelch) and revert edits that the individual makes while blocked. silsor 15:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page instead; chasing some anon over a large block of dialups is a waste of time (in addition to all the other reasons to prefer that solution). The article is in decent shape, it can stand to be static for a week or two. Noel (talk) 16:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a better idea. silsor 16:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Philwelch
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 06:08, 6 Apr 2005
 * 2nd revert: 05:53, 6 Apr 2005
 * 3rd revert: 05:42, 6 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 03:42, 6 Apr 2005
 * 5th revert: 00:23, 6 Apr 2005
 * 5th revert: 00:23, 6 Apr 2005

Phil claims that the anonymous "Matrixist" is engaged in vandalism, but in reality this is just an edit war. Both sides need to take some time out to cool down. Both have violated the 3RR.

Reported by: Firebug 09:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Philwelch for 24 hours. silsor 15:33, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

TBSDY's talk
In the past few days, and  have repeatedly posted insulting language at TBSDY's talk, only to be reverted on sight. 66.193.230.226 has been blocked for this, but now 72.29.74.163 seems to be on it (most recent try: ). Could some people review this issue? I'm asking this because I want to be sure that reverting this stuff (as El C, Viriditas, MacGyverMagic, SWAdair, Jni and I have been doing) is the right thing to do. — mark ✎ 14:23, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It is. Judging from what they posted, both IPs are the same individual. Posting hate speech is not acceptable under any circumstances, and I fully support blocking any IP or user who does this anywhere (not just on TBSDY's talk) on sight. This really goes too far. Lupo 14:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It should be added this IP's have been using misleading edit summaries and have not managed to make a single constructive contribution; and that both have been warned for their behaviour. In the past few minutes, has repeated the vandalism twice despite being warned. I have warned this user that next time a block will follow. — mark ✎ 14:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * The two IPs you've given, 66.193.230.226 and 72.29.74.163, are both in IP blocks allocated to HostDime.com in Orlando, FL. The third IP that just joined, 67.18.185.50, is in a block of 255 addresses belonging to Layered Technologies, Inc. in Dallas, TX, served by ThePlanet.com. Can someone check whether these are open proxies and block them for longer than just 24h if so? Lupo 15:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * And just joined the game. Don't have time to whois though.   — mark ✎ 16:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * appears to be part of a /19 owned by Global Net Access, LLC, an Atlanta-based company. A Google search indicates that the address is probably a server used for virtual hosting. --Carnildo 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is still going on. I've blocked one IP for 24 hours following four additions of the text, but now another has come along. I've therefore protected it for a short time, though without the tag (it seems daft on a talk page because of the talk:talk: link). This has been going on for 5 days - what should we do now? violet/riga (t) 19:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It's especially bad to post such things on TBSDY's talk page if he's not there to respond. We could just protect and redirect users here if they want to contact him. Maybe we should email TBSDY and ask what he thinks. Mgm|(talk) 21:18, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is very urgent. Just revert and block on sight. He'll get bored. If TBSDY is not around, he cannot be offended, and if he is, he can rollback himself. Protection is an option, but then the vandal will just be tempted to spew his bile all over WP. dab (ᛏ) 22:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, could I have my talk page unlocked? I'm not an admin any more and I have a few things I want to add to my talk page. And don't stress about that stuff - it's clearly absurd and just shows what a bunch of tools those Stormfront guys are. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, incidently - a BIG vote of thanks to those who've been protecting me from their abuse! Your help is much appreciated :-) Ta bu shi da yu 23:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * You're welcome, though in my case the motivation for reverting and blocking was not so much to "protect" you—I was and am quite confident that you are above such bile and that it couldn't really touch you—but I don't want to let them use Wikipedia as a platform to disseminate their bile. Lupo 07:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I believe their "dirt" was that I slept with a Nazi women (yeeha!), and now I should kill myself. If this had been the case then they would be factually correct - I would have to! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

82.35.37.118
This user is vandalising. various topics, due to complete ignorance of the areas he is dealing with. I suggest you block them. --Jirate 19:17, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * Ignorance is not vandalism. Please consult the meanings of the things you're accusing people of before accusing. Snowspinner 19:34, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * But the products of ignorance in this case is vandlism, learn wha words mean. Have you blocked them? Irate 19:38, 6 Apr 2005

 * Have you looked at Vandalism at all? If so, which of the types of vandalism listed do you think he's committing? Snowspinner 19:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm using the term as in ENglish. Not in the Wikibook of alternate meanings.--Jirate 19:43, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * So you're asking me to make a block that has no basis in policy? Snowspinner 19:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not asking you to do anything. In fact I am suprised you are still an admin.--Jirate 19:52, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * Vandalism in progress is the place to report vandalism, which this isn't. Try explaining what's wrong with the category schemes this user is trying to apply before racing off to demand a block. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have already tried that at about 15:00 this afternoon.--Jirate 19:43, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

 * To me, it seems that this anon is making good faith edits. Whether the categories are a good idea or not is debatable, but "vandal" is the wrong label here. I would point Irate towards the policies of Assume Good Faith and Don't Bite the Newbies, but, as, Irate has already eloquently stated today, he doesn't "give a fuck about Wikiquette". — Matt Crypto 23:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:80.58.4.46
User:80.58.4.46 is on a massive page blanking rampage. RickK 20:54, 6 Apr 2005

 * I've rolled back all of his edits and warned him on his talk.  — mark ✎ 20:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Warned him again.
 * And blocked him subsequently.  — mark ✎ 21:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * looks like a bot. Notice its steady stream of contributions, always blanking, no text, and no reaction to warnings. Either a bot, or a human who just failed the Turing test :o) dab (ᛏ) 21:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * LOL! (Mark Dingemanse 21:12, 6 Apr 2005)

User:138.89.24.166
User:138.89.24.166 appears to be on a cut&paste-move rampage among the Coptic Popes. I left a note on his talk page, but my connection's currently too sluggish to do much else about it. Help, please. –Hajor 22:26, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * She seems to have copy-moved only Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria and Cyril VI. Fixed now.  User has promised to stop on her talk page.  Has a point: the names aren't very consistent.  dbenbenn | talk 22:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. "Rampage" was overstating the case on my part -- it was only 2 articles (but it certainly looked like a lot more with several redirects coming up on my watchlist). –Hajor 23:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:69.141.70.196
User:69.141.70.196 put copyvio material from here, as well as deleting valid information, because he thinks the Rastafarians are stupid. When I reverted, thus deleting the copyvio material, he reverted back to his copyvio material version, --SqueakBox 00:18, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

In order to avoid breaking the 3RR rule I have placed Jamaica as a copyvio, and is now revertuing the copyvio, could be blocked fror 3RR--SqueakBox 00:23, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks like User:Xero understands now and has stopped. I'll keep an eye on the article. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He then tried it on again, but has been reverted by Knowledge Seeker, --SqueakBox 01:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Jamaica
or has reverted  5 times, removing it from copyvio listing --SqueakBox 00:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 *
 * signed as User:Xero, as are the rest,
 *
 *

The last revert was of a copyvio. What he has added has been copyvios from various sources. I am happy to see copyvio removed and older version reinstated, --SqueakBox 00:45, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd rather not treat this as a 3RR violation, it's easier to deal with it as persistent insertion of plagiarised text. A somewhat harsher block would apply in that case. silsor 02:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The first time he did it he claimed not to have realised, but it having been pointed out he went back and repeated the same behaviour, --SqueakBox 16:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Apparent vote packing on WP:IFD
I noticed a recent sudden flurry of votes to delete on the listing for autofellatio 2. Investigating, I note that User:Achilles has spammed the user talk pages of people who voted delete in another recent IFD listing of a similar picture. He has made no genuine attempt to inform other users, only those whom he must have believed would be likely to vote to delete.

Between 21:05 on April 6 and 04:41 on April 7 Achilles made some 57 comments on user talk pages with the title "Images and media for deletion votes", containing the text:

 * I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles †

I'm not sure how to treat this--I wouldn't take action in any case as I've voted on that listed item so I'm an involved party. However it does seem to be a pretty gross attempt to sabotage the proper discussion of an item listed on IfD by stacking it with those disposed to delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Although I wasn't contacted directly, I only found out about it because of other peoples' talk pages on my watchlist. Having come across something similar recently (Schoolwatch) I came to the thought that it neither contravenes (current) policy nor bullies people into voting - those contacted are capable of making their own mind up.  I can definately see why it is looked down upon, though. violet/riga (t) 10:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My concern is that it was not an honest attempt to draw public attention to the vote. This could be done on Village Pump. This was, admitted in its own wording "I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph" a campaign for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Is putting up a near identical image the day after the original was deleted by a huge majority 'honest'? Trampled 10:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Certainly, although I did not do that myself. We do not vote on classes of image, but judge each one individually.  However I think I also get the point that you're clearly attempting to divert the issue from the dishonesty of the campaign by Achilles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * These 2 images are essentially the same issue, and I probably would have missed this new image if Achilles had not brought it to my attention. My point is, we've already voted on this issue. The nays had a large majority. Just because the image is slightly different, it does not change the outcome. Thus, I think it was fair to request that the people who voted before vote again, especially considering how easy it is to miss these votes. Trampled 12:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We have not already voted on this issue. This is evidenced by the number of people who have voted differently on the two distinct images, and those who observing the different circumstances have explicity chosen to abstain (a couple of people have asserted that they did this, in the course of this discussion.
 * And again you miss the point that this was not an honest attempt to publicize the vote. It was specifically targetted at people who voted delete in a similar case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The people who voted differently voted to delete because of the copyright-vio issue. They did not make up the majority of nay voters however. I would concede that it would be unfair to only ask the nay voters to vote again if the images were quite different and Achilles was seeking to promote a POV view. However, these images are near identical, and can't be considered to be two seperate votes. Trampled 12:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well you've conceded that there were different issues in the earlier vote. The rest seems to be special pleading on your part. That'll do for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that is not special pleading. The majority issue with the last autofellatio picture was not the copyright issue. The reasons for both votes are the same. Trampled 13:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I received one of these requests to vote. I chose not to vote, as I see this image as being less offensive than the previous (but not so much so as to vote the other way). I'm also concerned with a message going only to those who are likely to vote in a particular direction; if Achilles had suggest to all those who voted either way in the previous vote, that would have been fine. I also have no problem with someone approaching a small number of people with whom they have had significant contact with in the past, but Achilles is a stranger to me.-gadfium 10:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It just seems to be one of the early steps towards proper political parties formingGeni 10:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * That's a very, very bad thing. silsor 16:20, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Silsor on this point. I can't see how political parties on wikipedia could be compatible with NPOV which I beleive Jimbo has said is "absolute and non-negotiable" (or words to that effect). Thryduulf 17:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Simply contact the keep voters and putting a note on the village pump should help in making this more fair. Mgm|(talk) 10:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Well we're not supposed to be using Wikipedia for political campaigning. I hadn't heard of the "schoolwatch" thing and it sounds like another disturbing  sign.  There's also the not-inconsiderable question of whether we should condone the spamming of 57 user talk pages on *any* issue. MacGyver, I cannot believe that you're actually suggesting that I should imitate such actions. Village Pump, yes, spamming keep voters no. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:44, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we ought to have a policy against spamming of talk pages for any reason? I'd certainly support it.
 * See also the ArbCom case against GRider Thryduulf 10:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We'll all soon have on our talk pages! Yes, it's certainly a slippery slope and we don't want someone spamming loads of people. violet/riga (t) 11:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thinking back, I remembered this use of a bot (Rambot) to spam hundreds of talk pages. Wasn't there some discussion of an anti-spam policy back then? violet/riga (t) 11:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Well I think I'm more concerned about the spamming issue than anything else. Vote packing I'm confident the people who do VfD and IfD duty are well able to take into account, but the possibility of our accepting spamming user talk has a bad smell to it in the long term.  I don't want to give commercial spammers a yellow light (which is all they'd need) to start using wikibots to spam editors whose profiles indicate a possible interest in X or Y.  Oh well, death of Wikipedia predicted, film at 11 and all that, but I do think we should look at this from the point of view of policy.

 * Obviously this isn't the right forum for that, so I'll try to get a policy proposal together on Village pump (policy). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I am glad I have been notified about the new vote on the autofellatio image. I am strongly opposed to inclusion of such explicit material - this is an encyclopedia, for crying out loud! I see it as a legitimate method of campaigning for votes. I concur with MacGyverMagic - if you disagree with the deletion, start a campaign in the opposite direction. - Mike Rosoft 11:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If there's one thing that I think would make me think twice about Wikipedia, it would be if it were to become accepted as a medium for political campaigning of this kind. I don't think I'm alone in this, not by a long chalk. As another editor said recently, if this becomes the Jesusland encyclopedia you won't see us for dust. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've created Watch as an experiment to work around this. It would be nice to get some discussion about its usefulness at the talk. Do remember, however, that the ones there at the moment are just examples. violet/riga (t) 12:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Brilliant idea. This is a subscribable system.  I hope it isn't premature, but I'm so delighted I announced it on Village pump news. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm one of the people who was contacted, and in this case, I chose to vote. I don't see anything wrong with this because, as Violetriga has pointed out, similar things have happened on VfD with the school voting, and all the VfD votes (minus sockpuppets, new users, etc.) count, even when the voting users admit that they were contacted to vote. Other factors such as the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians listing pages that require "immediate attention" mean that it is impossible to completely eliminate vote stacking or campaigning, nor is it necessarily wrong. --Deathphoenix 12:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I take the opportunity to ask how either the copyright status, or the content in Autofellatio 2 is different? (a) both images are copyrighted, and (b) both are gay porn. There must be thousands of copyrighted gay porn images on the internet, and hundreds illustrating autofellatio. Are we going to vote on them all? But for WP:POINT I would be tempted to upload a few dozen and put them all on VfD saying they are each a separate case. dab (ᛏ) 14:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Virtually all images on Wikipedia are "copyrighted" in that someone holds the copyright. The holder of the copyright of the latter image had explicitly granted a right to use it, with author credit (which we always give anyway where possible), for any purpose at all.  Whether the image was or was not classifiable as "gay porn" is neither here nor there. The images were sourced differently, showed different people and different occasions. They are different images. No you cannot apply one IfD vote as if it were a vote on a whole class of images.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achilles should have been more careful in how they worded what they said, but I for one am very grateful to him for contacting me. I had already voted to delete the previous example. I had no idea someone had put it back on. in my opinion the person who re downloaded it is at fault; given that, i.e. the rules had already been ignored or broken, I think Achilles was fully justified. Well done, --SqueakBox 14:30, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * No rules were ignored or broken in uploading this *new* picture. Apparently Achilles did not contact everybody on the previous vote, only those who he thought would agre with him that this image should be deleted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to note that the two images are different and merit different IFD votes. I voted delete on the first and keep on the second. Uploading autofellatio2 was entirely within rights and decency. My main point, though, is to note further instances of "vote stacking" with regards to this issue. I was fortunate enough to receive two "spams" on my talk page, both of which influenced my vote. First, on March 22 User:Limeheadnyc (Timbo) contacted me (he indicated it was because I voted to keep autofellatio inline in the article) to inform me that the image was up for IFD. I doubt he contacted those who voted against inclusion of the image. Next, User:Quadell contacted me March 27 to inform me of the changed copyright status of the image. I suspect I was not the only one he contacted. So User:Achilles is not the only one who may be at fault here, nor is it confined to those on one side of the issue. Personally, I think contacting people based on how they voted on very similar issues is acceptable, but I would draw the line at contacting people who have not expressed an opinion on a very similar issue. LizardWizard 18:43, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I noticed Quadell's notices for the original autofellatio image. He was tallying votes and asked several people questions for clarification.  In particular a number of people had said "keep if it isn't a copyvio" and he wanted to make sure that, the image having been found on a porn site, the voter wanted to change his vote to "delete".  That isn't campaigning, it's conscientious tallying.
 * On investigating I find that it is true, however, that on March 22-23 User:Limeheadnyc contacted some people who had voted inline on a poll on autofellatio and notified them that the image had been put up for deletion for the fourth time. In addition to you, he contacted User:Austin Hair, User:Christiaan, User:Improv, User:OldakQuill and User:Postdif.  Six users in all. Had he wanted to spam he could have gone for all forty-odd, but he seems to have exercised some restraint. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I did indeed contact some people about Autofellatio.jpg. I was (or thought I was) familiar with those editors' views on the subject through various means, and although I had perhaps not interacted with them on talk pages before, I thought they would appreciate the note. One should also note that, had I wanted to influence the outcome of that vote (which was already quite lopsided), I should have contacted many more people! As it were, I was more contacting them to see if they wanted to contribute to the discussion – I felt like there were some rampant misunderstandings and half-truths (or zero-truths) in the discussion, and I didn't have the stamena to keep up a balancing viewpoint. I think all of the users I contacted (save Austin Hair, though I could be wrong) did indeed contribute to the discussion wonderfully. So in that sense I was trying to promote discussion rather than overtly engineer a specific outcome, but I can see the similarity. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  22:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. For clarification, I count at least 53 talk pages that Achilles has messaged. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  22:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Achilles message to me at all. First, given that the new autofellatio image was posted after a very large majority of people voted to remove a similar image (by both absolute numbers and percentages), a certain amount of outrage on his part seems somewhat justifiable. I must say that for the handful of people who insist on having these images in the Wikipedia, contrary to the clear consensus, to start yelling "vote packing" when they are caught trying to upload/keep another one also seems a bit outrageous to me. I suppose that if the vote had gone by unobserved with the result being "keep" that tne next thing to have happened when the image was more widely noticed would be for its proponents to express shock and outrage when someone put it up for IFD again. --BM 20:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comment is filled with loaded language. "caught trying to upload/keep another one". Is that how you regard other editors' attempts to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia? You may disagree with them, but there are people (at least one arbcom member among them) who genuinely think this campaign to rid Wikipedia of encyclopedic images of an unusual, extremely rate sex act is wrong. You say "if the vote had gone by unobserved". But the listing was made openly by a person who wanted the image deleted on the appopriate forum. This was not done in darkness but in the full light of day.

I regret that tonight, against my express opposition, another person has taken to spamming supporters of the keep vote. I hope both he and the original 50+ talk pages spammer are severely reproved for their action. I am truly saddened by this divisive and unconscionable activity. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * can't do anything this time round. Better start putting that policy together fast.Geni 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Additionally you *still* seem to think it's okay for an image to be put up for deletion as many times as it takes for you to get your way. Do you not realise what a vile, unreasonable concept that is? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * well the record for an article appears to be at least 4Geni 20:42, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * and, if you are referring to the last vote, there was one full IFD, with very few participants, followed by two IFD's which were aborted prematurely. This was followed by the vote in which 81% of the votes, with wide participation, wanted the image deleted.  Tony insists on characterizing this sequence of events as putting an image up for deletion as many times as it takes.    By the way, even if that were an accurate characterization of events, I don't see anything wrong with holding repeated votes as more and more people become aware of an issue, until sanity prevails.    However, that isn't actually what happened in this case.  There were two votes: one sparse, a few months later, another one. --BM 22:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "I don't see anything wrong with holding repeated votes as more and more people become aware of an issue, until sanity prevails." i.e. until you get the outcome you want. Thryduulf 22:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * BM, you're fooling yourself if you don't see a pattern here. The original autofellatio image was summarily deleted several times, overwritten by a drawing, and even replaced by a much-degraded copy of the same image, without a single vote being taken. It was also listed for deletion four times, and a number of anti-image people did indeed characterize it as as many times as it takes. I also note your loaded use of the word "sanity" to describe your own opinion, forgetting that many other wikipedia editors have different opinions.  Shame on you.  Shame on you. Shame on you.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Tony, you seem unduly agitated by this. Let me give you some advice that others have given me: you ought to pick your battles better. Flying to the barricades to defend an image of some guy sucking his penis that 80% of Wikipedia editors don't want in the encyclopedia is not picking your battles.  Nor is it the best moment to be calling down "shame" on other people, guy.  --BM 23:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If 80% of wikipedians truly want this image deleted, why are you having to fight so hard for your opinion? If it was that clear cut then there wouldn't be any need for you to have spammed in excess of 50 talk pages and you wouldn't need to battle - each time it would quietly get voted out. In the previous vote many people it seems voted against the image because of its non-free liscence not its content. From what I can see of Tony's conduct in this debate, it has consistently been of a higher standard than yours. Thryduulf 23:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Just to be clear, it was Achilles who posted messages on Talk pages calling attention to the new vote.  But I don't blame him.    As for why his message was needed, IFD is not a place to which a lot of people regularly pay attention.  When their attention is drawn to issues that arise there, it seems there is consensus that images such as these do not serve any useful encyclopedic purpose.  On the contrary.   --BM 23:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My appologies for confusing you with Achilles. The previous consensus showed that that image was not suitable for Wikipedia, in no small part due to its copyright status - indeed at least one voter has stated that was the sole reaosn behind their vote. If you ask a non-representetive sample of any population you will get a biased result. Taking an analogy of a real-world analogy, if you are conducting a survey of people who happen to be in a shopping centre one afternoon and asking their opinion on whether Tony Blair is a good prime minister or not. For the first couple of hours that you're there you notice that the reults are showing that most people think he has been a good PM. Because you came here with an agenda to show that Tony Blair is not good at his job this worries you, so in order to make sure you aren't proved wrong you phone up a load of people who you know went on the anti-war march and who you know voted for the Liberal Democrats in the last election, and ask them to come to the shopping centre and take part in your survey, some of Mr Blair's supportser might here about it from their friends, but by the end of the day the results are going the way you want them to, and so you call it a day and publisbh the results you got that show that Tony Blair is widely viewed as a cheating-lying-bastard. Don't you think that the Labour party would have a very justified complaint that the vote wasn't fair? Inviting only those people who will vote the way you want (plus any that accidentally overhear or wander past) to take part will not produce a valid consensus of the population supposedly represented. Thryduulf 00:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * There was no question of "vote packing" on the previous vote.  Copyright was an issue in that vote, true, but it was not the main issue.   If there were people who voted delete because of the copyright question who would have voted keep otherwise, it wouldn't have changed the fact that there was an overwhelming consensus to delete the image.   Those favoring retention of the image set the bar at 80% to delete it (as opposed to 66% on VFD), and it is possible that that threshold might have not been achieved except for the copyright issue.    But there was still a significant consensus, and soon after it was expressed, someone saw fit to post a similar image, essentially thumbing his nose at the consensus.  In that situation, I can't see a thing wrong with Achilles seeking to alert the people who voted the first time that their intent had not been fulfilled.   I am amazed and dismayed that deleting pornographic "shock" images is even controversial on Wikipedia.  Jimbo has made it clear that he trusts the consensus to do the right thing with these images, and the last vote showed his trust was not misplaced.  However, there seems to be a determined minority, including administrators, who are so set on making Wikipedia a beacon of their concept of freedom of speech that they will defend, even advocate, the posting of pornography in an encyclopedia intended for general usage.   --BM 00:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There was no question of "vote packing" on the previous vote. This is false. Anthere pointed out that an unspecified number of users of the French Wikipedia had answered a call to visit the English Wikipedia solely to vote to delete the image, which was at that time being used as spam. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I have several objections here
 * What is wrong with making wikipedia a "beacon of free speech"? Why don't you want that?
 * The image is not pornographic in the context of an encyclopædia arcile about autofellatio. In a different context it could be, but then in a different context Image:Red-thigh-high-boots-dubidub.jpg could be pornographic and nobody is objecting to the inclusion of that image.
 * This encylopædia is for general use, but what is wrong with images in context? The article about pornography is encyclopædic, and I would much rather have in-context images of a pornographic nature than images of a fatal car crash for example. However this issue is not relevant to this image because it isn't pornographic.
 * Thryduulf 08:34, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The key word here is "context". As currently implemented, all images in Wikipedia can be viewed, linked to, and added to articles freely, even when the constitute shock sites without their context. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:01, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * by that logic we should delete Image:Rowanwilliams01.jpg because someone could place it on the Pope John Paul II article (where it would be out of context and potentially offensive), we should also delete Image:Pjp2c.jpg becuase someone could be offended by it on the Atheism article. The Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg becuase it would be very offensive if a vandal inserted it on the Anorexia nervosa article. Equally the Image:Cytisusscoparius1web.jpg (from the Broom (shrub) article) image absolutely must go as it would hugely offensive on the George W. Bush article. Thryduulf 15:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I remember a great number of people who at least included copyright consideærations as part of their votes. Some also commented on the poor quality of the image as well as the vandalism that it was being used in. In fact, I think it was a minority who resorted to the "no porno" argument. For the second image, there are no copyright issues, the image is of decidedly good quality (even if you're personally disgusted by it), it does a better job of depicting the subject (I believe one anon crudely said the first image should be called "auto-facial" because the shaft wasn't really in the mouth), and the vandalism with which it was used has now been fixed in the wiki software. (The vandalism entailed bombing user_talk pages by placing double-redirects like Autofellatio.jpg, and affected other wikis by placing single redirects to Autofellatio.jpg. Those redirects are now disabled – see, for example, my sandbox User:Limeheadnyc/Sandbox.) One can only say that this vote is the same out of ignorance or denial. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  00:46, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) — Plus the overwhelming difference in votes (at least pre-spamming, but even overall) lends credence to my claim. T IMBO   ( T A L K )  00:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * ok, assuming we are in the clear copyright-wise, a new vote seems to be in order, since a number of delete votes were clearly based on the image being a copyvio alone. So it seems the re-upload may be considered "within rights". We will be mercifully silent on whether the upload was also within "decency". Nobody answered whether it would be within rights and decency for me to upload "autofellatio" numbers 3 through to 23, and / or "double penetration" numbers 1 through to 25, as well as "scatophilia" numbers 1 through to 12, all depicting preciously rare sex acts. The annoyance everyone is exposed to over this makes very clear that such images do not "make a better encyclopedia". People in the keep camp seem to honestly and sincerely devoted to making Wikipedia a better porn host, and in the spirit of npov and cultural relativism I am not passing judgement on that cause. dab (ᛏ) 09:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Nobody answered whether it would be within rights and decency for me to upload "autofellatio" numbers 3 through to 23, and / or "double penetration" numbers 1 through to 25, as well as "scatophilia" numbers 1 through to 12, all depicting preciously rare sex acts. Yes, it is my opinion that undoubtedly it would be, provided none of the pictures are illegal in the state of Florida. Indeed it seems to me that as long as campaigner keep stacking the votes, vandalizing the pictures, summarily deleting them, and lying about their copyright status, it would be advisable in the interests of the continued health and independence of Wikipedia to demonstrate that they cannot get away with such behavior. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't forget hypnotizing Jimbo so that he writes that they are "completely unacceptable" on Wikipedia. How low-handed can you get?  --BM 10:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep your slimy innuendoes to yourself. Jimbo is entitled to his opinion, but has made it plain that he expects Wikipedians as a whole (and I don't think he meant the kind of packed voting practises we've seen here) to make up our minds. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "Slimy innuendoes" is coming awfully close to a personal attack, Tony.  I think that is unwarranted.  --BM 11:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I didn't understand your previous comment, BM, so it may have been open to some slimy interpretation, although I can't conceive of any... Anyway, I hope we can vote this thing down in order to have a precedent to speedy porn uploads in the future. But if we can't I'll leave it to somebody else to "campaign" about, this time. dab (ᛏ) 11:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * My point was that to the list of offenses of which Tony says the "anti-image" crowd are guilty (vote packing, summarily deleting them, lying about copyright), one should add the fact they they have hypnotized Jimbo into saying that the images are "completely unacceptable".   This was sarcasm.  It wasn't innuendo, and there wasn't anything slimy about it. --BM 12:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * BM, you appeared to be insinuating that anyone who disagreed with you must be barking mad. If it was sarcasm, it was exceedingly poorly judged, for I doubt very much whether anyone else understood what you meant.  I take back my description of your statement as "slimy innuendoes".  You have made some exceedingly personal attacks in the past.

 * dab, I do hope you're not serious about making images speediable on the basis that they're judged to be "porn". I don't think you could even get close to making porn a criterion for deletion, let alone deletable on sight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * And again, I have to say I do not have a problem with "anti-image" people, but with some extremists who have engaged in the activities that I enumerated. This is apparently a very emotive subject for some, but it does not merit the corrupt, no-holds-barred methods adopted by some individuals opposed to Wikipedia having images of autofellatio. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't recall any "exceedingly personal attacks" that I've made in the past. But I stand ready to be educated.   Please post me a note on my Talk page concerning the "exceedingly" personal attacks, and perhaps I will learn something -- at least what is considered by an admin (whom I voted for by the way) to be a personal attack.  That is a blockable offense by the way, as you know, so I would natually want to avoid them.   If after you've studied my edit history, you don't find any exceedingly personal attacks, after all, perhaps you will withdraw that comment.  --BM 18:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How could a couple of IfD votes establish a "precedent" for speedy deletion? That seems naive, at least. If you're going to change CSD criteria, I should think you'd at least have to develop a policy page and have broad support. "Porn" isn't even an IfD criterion (which is understandable -- User:198 called the autofellatio drawing porn, and was so upset that he couldn't have it deleted that he left wikipedia.) T IMBO  ( T A L K )  21:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Demi did some counter-packing as a response, but did not manage to send as many keep messages as there had been fewer keep votes originally. It would have been better to have one short message to everyone from the previous vote, but informing people of a similar vote to a recent 100+ poll seems totally reasonable. --Audiovideo 01:39, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A note on recent reactions to my activities
'' I seem to be the object of discussion here, though I was not immediately aware that it was occurring. This dialog on the matter is something that I have just extracted from my own talk page.''

I have made no effort to disguise my opinions on this matter, on the posting of what I consider images that are detrimental to the overall value of this project, nor to hide my actions in contacting others. So far as I am aware, prior to my efforts at notifying others whose votes and opinions upon such matters were almost immediately dismissed, disregarded, and ignored, the only other prominent notice to the voting, outside of the vote page itself was on the Talk page of the Autofellatio article, and about the image that had immediately been posted once the previous one had overwhelmingly been voted to be deleted, it read:

 * More image deletion

 * The new image, Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg, which is copyright-issue-free and much better in quality and depiction of the subject (IMHO) has also been listed for deletion. Heads up. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Other than those who already have the article on their watch list, or who are otherwise drawn with some interest to an article on the self-entertainment of Autofellatio who exactly was this targeted at? It immediately produced most of the great number of Keep votes which occurred, and (so far as I am aware) it remained the only prominent notice of the issue for nearly a week.

I think it somewhat disingenuous of a few people to seek to censure me for expressing my honest opinions, when I have made no effort to insult them for expressing theirs, no matter how much we might disagree on any matters, nor for what reasons. I might occasionally descend into a sarcastic or derisive expression about certain opinions, or the apparent logic or lack of it involved in them, but I fully do respect the right of anyone and everyone to have their own opinions on things, and to disagree with me as much as their own levels of reasoning impels them to do. ~ Achilles † 17:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * So the keep voters are all dumb, but you respect our dumbness? T IMBO  ( T A L K )  23:18, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Achilles, you know full well that there only two problems that I have with your activities:
 * 1) Your use of spamming to further your campaign
 * 2) Your decision to contact *only* people you thought would agree with you.

Had you genuinely wanted to publicise the IfD further, you would have done the obvious thing: write a note on the Village Pump. I think it's obvious that you didn't do that because you are determined, not to have an honest decision on whether we have a consensus to delete a certain picture, but to sabotage the poll by packing it with people who you were sure would be in favor of deletion.

Just to show you that I'm not all hot air, I'll draw your attention to the fact that, in the original poll on whether to inline or link the picture, it was I who publicised that poll on the Village pump. I am certain that an honest poll will always be against deletion of this picture, but if I were not I would still not try to sabotage a poll as you have so blatantly and shamelessly done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:27, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Though I fully expected to encounter some exceptions I confess that I did make an effort to contact people I thought would be inclined to agree with me on the matter, because it was so obvious an effort to circumvent the decisions that had already just occurred, and I am sure most of them might have thought settled the matter, for at least a little while. I have no apologies to make for an honest effort at notifying most of these people that their votes and opinions had effectively been disregarded. To characterize the mass-messaging that I engaged in to contact them as "spamming" is your right, but as I noted previously: I was not "selling" anything to anyone, and the only thing that I was "advertising" was the fact that something had occurred which I considered an act of injustice and insolent disregard of their views. BOTH Justice and Liberty are proper concerns of every ethically responsible person, and those who seek mere freedom for themselves without regard to justice and the proper freedoms of others, make a mockery of all that is fair and noble within the capacities of every human being. ~ Achilles † 17:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

''I truly do not seek to cause needless discord between any individuals, or any factions that might exist, but on some issues I do seek to elucidate some matters that I feel have not been given proper consideration. '' ~ Achilles † 18:26, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Because you're so fond of using the word, Achilles, I'll employ it in a particularly apt situation: your above comments reek of steaming bullshit. You were "spamming" by selling your case to 57 user_talk pages (maybe more?). I believe Arbcom has come down on this issue before with User:IZAK, who had a similar taste for spamming all over the place. Your justification is laughable: I suppose because one image was deleted, and you wanted it deleted because of one particular reason, then everyone must agree with you. What gall, then, must Christiaan have had to go to the trouble to secure a better photo with permission and upload it! Even more, all of us keep voters must be proving a point! And all of those users you contacted who voted keep? My, they must be off their rockers (or perhaps we infected them with some sort of homosexual-porn-fiend virus in preparation for the Autofellatio_2.jpg upload).

What a good call – notifying those logical voters (for the keep voters certainly don't understand logic) in order for sanity to prevail. Your intervention was obviously needed, since the vote wasn't going your way (meaning the right way). I won't even get into your reasoning and the many aspects of the Autofellatio_2.jpg debate you omit. I've said them ad nauseum, and if you don't recognize that, you're either not capable or not willing.

I conclude my rant with a question: what would have been better (ethically, procedurally, practically, etc.), spamming 57 sympathetic talk pages with your pleas to delete one image, or actually establishing at Talk:Autofellatio that there is consensus to have no images (not even linked). If there were that consensus (which there is not), image deletion would be an afterthought – orphaned images get deleted all the time, and there's nothing any of us insane keep voters could say. T IMBO  ( T A L K )  22:20, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I confess that I am not fully familiar with all the options that are available here. The dialog on this matter has proceeded onto several different pages and forums of discussion, which makes a cohesive response to it very difficult. To help save my own time, and that of others, and to avoid needless duplication, I will respond to many of the general issues being raised upon my talk page, and occasionally respond to specific queries where I encounter them. There are certainly many matters to attend to, and I recognize that a proper resolution of the disputes will require much further discussion, and patience on the part of all involved. ~ Achilles † 21:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:82.35.37.118 User:Steinsky User:Jni
This User:82.35.37.118 continues to destroy data and mis catogrise data, refuses to explain their reasoning and refuses to answer any questions about it.Two User:Steinsky User:Jni seek to prevent anyoneelse knowing what is going on, I suggest that the ID of User:82.35.37.118 is known to them and that they are invloved in this abuse.--Jirate 19:01, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

User:Steinsky (I)
Has now broken the 3RR rule at User:82.35.37.118 trying to protect his mate, he has also started putting personal attacks in his edit summaries.--Jirate 19:05, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * Use is now abusing me personally in my talk page.--Jirate 19:08, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * Coming from someone who just called another Wikipedia editor "scum", this is charmingly ironic. Noel (talk) 20:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Jirate also said on his own Talk page, "I dont give a fuck about Wikiquette". And check out this litany of personal attacks made by Jirate.  RickK 21:53, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

User:Steinsky (II)
Has now broken the 3RR rule at User:82.35.37.118 trying to protect his mate, he has also started putting personal attacks in his edit summaries.--Jirate 19:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Reverts 17:20, 17:44, 17:56 19:01 today.

 * Use is now abusing me personally in my talk page.--Jirate 19:17, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * reverting vandelism is allowed under the 3RR. Persoanl attacks on talk pages are viewed as vanderlismGeni 19:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * It isn't a peronsal attack it's a warning, I view his removing it as vandlism, som I must be allowed to restore his vadlised entry.--Jirate 20:03, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * There is perhaps one person on wikipedia who must be allowed to do things. personal attacks on user pages are viewed as vanderlism. You yourself have just removed a number of comments from your talk page. Your edit summeries show a clear intention to revert User:82.35.37.118 more than three times.Geni 20:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems to me it is me that is not being alowwed to do things and others that cvan do what they like. They don't like your opinion the remove it, they don't like your language and they call abuse. Treat them in the same way and they get really miffed. They break 3RR and it OK because they are them, any oneelse and they are blocked. Even if yuo don't break £RR they can still block. The intention of these users is to vanlis Wikipedia into what they want, not to play by the rules just to abuse the rules.--Jirate 20:38, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

User:B1link82
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 19:00, Apr 6, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 09:45, Apr 7, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 09:50, Apr 7, 2005
 * 4th revert: 10:31, Apr 7, 2005
 * 5th revert: 15:53, Apr 7, 2005
 * 6th revert: 16:35, Apr 7, 2005
 * 6th revert: 16:35, Apr 7, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 20:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This person joined us on March 13... are we sure this isn't a clueless newbie?  Never mind, I see two previous blocks and an RFC. -- Netoholic @ 20:56, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)
 * see the users talk page also blocked for 12 hours for a mixture of straight and complex revertsGeni 20:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you look at his talk page? Virtually every comment is questioning one of his edits or asking him to behave better. This is not a clueless newbie. Carbonite | Talk 21:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

216.45.221.155
Could someone check to see whether 216.45.221.155 (talk · contributions) is in fact a blocked user? He's causing problems at William Luther Pierce, Pantheism, and Cosmotheism (classical) (and their talk pages). He's pasting whole articles to Talk pages, reverting a change of Cosmotheism (classical) to a redirect page (as agreed by other editors on the Talk page), and generally PoV pushing on a grand scale. If he isn't a blocked user, what should be my next step? Most of the avenues seem really only to work properly when the problem is a registered user, or for problems on a single article. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, it's been suggested that he's User:Paul Vogel; could that be the case? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 20:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * That's definitely Vogel, who is on the verge of extending his ban by one complete year. Go ahead and block him. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * OK — how long for? (He's just recreated Pan-atheism, which is  after a VfD).  I've blocked it for 24 hours until I know what I should do. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I protected the "to be deleted" version. Someone can unprotect it when Vogel's been away for a while. Keep in mind that as a banned user, his work is revert on sight - David Gerard 00:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The last time that that IP address was blocked (for the same reason) it was for a month, so I've followed precedent. I hope that that's OK. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I've just discovered that my one-month block has been lifted; he immediately made the same vandalising attack on William Luther Pierce, Pantheism, Cosmotheism, etc.. I've replaced the block; how can I find out who lifted it, and why? Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 13:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Special:Log/block, and enter "User:216.45.221.155" in the Title field. Here's a direct link.  No one unblocked him; the problem is that when multiple blocks of differing duration are in place, the one that expires first takes precedence. —Korath (Talk) 14:00, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks. How irritating; I'll have to watch that in future.  Vogel was clearly on to it like a flash. Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Irate (I)
I have blocked User:Irate indefinitely for raging disruption and insanity, particularly personal attacks and a total unwillingness to discuss his behavior (Any note of what policy he is breaking is deleted as "vandalism." There is an arbcom case pending, but it's sat without being opened for days now. In the absence of the systems that are in place to handle stuff like this actually working, something needs to be done. I will lift the block as soon as the arbcom actually opens the case. Snowspinner 21:02, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think I only need to point to this exchange to show how wrong it is for Snowspinner to have made this block. -- Netoholic @ 21:11, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * What, the part where he filed the RfC and then endorsed it as Alkivar? Snowspinner 21:14, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * In that same edit, he was copying in the "proper" RFC format as he was asked. I think he just forgot to take off that part.  Compare with this to see where he got the format from.  -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I'd think anyone going so far as to file an RFC on someone should be taking due care and attention in doing so. If you look at Irate's last fifty edits, he's been editing so fast he can't be bothered correcting typos while accusing any edit he doesn't like of being "vandalism" - not a sign of sufficient care and attention, more one of going utterly batshit IMO - David Gerard 21:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Am I reading this right, that typos are a blockable offense? -- Netoholic @ 21:54, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * No, but going batshit like this defensibly is, as a consensus of admins so far indicates - David Gerard 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Probably the wrong admin to enact it, but a quite defensible good faith action in the circumstances IMO (see below) - David Gerard 21:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Indeed, it would have been better if another admin had done it. But to my mind, the responsibility that comes along with being willing to bend/break the rules when they're not working is that I have to own up to it. It would have been dishonest, A, and B, unfair of me to ask an uninvolved admin to block here. Snowspinner 21:27, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I unblocked the user and Geni reblocked for disrupting Wikipedia. Inter\Echo 21:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * which I feel rather gets around the problem (although I only blocked for 2 days)Geni 21:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Is Wikipedia down at the moment and I missed it, or was he perhaps only "disrupting" one page? This doesn't fit with WP:BP. -- Netoholic @ 21:28, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * the stuff I know about loads of acusations of vanderlism and a history I belive you know quite a bit aboutGeni 21:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Let's be realistic. He's not disrupting Wikipedia.  Is it so far off for someone to think that Snowspinner putting a {delete} tag on an RFC against isn't vandalism?  If I assume good faith in Snowspinner's action there, I have to assume Irate's good faith in filing a grievance.  -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * When an editor is going off like that, one is often not well advised to wait until it's a big enough problem. See apology below from Snowspinner - he knows the correct course of action for the future IMO and wouldn't do it this way again - David Gerard 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Someone should be opening the case soon (I would but I'm busy fixing the household network) - at which point I'll be pushing for a speedy injunction on Irate editing anywhere except the pages concerning his case - David Gerard 21:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In hindsight, I should have posted requesting a block here instead of doing it myself. Hindsight is 20/20. Decisions made to contain rampant disruption are not. Next time there's any question that I'm involved in the dispute, I will bring it here. My explanation for why I did it this way this time is above. In any case, I apologize. Snowspinner 21:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like this "Irate" is almost as big a problem as a certain renegade admin who blocks people according to his personal whims and starts ArbCom cases against people who disagree with him. Everyking 21:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If any such admin exists, collecting evidence of this behavior and submitting it to the arbcom would be wise. Snowspinner 21:37, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh I get it! you are saying that you don't like Snowspinner silsor 21:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * If you mean Snowspinner, get a decent arbcom case together and submit it. If you're not going to do so, please assume good faith so as not to inadvertently slip into personal attacks. - David Gerard 21:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * [personal attack redacted] Everyking 21:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please do not make personal attacks such as this anywhere on Wikipedia. - David Gerard 21:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Please don't make false accusations against me either, David. Is accusing someone of "raging disruption and insanity" not a personal attack, by the way? Everyking 22:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Implying that David Gerard has a double standard is a personal attack. Well, that is, if you think every criticism is a personal attack.-- Netoholic @ 22:12, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I looked at Irate's contribution page and checked the most recent twenty or so diffs and it sure as heck looked like an accurate description of a reason for an admin judgement call to me. You didn't make admin without a sense of judgement, that's what people get admin for. What do you think? - David Gerard 22:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * My sense of judgment tells me that my supposed personal attack was far milder than "raging disruption and insanity". I haven't looked at Irate's actions personally, but given Snowspinner's history I don't believe it's appropriate for him to block anyone. Everyking 22:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So? Snowspinner's block was pulled way backGeni 22:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * What invalid blocks has he been making, in your opinion? I'm interested in specifics - David Gerard 22:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Most are documented here - Requests for comment/Snowspinner. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * I'm interested here in Everyking's considered judgement as an administrator - David Gerard 09:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently Kim Bruning has unblocked him, so much of this discussion is moot. (And if Everyking had experienced Irate's behaviour, he might recognise "raging disruption and insanity" as a straightforward statement of fact. I've been treated with comparative politeness by him, for some reason, but I'm in a very small minority.) Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * well that just leavse the maater of wether the user has violated the 3RRGeni 22:14, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * So now we're back to saying essentially that "it's not a personal attack if it's true? -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

 * As the RFAr is now open, I would have unblocked now anyway. Snowspinner 22:15, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * better go and do it then it appears that kim managed to unblock my mistake block of a nonexistant userGeni 22:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Unblocked. Snowspinner 22:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration case is now open. Evidence to Requests for arbitration/Irate/Evidence please -- sannse (talk) 22:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guys, guys, isn't it obvious? User:Irate is a troll. He just wants to stir up trouble. So stop giving him so much power. Ignore him, pending arbcom action. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually, I'm assuming he's entirely sincere - David Gerard 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh yes, there's nothing to suggest trolling. He just has little or no self-control, and a peculiar view of what constitutes vandalism (that is, anything with which he disagrees.  My encounter with him involved his reverting as 'vandalism' an anon's addition of a 'Transport in Merseyside' category to an article about... a railway company in Merseyside.  It was vandalism, apparently, because the company no longer exists as a separate entity). Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 22:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I have found no problem concerning Irate that could not be solved by ignoring Irate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * People on Wikipedia are not capable of ignoring others they don't like, I've found. It's like if every animal in the forest started mindlessly attacking every animal of a different species without any fear or restraint. Everyking 05:55, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please see Requests for arbitration/Irate -- sannse (talk) 23:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that User:Irate accepts ArbCom's authority here  --Calton | Talk 15:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Irate stirring up trouble
Sorry, I don't know how else to put it. John seems to have found a new category of mischief.

He wrote the mailing list complaining that Snowspinner blocked him. I've spent over 20 minutes looking into this, and I'm inclined to support Snowy:
 * 1) His mailing list complaint said Snowspinner should be blocked permanently. That's ridiculous.
 * 2) He has reverted as "vandalism" perfectly reasonable comments from Snowy about policy. See.

I wrote him privately asking him what he's even DOING at Wikipedia, but he didn't answer. And his username is more than half trollish, so I think we're better off without him. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * In my prosecution, blocking after he set up a RFC against me was probably unwise, even if the RFC was a bit crazed. Snowspinner 22:06, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * Eh, don't worry about it, we're all friends here. I blocked you (incorrectly) last month, and you had no hard feelings about it. We all make mistakes, and it's all "un-doable". Those who are forgiven, will love much. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:13, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom injunction against Irate
Enacted 4-0 in what I think was record time:

 * User:Irate is banned from editing Wikipedia for the duration of this case except for the pages User:Irate, User talk:Irate and the arbitration case pages relating to him.

Since no penalty is specified, the usual default penalty for violation would apply, that being an up to 24-hour block - David Gerard 22:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * This seems like a quite extreme injunction. Since it is essentially a personal attack case against him, it would seem that a personal attack parole would have been more in order until the case was decided.   Irate seems volatile and easily provoked and is very prone to personal attacks and insults, especially as regards certain articles and his own Talk page.  This violates Wikipedia policy, and he should be disciplined for it.  But in the months he has been a Wikipedia editor he has also made thousands of useful edits in the main namespace including on numerous articles which are not controversial at all.  I don't see why he should not have been allowed to continue with that editing.  He should not be treated as a troll.   Hopefully the Arb Comm case will proceed quickly.   --BM 13:49, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * If he's "volatile and easily provoked and is very prone to personal attacks and insults", then he's probably more trouble than he's worth, which is what the arbcom will decide. Contributions do not trump cooperation and courtesy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:17, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * BM, he's also been a major PITA during that time, too. And I doubt you've been on the receiving end of his abuse, or you might be a little more understanding of people who are tired of dealing with him. Look, nobody on Wikipedia is indispensable: whatever their expertise, there's someone else out there somewhere who knows it too. (This is particularly so as Wikipedia draws in a wider and wider circle of contributors). Irate's contributions just aren't worth it in terms of the price we pay for them - the aggravation and hassle.

 * Good people are burning out and bailing on this project all the time (see Missing Wikipedians - or look at something like Confessed Wikipediholics and see how many are still contributing), and dealing with people like Irate is a good part of the reason why. Noel (talk) 16:21, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not arguing the merits of Irate's case. As I said, there seems to be a good case for disciplining him for personal attacks.   However, the "injunction" seems to prejudge the outcome of the case and is effectively blocking him totally from the Wikipedia now even before he has answered the evidence against him.   That is not a correct procedure.  The injunctions in Arb Comm cases should put the minimum restraints on people until the cases are resolved, especially as they can take a long time. A more conservative approach in this case would have been a personal attack parole.   Once again, I am not picking my battles all that well. Irate has already provided further evidence that he is volatile, and his "defense" will be to challenge the legitimacy of the Arb Comm, and generally make himself a PITA.     But nevertheless, I do demur at the procedure being followed. The Arb Comm has set itself up as a quasi-judicial forum, but whenever someone points out that they are not proceeding very judicially, the answer is "Well the person is a PITA".  That being the case, why not just let the AC summarily discipline people, and eliminate the pretense?  Having essentially committed itself to blocking Irate from the project after at most a few hours of consideration, the Arb Comm should finish the case quickly.   --BM 16:40, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Irate (II)
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 06:32, 6 Apr 2005
 * 2nd revert: 14:22, 6 Apr 2005
 * 3rd revert: 12:38, 7 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 15:24, 7 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 15:24, 7 Apr 2005

Reported by: Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User seems to have a problem with the sub categories and their being added to articles, as shown by his edit history. On the Anfield article, did some selective editing in order to subvert the 3rr, after which he reverted back to his edits. Seems to also not know with vandalism is, in considering being bold in editing as being vandalism, where as his own reversions could also be considered vandalism in their own right. I would guess that Irate will refute these claims, but considering that i have asked for a reason for his edits and have yet to receive a response as well as his continuing to revert similar articles, it seems that user wish to engage in a petty edit war, and i would not put much creedience in his response. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I just blocked this user for 2 days under the dissruption clause.Geni 21:16, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Based on the recent ArbCom injunction, Irate is not allowed to edit any articles but his User pages and the Arbitration case page. Jayjg (talk) 13:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, it appears that User:Irate doesn't think ArbCom rulings apply --Calton | Talk 15:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Jesus H. Christ III
I have blocked this user indefintely for two reasons:
 * s/he admits that s/he is a re-incarnation/sock puppet of several banned users:

 * I am actually a good user who has gotten frustrated. I have contributed a ton of information to Wikipedia, usually anonymously or under user names that are now banned forever.

 * the name is quite out of order and meant to make people "uncomfortable" :

 * I feel persecuted and I want a name people are uncomfortable about to make a point.

Refdoc 21:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I'd second that one - David Gerard 21:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Valid block under the improper User name policy alone. RickK 21:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean? Was I wrong wrt sock puppets? Or do you want to say the name was sufficient reason? Refdoc 22:23, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * No, sorry, I wasn't saying that you were wrong at all. IMNSHO, you could have just blocked him for the name and not even have gone to the trouble of trying to verify that he was a sockpuppet.  RickK 22:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. BTW I did not clarify whether s/he is a sockpuppet. Teh guy says it himself... Refdoc 23:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Looking at it from another perspective, how would a user name such as "Jesus Loves" or "Jesus Saves" be received? Everyking 05:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Isn't there a user called "Crucified Christ" anyway? And one called "Hephaestos"? Rhobite 06:20, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * (added after edit conflict) I'd encourage a user name change for those two [i.e., Everyking's examples] as well. From Username:

 * Wikipedia recommends that users avoid

 * names of politicians, military or religious figures or events;
 * any other names that may be seen as potentially offensive, or endorsing or opposing the politics, policies or beliefs of a public figure.

 * — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:22, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration notice - RK
The case relating to User:RK is now closed. Please see Requests for arbitration/RK 2 for the full decision - which includes a revert restriction and a personal attack parole. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Xed
Xed apparently contacted several admins and asked that they remove his User and Talk pages. I have reverted those deletions, because, as is clear from the Block log, Xed keeps attempting to return to editing. It appears to me, at least, that his requests to have his pages deleted were attempts at deleting his existence so that he could then return to Wikipedia. If he refrains from attempting to edit, so that his name doesn't show up in the Block log every day, then his pages should be deleted. It seems to me that, no matter what day it is or what time of the day it is, both Xed and Gzornenplatz's names are at the very top of the Block log, because they have once again attempted to evade their bans and tried to edit. RickK 23:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * You know, if either of them really wanted to edit, creating a new account or just logging out would take seconds. Other reasons for continuing use of a blocked account are possible: I suspect the difficulty of rebuilding a large watchlist is one of them, but that's just a guess. —Charles P. (Mirv) 23:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Am I looking in the wrong place? I see only two instances of his name showing up in the Block log, both yesterday, both autoblocked by Snowspinner. I'm looking at Special:Ipblocklist.  — mark ✎ 23:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Special:Ipblocklist only lists active blocks. If you want to see all of them you need to search Special:Log/Block. Mgm|(talk) 08:32, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Is Xed trying to edit or is he just reading pages? The autoblock used to block people if their IP addresses even looked at a page and I don't know whether that bug was fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, it's not been fixed - certainly it wasn't a while back when I tried this for myself -- sannse (talk) 23:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * SV: Xed emailed me that he is just reading pages.  — mark ✎ 23:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is his ID being blocked when he attempts to read only? I don't belive that for a minute.  He would not be showing up in the Block log if all he was doing was reading.  And Block log entries for IDs of previously blocked named Users disappear after 24 hours, that's why he only shows up twice.  RickK 23:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe he's asked for his user page to be deleted because he thinks that will stop the bug from auto-blocking him. Whatever his reason, he doesn't seem to be doing anything wrong, so he's probably within his rights to ask that the pages be deleted. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:01, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * Contrary to RickK, I believe that he is only reading. In any case, I don't see any reason to revert to pre-block version. If Xed expresses the wish for his pages to be blanked, that wish should be granted. I for one don't like deleting the pages because red links are distressing (and his name appears in a few places) — but I'm blanking the page right now.  — mark ✎ 00:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Blanking's one thing, but please don't actually delete it for now - David Gerard 08:57, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with attempting to edit, anyway. When I've been blocked (for which RickK has been the culprit more than once), I've always attempted to edit while blocked, to see if perhaps some kind soul had unblocked me. A block should not be treated as if the person has been damned to hell for all eternity. Everyking 05:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * Xed is subject of an Arbcom ban. I think we should keep his talk page as a historical record, so non-admins can read back discussions with him. Why does he want to have them deleted anyway? Are there valid reasons? Mgm|(talk) 08:37, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with RickK (and others); Xed's user and user talk pages should not be deleted, but preserved as a matter of record.
 * James F. (talk) 11:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

 * He's contacted me, too. Look, he's being decent about respecting the ban / block. Why not "unblock" his account, giving him a "parole" on the condition that he refrain from editing any pages but his own user page and user talk page, and the usual clutter of RFA, RFC stuff regarding his case? (I'm going to go ahead and unblock his account, but if he mistakenly interprets this as a unilateral pardon I'll re-block him. Okay?) -- Uncle Ed (talk) 16:22, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I object strenuously to this. Xed is banned. Xed's ban did not come without warning. Xed could have tidied up when the measure was proposed, or when it passed, or when the motion to close came. Snowspinner 17:39, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Xed was banned basically just because you decided to go after him. Isn't it just great to see an attempt at a reasonable solution aborted because one other user holds a grudge? Everyking 00:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, he was banned for making a personal attack about one edit in five, because he was convinced anyone who disagreed with him was evil and to be treated with bad faith. He is not an example to emulate - David Gerard 00:46, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Would Xed agree with this description of his actions and views? And I'm not emulating him, I only make personal attacks once every six or seven edits. Everyking 01:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably the absolutely key point here is that whether Xed agrees or not is immaterial - David Gerard 01:32, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's pretty important, because then you have two different views that contradict. Personally, going by my own experience, I think I'd be much more inclined to trust Xed over the ArbCom. Everyking 01:44, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether you trust the arbitration committee or not is immaterial. If you feel you have the right to unblock an arbcomm-banned User, or do anything else in contravention to an arbcomm ruling, then it might be time to get another arbcomm ruling on you, and get your sysophood removed.  If you're just saying that you disagree with the arbcomm ruling, then again, it's immaterial.  RickK 06:53, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, Rick, I am cautious in my use of admin powers and careful not to use them for anything but the most uncontroversial purposes. Everyking 07:05, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * User:RickK/Jimbo's statement. RickK 07:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. The point is, you talk about me needing to be desysoped, but I've done next to nothing controversial with my admin powers in the year that I've had them. You, on the other hand, do controversial things on a nearly daily basis. No, I don't generally agree with ArbCom decisions because I reject punitive logic. But I'm pragmatic enough to know where the power is, and that I have none. Everyking 07:35, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I may be remembering wrong, but I think the arbcom had something to do with it too. Snowspinner 00:44, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've reblocked for the remainder of the ban period. There's no reason to unblock. If there are still issues about how Xed's user pages are to be handled, I support the current status of having them blanked. --Michael Snow 20:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Michael. I will abide by your decision. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:01, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)