text:
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive36

Contents: July 14, 2005 - July 21, 2005

=3RRs=

User:Guy Montag
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Heraclius 00:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My so called third revert was actually a new version synthized with relevent information. It was not a blank revert. In all I have, reverted three times.

Guy Montag 01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Jeus
on :

 * first revert
 * second revert
 * third revert
 * deceptive 4th revert He reverted everything to his old version except the totallydisputed tag and used an edit summary in an attempt to hide his revert as legitimate.

Guy Montag 01:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:83.109.137.231
Vandalism and Three revert rule violation on Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland

 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th

Reported by: --Witkacy 02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:64.109.253.204
Three revert rule violation on. :
 * 1st revert: 6:29, 14th July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 6:51, 14th July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 6:55. 14th July 2005
 * 4th revert: 7:35, 14th July 2005

Reported by Lapsed Pacifist o07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments
 * User insists on blanking entries after receiving sources sought. Has been accused of double standards by User:Clawson for blanking entries with African ancestry. This user has also made a racist edit on Islam in Ireland. I have been involved in an edit war with this user on this article before, I have no wish to repeat this. User is currently aware of being in violation. Lapsed Pacifist 07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:134.161.144.50
Three revert rule violation on. :

 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *
 *

Reported by: Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The same user was blocked for a very similar violation yesterday. Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Already blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR and other violations by Gamaliel. Bratsche talk  5 pillars 01:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ultramarine
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to:
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Ultramarine has serious ownership issues with this horribly written article. Even so, Trey Stone was brave enough to copyedit it. Ultramarine, whose English is poor, does not understand this; so he keeps on accusing both Trey Stone and me of "revisionism" and "censorship." The fact that someone would accuse well-known anti-Communist editor Trey Stone-- of all people-- of these things is a strong sign that he doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. His conduct on the talk page and implied personal attacks are enough reason to warrant a block. 172 01:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have not violated the rule. I have added substantial new arguments in most of my edits. In contrast, 172 insists on reverting to his version which deletes many of the critical arguments. In addition, his version has an incomprehensible ending with numerous spelling errors. Ultramarine 02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ultramarine did violate the 3RR. Don't let his misleading edit summaries fool you. And the version is not mine; it's Trey Stone's. 172 02:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly get what UM is babbling about in his current edit summaries, but he's continuing the uninterrupted reversions. J. Parker Stone 03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I keep adding specific critique of the Communist states. Wikipedia should allow critique of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years. Ultramarine 03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * me and 172 have already explained this to you, i am through here. J. Parker Stone 03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine has just broken the 3RR on as well. He makes a regular habit of breaking the 3RR in order to get away with his usual POV pushing. 172 | Talk 15:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Again, I add new arguments. It is you who make every attempt to revert the results peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. That liberal democracy and capitalism produce good real-world results should not be deleted, even if it does not fit with Marxist theory. Ultramarine 15:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Quit lying. I was citing Lipet and Rustow. No one has ever called them Marxists. 172 | Talk 15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I have supported my statements with the results of numerous peer-reviewed studies, including some by authors named by you. You have only insinuated that there are other studies but have refused to name any. Wikipedia should be allowed the mention the real-world benefits of liberal democracy and capitalism, even if this is contrary to Marx. Ultramarine 15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You are implying that I am objecting to your edits because I am a Marxist, which is a lie and an argument grounded in a personal attack. At any rate, this page is not the place to carry out this discussion. 172 | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should mention all points of view and not endorse any of them, Ultramarine. That is our policy, and you constantly break it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As noted on the talk page, those attempting to delete the peer-reviewed results showing beneficial effects of capitalism are now reverting without even trying to explain the deletions. If you want to argue against the studies by many independent researchers, do your own study, do not do original research in Wikipedia. Ultramarine 16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * We did not delete anything; merely tried to add counter-arguments which you try to either misrepresent or remove. The current state of the article is ample proof of the fact that you are a POV warrior. If that section on 'poverty' is not POV, then I don't know what is. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This was reported a couple of days ago, but I was first asked to look at it today. I've blocked him for 24 hours because he's been warned and blocked many times, and in fact continued reverting after this was reported. The times of the reverts were July 15 19:53, July 16 00:00, 00:48, 01:03, 02:50, 03:06. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 02:16, 15 July 2005

 * 1st revert: 05:04, 15 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 07:14, 15 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 15:37, 15 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 01:12, 16 July 2005
 * 5th revert: 02:18, 16 July 2005

 * Subsequent reverts:
 * 02:01, 17 July 2005
 * 22:42, 17 July 2005
 * 22:11, 18 July 2005
 * 01:59, 19 July 2005

Reported by:Heraclius 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This looks accurate. Since Montag asked for (and received) a block on the other user, it seems fair to judge his own edits as well. On account of this and an excessively combative attitude . I'm giving him a short block. -Willmcw 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * I have sent you a message already, but I want to make it clear that those edits are not a break with policy as they were made on two different days. Guy Montag 22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * They appear to have been with 24 hours of each other. Please remember that even three reverts is too many. And bragging about getting another editor blocked is not conducive to collaboration, nor is telling to "F*** off". -Willmcw 22:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag reverted the article five times in a 24-hour period, and has and has done so an additional four times since then. This individual was blocked for violating the 3RR on three prior occasions, so I feel that a one-hour block is insufficient. —Lifeisunfair 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmm - and Heraclius got a 24 hour ban - for a 3RR breach by the same admin. I thought he was treating them both the same (which would have been according to Wikipedia policy). How very revealing. I wonder how he justifies this?

All of this type of actions sends out out a message. And the message here that being a bully, telling people to "fuck off", repeatedly breaching a 3RR and then reporting another usrs for the SAME violation - is all better than if you are (as the admin seems to described Heraclius earlier) "a jerk" because of his POV. What a shame - policy is explicitly that the 3RR rule is blind to content in so far as possible.

His first action on the ban being lifted awas a third "revert" in 24 hours (so still "legal" but questionable) on Palestinian Terrorism and militancy so "message understood" I think.

If the admins are unfair (or percieved to be so) then people will disrupt, troll and otherwise be "anti-social" to make a point - because they feel that they have no other recource. It really is terribly disruptive to "community".

62.253.64.14 06:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Please do not use different names. It makes it harder for the rest of us to understand what you're saying. Please note that I have responded to you on my talk page, where you raised these same questions. My advice to all of these editors (including Guy Montag) is to stop complaining, stop reverting, and find a way to write encyclopedia articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443
Three revert rule violation on. :

User:68.163.207.106
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 16 jul 2005 13:47
 * 1st revert: 16 jul 2005 13:50
 * 2nd revert: 16 jul 2005 13:53
 * 3rd revert: 16 jul 2005 13:54
 * 4th revert: 16 jul 2005 13:58
 * 5th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:01
 * 6th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:06
 * 7th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:09
 * 8th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:21
 * 9th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:33
 * 10th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:36 (edit summary: I don't plan on backing down any time soon.)
 * 11th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:38
 * 12th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:41
 * 13th revert: 16 jul 2005 14:42
 * 14th revert: 16 jul 2005 16:26 (edit summary: You cocksuckers better put this back on the Crystal Ball page)
 * 15th revert: 16 jul 2005 16:33
 * 16th revert: 16 jul 2005 20:00
 * 17th revert: 16 jul 2005 20:03

Reported by: Aecis 13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) (but updated since)

Comments:
 * possibly has a sockpuppet: . Aecis 13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Stirling Newberry
Three revert rule violation on the Wikipedia Surrealism article by Stirling Newberry.

 * 1st revert was: 15 jul 2005 02:14

 * 4th revert was: 15 jul 2005 23:28

Classicjupiter2 15:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous contributor 4.x in Aetherometry
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 20:56, July 15, 2005
 * 1st revert: 05:31, July 16, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 14:32, July 16, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 17:01, July 16, 2005
 * 4th revert: 19:27, July 16, 2005

Reported by: Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is an anonymous contributor using different IPs --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Whereas the other parts of edits vary, note that in all four cases the "peer-review" halfsentence was deleted. --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:J Michaels
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 18:35, 10 July 2005
 * 1st revert: 10:27, 12 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 16:25, 12 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 17:20, 12 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 17:49, 12 July 2005
 * 5th revert: 18:09, 12 July 2005

and again:

 * 6th revert: 07:28, 16 July 2005
 * 7th revert: 20:58, 16 July 2005
 * 8th revert: 01:21, 17 July 2005
 * 9th revert: 01:33, 17 July 2005
 * 10th revert: 01:37, 17 July 2005
 * 11th revert: 01:40, 17 July 2005

and again:
 * 15th revert: 23:40, 19 July 2005
 * 16th revert: 03:31, 20 July 2005
 * 17th revert: 09:01, 20 July 2005

Reported by: GhePeU 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * User J Michaels sistematically removes disputed tag from article Massacre at Hue. He did all of his contributions, except one, in this article and curiously this user appeared just after user TDC was blocked because he repeatedly reverted other pages. NB: on the first occasion I reverted inadvertently four times. GhePeU 00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * User J Michaels still reverts every edit. GhePeU 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to call your kind attention on this. GhePeU 07:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:70.146.54.128
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
 * 1st revert:
 * 2nd revert:
 * 3rd revert:
 * 4th revert:

Reported by: Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The IP blanks out the VFD tag that is on the article, I asked for page protection of the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

4 reverts in 5 hours, on has been warned. reported by dab (ᛏ)
 *
 *
 *
 *

User:Guy Montag
Palestinian Terrorism and militancy

 * 1) (cur) (last)  22:42, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am done arguing with anonymous idiots. Follow policy or you will be reverted)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 22:04, 17 July 2005 Heraclius (huh?)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 09:22, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (tag removed pending outcome of RFC.)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 09:10, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (you're right - when that much is in dispute totally disputed is a better call.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 02:01, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag (like I said. State the disputed sections or leave it alone. No hit and runs)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 01:03, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (If there aint no consensus then there must be a "Dispute" so tag is appropriate.)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 02:18, 16 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am not going to tolerate blatant disregard for polic.y. Either add detailed comments in talk or stop wasting people's time with hit and run tags. It is that simple.)

 * This appears to be only 3 reverts. Still too many, but not a violation. -Willmcw 05:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:Jennet
All five edits to User:SPUI on Special:Contributions/Jennet are the same edit, making the last four reverts (vandalism too). --SPUI (talk) 11:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeh, I realise I'm complaining about being called a Fucking Idiot after I called administrators the Same Thing. What can I say? I guess I'm just a Fucking idiot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUI. (talk • contribs)

User:Lapsed Pacifist
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 23:49, 17 July 2005
 * 1st revert: 02:31, 18 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 03:16, 18 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 03:49, 18 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:55, 18 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Blocked for 24 hours. Thryduulf 01:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keeps reverting to a version cotaining a paragraph describing Trifkovic as "a former supporter of Slobodan Milošević. He has denied the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica" etc. As with report above, games the 3RR by making minor changes to the wording while re-inserting the paragraph. Jayjg (talk)  00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Heraclius

 * 1st revert
 * 2nd revert
 * 3rd revert
 * 4th revert

Clear cut breach of policy.

Guy Montag 04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Previously warned, blocked for 24 hours. -Willmcw 05:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Please note the two violations above from Guy Montasg, neither of which was acted on - this was NOT an "in good faith" report of a violation. The Admins are supposed to treat both sides fairly - so both should get a ban here. .62.253.64.15 06:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, thank you. I received your email and replied. I've asked Montag about it and will block if appropriate. However if it appears that you are using this IP address to circumvent a block then that is not good either. -Willmcw 08:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:BrandonYusufToropov or User:67.78.186.19 or User:EnviroFuck or someone else?
At Jihad: not just violating 3RR and deliberately trying to evade it by dropping out to his IP address, but also tilting at windmills making false accusations of users being the banned user "Enviroknot."

 * 1st revert - as BYT - Unsure whether this is connected, he protests otherwise on the Talk:Jihad page.
 * 2nd revert - as 67.78.186.19
 * 3rd revert - as 67.78.186.19
 * 4th revert - as 67.78.186.19
 * 5th revert and accuses user who reverted to the article's NPOV compromise of being "Enviroknot" - as 67.78.186.19
 * 6th revert and another false accusation by BYT
 * 7th revert: this time using the name EnviroFuck

Also took the time to make false accusations of sockpuppetry against Zeno of Elea on the article's talk page.

Signed: 212.247.200.185 16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please do something on this, perhaps lock the Jihad page? It's silly and seeing BYT's comments on the Recent Changes list is embarassing to Wikipedia.Existentializer 16:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional: A new user named EnviroFuck has appeared and is most definitely 67.78.186.19; this user is also patently guilty of 3RR violation on the page.Existentializer 16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've locked Jihad. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Enviro#### ain't me. . I'd like an admin to check in on the anonymous edits in question. Possible? BrandonYusufToropov 17:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Envirowhatever is learning. This time he accuses others of sockpuppetry before they accuse him. Observe his 7th (!) edit. This travesty has to stop. He must have about a dozen accounts by now. dab (ᛏ) 22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dab, I have nothing to do with this. I saw an ongoing flamewar and OBVIOUS edits by BYT, and made the reversion because I thought it was warranted as per Wikipedia policy. When you are done making false allegations, please calm down and start dealing with this rationally. I wasn't even the one who reported this, someone else did, I only posted a concurrence and added the evidence as it kept piling up. Existentializer 15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah, well, you are, of course, a sockpuppet of somebody, so why don't you just disclose your previous accounts, this case is complicated enough as it is. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please come back when you have calmed down.Existentializer 15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * great, you have just convinced me of your identity. I'm not upset at all, because you will have no success. Anyway, there is an rfar headed your way, I believe, so let's just wait for that, and not jump to conclusions. dab (ᛏ) 16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat, please calm down and cease making false accusations. It is highly unseemly for an admin, even one of your dubious stature.Existentializer 16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Tautvydas
Three revert rule violation on.

 * 1 -
 * 2 -
 * 3 -
 * 4 -
 * 5 -
 * 6 -

Reported by: --Witkacy 21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have warned user:Tautvydas as it doens't appear he's ever been warned about it. You (user:Witkacy) have also broken the 3RR on the same article, and as you demonstrated above your awareness of the rule I've blocked you for 24 hours. I have also protected the article in question, as requested by a third party at WP:RFPP

user:Friday
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * four mods1
 * 1st modification: 13:18 19 July 2005
 * 2nd modification: 16:34 19 July 2005
 * 3rd modification: 16:45 19 July 2005
 * 4th modification: 18:33 19 July 2005

Reported by: Gabrielsimon 21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Comment I believe the 4th diff shows a workaround, not a revert. I was attempting to avoid the disputed term altogether, with or without quotation marks. Yes, I know that even 3 reverts is not good, however I was making a good faith effort to work through the dispute.  See Talk:Wolf hunting controversy for a history of this squabble. Friday 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

response : i was dinged for four modificatipons in 24 hours, and one was totally different, so the rules catch you as well. Gabrielsimon 21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a workaround. There is a substantive difference in meaning between "the hunt" and "game". --khaosworks 01:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

User:Kim Bruning
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * 1st revert: 02:48, 20 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 04:33, 20 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 04:44, 20 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 04:50, 20 July 2005

Reported by: Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * As an admin, this individual certainly knows better. These reverts apply to a specific section, which Kim Bruning has repeatedly removed (in its entirety).  This is highly inappropriate (irrespective of the 3RR violation), as it's an ongoing formal discussion regarding the proposed undeletion of a page that Kim Bruning deleted (arguably against policy).  As a result of this edit war, Snowspinner has protected the page (with understandable reluctance, given the overall ramifications of doing so).  Quoth Snowspinner, "The fact that there is an edit war here baffles and appalls me..."  I couldn't agree more.  —Lifeisunfair 05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * How do you find the first edit to be a revert? El_C 05:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It's a revert to the version that existed immediately before the section was added, with two blank lines as the sole difference. —Lifeisunfair 06:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I misread that, it seems. Blocked for 24 hours. El_C 06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:134.161.244.89
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 15:43, 20 July 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:45, 20 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:58, 20 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 16:01, 20 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 16:05, 20 July 2005
 * 5th revert: 16:11, 20 July 2005
 * 6th revert: 16:17, 20 July 2005
 * 7th revert: 16:21, 20 July 2005

Reported by: BMIComp (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * The article is protected now... but this user Knows about the 3RR as he referenced it in his 5th revert edit summary. -- BMIComp (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This user was blocked by Angela for violation of the 3RR. -- BMIComp (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition to the 7 reverts reported by User:Bmicomp, User:134.161.244.89 has also made the several additional reverts to the same article within the past 3 hours, for a total of 10 reverts in violation of the WP:3RR. A full report of all ten is below: Hall Monitor 21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19245530&oldid=19244821
 * 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19251419&oldid=19251292
 * 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19253010&oldid=19252852
 * 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19254031&oldid=19253867
 * 5th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19254051&oldid=19254131
 * 6th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19255024&oldid=19254550
 * 7th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19255447&oldid=19255318
 * 8th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19255794&oldid=19255521
 * 9th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19256197&oldid=19256128
 * 10th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19256507&oldid=19256359

AI
Three revert rule violation on by :

 * 1st revert: 20:42, 20 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 21:11, 20 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 22:21, 20 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 22:24, 20 July 2005

Reported by: James F. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

 * Will put a warning on his talk page, but thought that I should give official notice as well. James F. (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:67.182.157.6
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 15:09, July 20, 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:16, July 20, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:49, July 20, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 18:16, July 20, 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:08, July 20, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 03:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

B0sh
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 10:47, 19 July 2005
 * 1st revert: 09:47, 20 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:55, 20 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 21:32, 20 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 08:26, 21 July 2005
 * 5th revert: 08:42, 21 July 2005
 * 6th revert: 08:46, 21 July 2005

Reported by: ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * (All times given in UTC) Current Vfd consensus is in favor of disambiguation version of this article to keep. Previous rv's have been performed prior to these. ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  09:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

User: 214.13.4.151
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 06:49 21 July
 * 1st revert: 09:06 21 July
 * 2nd revert: 09:17 21 July
 * 3rd revert: 09:28 21 July
 * 4th revert: current

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * This is just one example, in which the user has systematically reverted or added text more 'political' in nature to the Karl Rove article, including numerous reverts of the section above. In general, user refuses to work on 'talk' to resolve differences, and his/her edits are seriously damaging the article's integrity to protect his political POV. He has deleted this well-sourced, factual information numerous times.
 * Blocked, you should probably report the bluk removal of text to WP:VIP. --nixie 14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Astrotrain
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: originally made 12:54, 12 April 2005
 * 1st revert: 10:43, 13 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 07:07, 15 July 2005]
 * 3rd revert: 11:14, 15 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 12:02, 15 July 2005
 * 5th revert: 07:51, 16 July 2005
 * 6th revert: 13:03, 18 July 2005
 * 7th revert: 13:17, 18 July 2005
 * 8th revert: 13:46, 18 July 2005
 * 9th revert: 11:43, 19 July 2005
 * 10th revert: 13:52, 20 July 2005
 * 11th revert: 08:53, 21 July 2005
 * 12th revert: 10:56, 21 July 2005
 * 13th revert: 11:26, 21 July 2005
 * 14th revert: 11:39, 21 July 2005
 * 15th revert: 12:07, 22 July 2005
 * 16th revert: 14:54, 22 July 2005
 * 17th revert: 15:42, 22 July 2005

Reported by: THOR 19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I inserted all the reversions, as well as the last four that violated the 3RR. I was prompted to the user by his reversion on a template I was working on; wherein he proved dense and uncaring to proposals and discussions on talk pages.

User:64.95.91.23
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 01:14, July 21, 2005
 * 1st revert: 13:35, July 21, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 13:48, July 21, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 14:24, July 21, 2005
 * 4th revert: 14:53, July 21, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * I did revert four times as well, but I didn't realize it. I reverted myself seconds later. Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Amin123
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 03:50, 20 July 2005
 * 1st revert: 02:35, 21 July 2005
 * 2nd revert: 20:58, 21 July 2005
 * 3rd revert: 21:13, 21 July 2005
 * 4th revert: 21:17, 21 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:
 * On the section titles "Possible relationship with Zoroastrianism" keep removing the phrase "through Judaism", either deleting it entirely, or replacing it with "through Old Testament". Has been warned about 3RR and asked to self-revert. Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Existentializer
Three revert rule violation on. :

 * Previous version reverted to: 19:20, July 21, 2005

 * 1st revert 21:03, July 21, 2005
 * 2nd Revert 21:31, July 21, 2005
 * 3rd rever 21:50, July 21, 2005
 * 4th revert 21:55, July 21, 2005
 * 5th Revert 22:08, July 21, 2005
 * 6th Revert 22:12, July 21, 2005
 * 7th revert 22:22, July 21, 2005
 * 8th revert 22:26, July 21, 2005
 * 9th revert 22:33, July 21, 2005
 * 10th revert 22:38, July 21, 2005

Reported by: Irishpunktom\talk 23:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Existentializer wants to add a piece reporting a contradiction by Nintendo. 3RR broken by User:A Link to the Past too, who wants it sourced or removed. User knows about the 3RR and has attempted to have another user blocked because of it (see above)--Irishpunktom\talk 23:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

=Incidents=

Vandalism
I admit to be the vandals in the Fort Bleakeley, Kaschner/Wellmann, Whodunit (and variants), and Doppelganger incidents. Though it may sound far-fetched, it is true. I take full responsibility for any directly and indirectly related damage, be it physical, emotional, or virtual.

In any case, I hope my positive and helpful attitude and contributions to Wikipedia stand out more than the negative results of my previous acts. James  Bell  00:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Though I am as unfamiliar with these cases as I am with Mr. Bell's usual pattern of editing, I wonder if perhaps Mr. Bell's password has been compromised. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Mr. Bell left a farewell message on his user page on July 12, though he also made a couple of posts here (one to the Bank of Wikipedia section, above). I'm not sure what is going on here. --Deathphoenix 12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An anon created a hoax article called Fort Bleakeley towards the end of March 2005. He complemented it with other supporting articles to make it look as if it were real. After the article was discovered to be a hoax, he made all sorts of weak arguments and insults to other users, particularly User:Plek, who discovered the hoax, and User:RickK (who I believe has recently left). The anon, who called himself "Jake," was banned and tthe articles deleted; he evaded the block, recreated the articles, and created a decoy called User:JakeGHz. JakeGHz, because of the similarity to the anon's name, of his immediate involvement in the matter, and because he wrote an article on April 1st, JakeGHz was (correctly) branded as a sock of the mischievous User:Jake0618.

 * Some gibberish left by my younger cousin, who somehow got my password and masqueraded as me. Disregard. James   Bell  10:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin
User SlimVirgin is consistently taking a pro-Israel/pro-Jewish/pro-Zionist stance on various articles in edits, revert wars and even in locking the articles with what appears to be siding with the same side of dispute all the time. Can some responsible admins please look into this? She (I am assuming it's a "she", but you never know in cyberespace) has done it several times just today. I know that she is a famous op and probably some other admins will prefer not to risk their status, but if it is true that she is taking sides on issues, and she is an "important admin" (although an important person would not end up being an online junkie) this would be a Very Bad Thing for Wikipedia. Wiki25 20:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Diffs? --Kbdank71 20:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

 * For instance, the edit history of Gaza Strip, Israeli terrorism, Zionist terrorism, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and this is just today in a short span of time.

This is a diff, SqueakBox 20:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter which version of an article is locked as page protection is not permanent. That aside, please provide links to specific instances of alleged wrongdoing. It would also help your case if you did not make snide asides about people such as your comment about being an "online junkie". Gamaliel 20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No doubt is also, , , , , , , , , and , who has used a series of proxies and sockpuppets to revert Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about 50 times in the past week, while being reverted and/or blocked by at least 9 other editors. His other contributions, particularly using his earlier sockpuppets, are also quite "interesting". Jayjg (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey, aren't you supposed to be blocked, Jay? Everyking 22:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * James, for once could you possibly investigate something on your own before jumping to conclusions? Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * "10:19, July 13, 2005 Hadal blocked "User:Jayjg" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation at Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani)" - in other words, no, his block had already expired. Radiant_ >|< 22:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * My mistake then. Nevertheless the point still stands: complaining about somebody else's revert warring despite having been blocked for it yourself. Everyking 03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Come now. This is getting close to an ad hominem tu quoque. As long as we know what Jayjg did, how does that disqualify him from pointing out the behaviour of others? JRM · Talk 13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Your mistake? No.  This is simply further evidence that you're nothing but a troll, Everyking.  Tomer TALK  07:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyking is not a troll. Sjakkalle (Check!)  12:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the second time Tomer has attacked me and I have never even encountered him in editing before, at least I don't think so. I'm not going to get into this trading of insults with someone I don't have any practical reason to argue with. Everyking 14:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've taken no admin action in relation to Gaza Strip, and have only rarely edited it. Israeli terrorism was briefly protected yesterday after a spate of reverting and editing by anon IPs and new users who were adding POV nonsense to it (including that Rachel Corrie was a victim of terrorism and had been shot), and several of them looked about to violate 3RR. Zionist terrorism was protected because the same group of editors threatened to go there next, and I intend to unlock it today. I protected Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because of a 3RR violation by a user who keeps using sockpuppets to revert. Because I'm not able to prove that it's the same user, and therefore can't block — and even if I did, he'd come back with other accounts — I protected the page instead. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think any Admins are important themselves, but they perform important functions. I am quite aware of SlimVirgin, and she has been involved in pages I have been on, yet my experience she has been reasonable.  I don't particularly recall her being supportive (which I would sort of like) or in opposition (and many here have had an opportunity to oppose me in one thing or another).  If anything, I think she has leaned the opposite way of this complaint.  As for an Admin, there is probably no one better at resolving disputes, and I suspect much of it goes on behind the scenes, which is probably the right way to do it.  --Noitall 22:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. I looked over the histories of the articles in question and I don't see anything from SlimVirgin except attempts to help the articles along. On the whole her involvement seems slight. -Willmcw 07:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * People might be interested in the improper and flimsy (and incorrectly titled) Request for comment/SlimVirgin (and in my worries about the way that RfCs are going on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:195.22.151.1
Looks like I'm being pulled into my first real WikiDispute. User:195.22.151.1 (contribs) started editing on Wednesday. His first two edits were to change links on Norfolk Southern and Template:North America class 1. Since they were the first edits by an anonymous user, and they appeared to me at that time to be malicious in nature, I reverted them. The user then made more changes to Norfolk Southern and to Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway; he moved the information from that article into Norfolk Southern in a new subsection entitled "Subsidiaries". I left comments on Talk:Norfolk Southern and Talk:Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway stating my belief that some subsidiary information is appropriate in Norfolk Southern, but that the other page shouldn't be made into a redirect. User:195.22.151.1 reverted my revert of the template and an unrelated edit to Railfan (see Talk:Railfan for further discussion on that edit). He also tried to report me as a vandal disrupting editing on pages relating to American railroad history (a dubious claim if you view my own user page and contribs). Another admin removed this allegation from the incidents page.

Other editors apparently agreed with my original reverts and with the sentiment that I expressed on the Norfolk Southern talk page and they have reverted edits by User:195.22.151.1 to these pages. I say "apparently" here because I made no effort to contact these other editors to inform them of the situation; instead, after my two reverts were reverted, I stepped back and let the community decide. This morning I see that User:195.22.151.1 has returned and reverted the other editors' reverts and reported me again, this time as a sockpuppet of another administrator. Other admins have decided that this claim was incorrect and removed the allegation from the incidents page. I've invited the user to join the discussion on his talk page.

At this point, I'm continuing to edit as I have been editing for the last year, waiting for feedback from User:195.22.151.1. Is there anything further that I should be doing? slambo 12:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

 * The lack of further comments and the evidence presented below suggests to me that I am doing the right thing. If I am misinformed, please let me know.  Thanks. slambo 18:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-railfan vandalism, multiple open proxies, Philly TV, etc.
There has been been a rash of vandalism of railroad articles lately. One of the vandals of the railfan article is User:195.22.151.1, who also listed a frivolous "vandalism in progress" falsely claiming that Slambo and SPUI (who have been reverting the vandalism on railfan) are vandalizing the articles.

Three other vandals making similar edits to railfan are User:69.17.55.21, User:129.35.45.12, and User:212.137.71.44, all of whom have already been blocked as open proxies.

Another user who vandalized the railfan article by trying to move the entire article to foamer and add some derogatory comments to the article on 12 June is User:68.83.229.146, who if you look at their edit history is User:Spotteddogsdotorg. Their user page claims to be a non-fixed IP but the edit history says otherwise.

Note also that 68.83.229.146 (who is Spotteddogsdotorg) nominated Roger Moss for deletion, even though User:Spotteddogsdotorg claims in a post to my talk page that he/she has no interest in Roger Moss. There was some controversy about the Roger Moss VFD a month or so ago, along with VFDs for several Philly TV personalities (Tracy Davidson, Doug Kammerer, NBC 10 Live at 5 and others); check the VFDs and you will see that User:Spotteddogsdotorg (or 68.83.229.146) was involved in every one of them and nominated most of them. During those VFDs there was a "bloc" of users such as User:Melvis, User:Hohokus, User:ConeyCyclone, and possibly User:Toasthaven, who all voted as a bloc with Spotteddogsdotorg, and all have similar edit patterns and went straight to the VFDs not long after creating their accounts.

One of the railfan vandals, User:129.35.45.12, was also the user who added an IFD tag to Image:Tvsrr2.jpg at 12:34 on 14 July; this image then appeared with a IFD nomination at 12:37 by User:FunkyChicken!. 129.35.45.12 has been blocked as an open proxy.

Meanwhile several anon IPs have been making frequent edits to the vanity plate article, repeatedly removing a railroad themed vanity plate image, and changing the term "railfan" in the article to the more perjorative "train spotter". They are User:213.123.153.25, User:69.17.96.248 (who has already been blocked as an open proxy), User:212.44.58.71...and big surprise, User:Spotteddogsdotorg. User:213.123.153.25 listed a frivolous "vandalism in progress" report of myself, similar to the frivolous one that User:195.22.151.1 listed of Slambo and SPUI; User:68.83.229.146 who is User:Spotteddogsdotorg then moved 213.123.153.25's listing from "low" to "severe" within minutes.

Other users that appear to be related and also need to be checked out: User:24.240.235.19, User:209.137.173.69, User:Toasthaven2, User:PhillyDude!, User:KiwiPunter, and User: 203.98.57.97.

User:209.137.173.69 is definitely User:Toasthaven2 if you look at the message on Toasthaven2's talk page at 17:11 on 12 July. See here:User_talk:Mothperson for other users' views on 209.137.173.69.

User:203.98.57.97 is User:KiwiPunter based on. KiwiPunter vandalized the psychiatry article on 5 July. 203.98.57.97 nominated several legit articles for VFD including defect detector, which is railroad related, and Doug Kammerer, which had just survived a VFD after being nominated by Spotteddogsdotorg.

My guess is that every one of these users is either the same person, or a small group working together. Also of note is that Spotteddogsdotorg left a message on my talk page (as well as those of Radiant! and Mothperson) on 7 July indicating a familiarity with open proxies and accusing us of being sockpuppets of each other. I suspect this user has a lot more open proxies or knows where to find them.

Spotteddogsdotorg left another message on my talk page at 14:14 on 15 July claiming "This username is no longer active, but this user is under a new name. You and your buddies are going to go nuts trying find the new name!". Given the prolific use of open proxies, my guess is there may or may not be a "new name" - or there may be several. I recommend that admins keep an eye on articles relating to these subjects for vandalism, frilovous VFD nominations, and subtle insertion of derogatory POV:
 * 1) Philadelphia TV stations and TV personalities
 * 2) License plates, license plate collecting
 * 3) Railfans and railroads

For more verification see also: User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox, User_talk:Mothperson, and here and below on Mothperson's talk page: User_talk:Mothperson. Kaibabsquirrel 15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Spotteddogsdotorg also vandalized my user page this morning. Kaibabsquirrel 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Software feature to limit collateral damage?
User:WBardwin just got blocked again, please see User talk:Bishonen and User talk:Jwrosenzweig. WBardwin edits from an AOL proxy in the 207.200.64.0 - 207.200.127.255 range. User:UkPaolo edits from 62.252.0.0 - 62.255.255.255, an NTL range. They are only two of the highly virtuous contributors that keep getting blocked over and over, sometimes "indefinitely", when an admin blocks an IP in these ranges. Please take a look at WBardwin's talk page to get a sense of the scale of the problem that keeps hitting these and other good users! I could show you a pretty hefty pile of e-mails from these two, too, as they've taken to appealing very politely to me, which is fine if I'm at the computer, but sometimes I'm not. It says on the Special:Blockip page that blocks in these ranges should be kept to 15 minutes or less, but I guess admins miss it sometimes. I don't know what to do, but we really, really need to take this seriously. Two suggestions: 1. Could somebody who understands to edit special pages please put in a warning in red letters at the top of the Blockip page that says "Before blocking, please read the IP range box" (plus maybe a warning in purple that says "Please read the red text" and a warning in cyan that says "Please read the purple text")? 2. Would it be possible to implement a software feature that brings up a warning whenever an attempt is made to block these ranges for more than 15 minutes? E. g. "You are about to block an IP shared by many users, please see the IP range box. These ranges should not be blocked for more than 15 minues. Do you really wish to block it for 48 hours?" or whatever. (In some pleasing color.) Really. If I was WBardwin or UkPaolo, I think I might have left by now. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think part of the difficulty in this case is the autoblocker (don't get me wrong, I think it is definitely a useful tool). I blocked WBardwin by blocking a reincarnated sockpuppet named Mickey654 (or something like that -- I'd have to check the log) -- in other words, at no time did I know I was blocking an IP range.  The range got blocked as a result of my blocking a username.  So all the flashing purple and cyan boxes in the world wouldn't have tipped me off.  How can we deal with this? Jwrosenzweig 17:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong either, I'm getting so I daren't block vandals at all, with all these supercomplications, and I'm certainly not offering my cowardice as the way to go. But what about my second suggestion? Might it be possible for the software to know what you didn't, about the IP range, and warn you about it? Bishonen | talk 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I would like that, if it's possible. But then it raises some difficult problems.  We have some standard penalties (say, a 24 hour block for 3RR violations).  Do those not apply to users accessing from AOL?  If so...the implications are not good.  I don't know if there's an easy solution to this.  I do agree, though, that at least knowing that I am blocking one of the ranges would be beneficial. Jwrosenzweig 17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The trick here is to think of them as containment measures, not penalties. That is, we are not being "unjust" for not blocking AOL users dutifully for 24 hours if we're doing it to keep open access for potentially dozens of innocent editors. Yes, it does mean that if you're a bastard coming from an AOL proxy, you have a lot more opportunities to be annoying than other vandals. That burden is on us, however. JRM · Talk 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the autoblocker does more harm than good. I think it should be shut off or at least its operation made optional at the time a user is blocked. I also believe that we would be better served if IP blocks did not affect logged-in users. It is only important for them to affect IP users and users seeking to create new accounts. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I suggest that functionality should be implemented in the IP blocking systems to automatically detect when bans are made of users with a dynamic IP address. If the system detects that the IP being blocked is in fact served from a dynamic IP pool, or a whole IP range is being blocked, a message is displayed warning the admin that the whole range will be blocked. A number of technical approaches could be taken to do this; I would suggest parsing WHOIS query data from blocked IP ranges to determine if they are served from a dynamic pool.

 * The other approach would be to implement a change in the way that users are blocked for such matters. Username blocks would automatically block the IP ranges as they do at the moment; however, if a "username blocked" user tries to access Wikipedia, the wiki is still visible but it disallows article editing, thus allowing a registered user in good standing to log in with a different username and password and remove the edit lock.

 * These are only a few possibilities as to how this solution could be implemented and are by no means exhaustive. If anyone here requires any further input in these areas, please do ask; I am happy to assist. --NicholasTurnbull 21:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It does seem to me that we should let logging in override the autoblocker. For obvious reasons we should not allow account creation.  And eventually we may need to discriminate against very new users. Bovlb 23:01:27, 2005-07-15 (UTC)

 * I, too, would very much like the option to turn off the autoblocker on a case-by-case basis. If someone creates an account with an inappropriate name, for example, I'd like to have the option to permanently block the account but not trip autoblocks for IP addresses shared by it. Of course, repeat offenders could still be autoblocked, but it shouldn't just be always on.
 * Determining what IP ranges are dynamic or not is not something you can do fully automatically, neither is detecting proxies. But there's no reason why we couldn't have software support for admin-maintained lists of dynamic ranges, just as we do now, but with a bit more forced attention (compare the spam blacklist, another automatic feature with manual input). I feel the education program is not doing much good; too many admins apparently still can't RTFM. I'll see if there are any feature requests on Bugzilla for enforcing a warning/hard limit on block time per IP address range, and add one as appropriate. JRM · Talk 11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find a relevant earlier bug, so this request is now bug #2879. Add your support and comments there as needed. JRM · Talk 11:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Treat AOL differently?
_ _ I've never noticed the least mention of whether there are reasons for not solving the AOL problems by some software that would require negotiation with AOL. _ _ IMO it is in their interest to prevent the current kind of inconvenience to their innocent users, so it's a matter of mutual self-interest, not of our choosing between going to them begging vs. threatening the nuc-u-lar option of blocking all editing from AOL IPs. _ _ As a first approximate conception, think of putting a front end with two doors between the user and what we have now. One door just checks against AOL IPs, and when it finds one, responds to attempts to edit with a msg about AOL having a second door. The second door may not even have a URL, let alone a WWW one, but could use IPs to communicate between our servers and theirs. Their users could invoke that door only after at least once going to an AOL Wiki-access page; they'd be informed there that AOL would enable them to edit Wikis only thru the second door and only with every edit to a wiki being accompanied by a "WA" code unique to the combination of wiki and AOL account; the wiki could use it as a substitute for a fixed IP, i.e., a basis for blocking and banning. Perhaps it would be worthwhile making the WA unique instead to the combination of the "wiki group" and AOL acct, so that e.g. WikiMedia Foundation could choose to be a wiki group, and have the option of blocking or banning a vandal from WikiMedia wikis they haven't yet edited. _ _ I implied that all the screen-names of a given acct would share the same WP WA; that's not a horrible idea, but it is not necessary if the number of WAs you can get by renaming screen-names is limited, e.g. they get recycled to the same acct. (On the other hand, is it worth pushing for two accts paid for with the same credit card getting no extra WAs? Or for denying the second door to customer whose credit cards come from numeric ranges include prepaid (and thus effectively anonymous) cards?) _ _ Some users, especially if they don't always use AOL, might find it advantageous to have an AOL frame around their Wiki pages, to remind them; others may prefer AOL being visually transparent; AOL could of course offer those options. AOL could also choose to add value, e.g., building a WYWSIWYG wikiwiki editor into the client software and replacing or automatically supplementing the edit pane on edit pages with that. _ _ There's no such thing as a SMOP, but if nothing like this has been considered seriously, shouldn't such a concept be looked at hard? --Jerzy·t 21:14, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that AOL is a special case and have suggested before that that some sort of identification of AOL users may be called for, such as email confirmation of their identity. This would require no coordination with AOL and would stop most of the vandalism.  There has been no interest in this from the developers, and little support from the broader community.
 * I believe that the possibility of AOL working with us on these issues is remote, because they are facing serious business issues due to the ineroxable decline and fall of dialup.
 * Vandalism from dynamic IPs is likely to become less a problem with time again due to the decline and fall of dialup. The pools of IPs assigned to broadband users tend to be shared by smaller groups of users and it is more difficult for the end-user to force an ip address reassignment.
 * Very helpful, tho not definitive:
 * You don't even give a WAG about these timescales
 * My concept preserves more of AOL users' privacy (which may or not make the dev'rs more interested)
 * Not clear that AOL's troubles are as preoccupying as you suggest
 * In any case, shouldn't this probably move off here? Perhaps to wherever your previous suggestions landed. Thanks --Jerzy·t 22:57, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

 * Timescales. AOL's lost, idunno, 20% of their peak dialup subscriber base.  And may lose another 20% this year?  Guessing.  The industry rags have projections that would be more helpful than mine.  I brought up before on the mailing list, you're welcome to try, you sure won't do any worse than I did.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Chadbryant & the eleventh plague
Many people will probably be aware of a plague of sock-puppets — accounts created only to harrass Chadbryant and vandalise his User page. A string of them have been blocked over the last few months (I've compiled a list below from the History of his User page, though I might have missed one or two). Now a new one has turned up:. Aside from the name, his only edits have been to Talk pages, and all concern Chadbryant. This time he's not doing his usual outright vandalising, he's just baiting Chadbryant (and indulging in some childish insults aimed at me on his Talk page). Could someone check to confirm his identity with: I assume that his behaviour so far isn't enough to make it sufficiently certain that he's another sock-puppet and justify a block. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I thought his behaviour so far quite enough to block him as a personal-attack troll, and probably the same sock - David Gerard 00:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * His response to your block was:
 * "Well I see you douchebags finally blocked me anyway. No matter; Wikipedia is an easy target for name creation, and Chad will always be the antisocial douchebag sociopath everyone knows and hates.  In fact, I think later this week I'll target his page again, just for the sheer hell of it.  --Archived Chad 01:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)"
 * --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 10:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Administrator illegal block
Please see User Talk:Redwolf24. Jtdirl blocked HisHoliness with reason, but without warning or even a note on his page saying he's been blocked. Redwolf24 22:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Apologies. We had a powerfailure here in my building for a couple of minutes not long after the block, as I was going back through my watchlist to find the user's page to leave a message, so needless to say I was off Wikipedia. When I finally got back on to Wikipedia I began a short edit of an article that has turned into a major rewrite and it slipped my mind to leave the note on the banned user's page.

 * The reason for the ban is simple. A set of allegedly unconnected users have been editing the same set of articles repeatedly to make the same changes that breach the MoS. They do nothing else but repeat the same change over and over again, leaving the similar edit summaries, but no other explanation. When one goes, another mysterious individual appears, does the same again, then disappears, etc etc. It is not a serious attempt at ending anything (they contribute to nothing else, leave no other messages, just make identical text deletions and disappear). This one (they could all be the same one under different names) didn't just make the same edits to the same pages (yet again) he even used a nickname to show what he was after. I judged that what is happening is nothing but a (probably organised) attempt at vandalism. When I saw yet again another new anonymous user appear and do the same edits on the same pages, I simply hit the block button and imposed a 24 hour block to stop the nonsense. But as I said, before I was able to leave an explanation on the page the power in my building went out so I was knocked off Wikipedia.

Some serious users have raised issues about the pages, and I have explained the situation to them. But this batch of (one or more) anonymous are just playing games with Wikipedia articles to see what they can get away with. I judged it a waste of time, given that what was happening was identical to past times, to go through the motions of issuing warnings. If they had shown the slightest interest in contributing to anything else I would have given them the benefit of the doubt and presumed that maybe they were just a misguided user who needed to be told that Wikipedia disapproves of vandalism. But at this stage, the constant repetition of the behaviour led me to the conclusion that the person was simply a troll screwing around again. Indeed it would not surprise me to find that the same person is behind the anonymous edits all the time. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 23:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

He is now back again under yet another identity.

Racial insult
On 05:20, 13 July 2005, User:Mansour attacked me with a racial insult (in Persian) on the Afghanistan talk page, in a line of comments that attacked me instead of my argument. He has been blocked before (last by User:Hadal) for other violations, and keeps showing up with other names and anonymously. Please give him a warning.--Zereshk 03:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've put a warning on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:13, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * hehe, you *ARE* truly pathetic Zereshk, as I have pointed out to you before. You know damn well that the term "racism" or "racist comment" doesn not apply in Iran in the same way that it applies in countries with true racist history, such as USA and many European countries.  The fact that you are using your familiarity with the English language to get a cheap "winning point" out of a lost game, tells us how weak and pathetic you are.  In absolutely BEST of circumstances, you can associate "turk" in Persian slang with "ethnicity" but if you really grew up in Iran as you claim you did, you know damn well what it is.  And especially "torke tablo", which you are an epitome of one.  Given your pathetic edit history of "all image and no substance" I repeat, it's hard to imagine a lower self-respecting Iranian than you.  You were born to be a wannabee-western and as such, Iranians like you deserve to be jew-slaves like how most hard-working, tax-paying innocent Americans are today. In the best of circumstances, you will be a second-class American.  You get it bright sparkle? Mansour 08:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't recall the last time there was a complaint on this page where the defendant showed up to offer more evidence on the plaintiff's behalf. Mansour, if you can't recognize that comments like the one above (especially the horrifying remark about "jew-slaves") are offensive to just about everyone here, you need to take a large amount of time to consider everything you write very carefully.  If you continue to make attacks like that against Zereshk, you will certainly face consequences for your actions.  If Zereshk is taking any actions that cause you to talk in this way, either learn to ignore/avoid him, or else seek the input/advice of administrators who can help keep the peace. Jwrosenzweig 08:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Hendyadyoin
I don't know who is, but he's just left this message on my Talk page (one of only two edits he's made):
 * "Hello there, you hypocrite. I'm going to get you soon. I'm gonna find out who you really are and then come over to your measly little university and get you. You better watch out. You didn't watch out for me, did you? Self-absorbed, greedy sysop. You just better watch out coz I'm really fed up with you. Fair warning. Hendyadyoin 10:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)"

I'm not exactly worried by the idea of a thirteen-year-old boy "coming to get me", but I thought that I'd mention the incident here, as I'm not sure if there's anything that should be done about it. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've blocked the account indefinitely, but it might be worth trying to work out whose sockpuppet it is. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:51, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:Allroy
I believe is the recent banned user, who edits on  with inaccurate information, regarding the forming year. He just kept changing 1996 to 1998 and has been uncovinced with my sources (,, and ) that doesn't say 1998 and continues to revert the edits like that. His recent edits are nothing but a spew of vandalism and personal attacks. I've noticed he was previously banned as his first pseudonym and I wonder if it was for similar behavior. -- Mike Garcia | talk July 16, 2005 14:01 (UTC)
 * Why did anon user on July 14 leave a welcome message on Allroy's talk page purporting to be from Hephaestos, who has left Wikipedia? Especially dubious is the fact that the welcome message invites the user to ask questions on Hephaestos's talk page, which is currently protected. By the way, Peacethruvandalism was banned for having the word "vandalism" in its username, not for any "behavior". Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 23:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Melbourne sockpuppets
AngryTeddy, AlexWhiteIpod, AlexWhiteIpods, AlexWhitez, Putro, Geoff64, Wangcentral are all the same user with a fondness for certain types of edits (Melbourne student unionism, Melbourne businesspeople). There appears to be no "real" account; the block notice says to email me about it. Watch for more of these - David Gerard 15:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous proxies
While tracking down another of Cantus' anon IPs, I found a long list of anonymous proxies here. Cantus has used many IPs on this list, and I see a lot more of our favorite troublemakers and vandals.

I suggest putting Blocked proxy on the user page and as the blocked reason, and blocking indefinitely. I've converted the above list to provide handy links to the user pages, contribs, and to the block function -- see User:Netoholic/Anons. Happy hunting. -- Netoholic @ 15:53, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

User:213.123.153.25 is also an anonymous open proxy according to a check I ran on one of the online proxy checker sites. Could an admin please block this user too? Kaibabsquirrel 17:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Silly edit war in Aetherometry
Eminent falsification by admin PJacobi:

Several (or one, who knows) anons insist on deleting this part of a sentence: Work in Aetherometry has not been published in peer-reviewed scientific publication. I've reported on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR but I'm not sure whether all IPs are one user. Also, as I'm party, I won't block or protect myself. --Pjacobi 21:58, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Related campaing in Black hole, Neutrino, String theory. --Pjacobi 22:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * and Hydrino theory Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Edits are coming from 4.232.6.35, 4.233.164.158, 4.233.124.110, 4.233.125.162, 4.233.179.72, 4.249.63.6, 4.249.18.15, 209.183.20.170, 209.29.96.236, 209.29.167.6, 216.254.159.249, 216.254.157.250. Does it make sense to assume a single user on all these IPs? Behaviour is similiar enough. --22:34, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * The lie of PJacobi and his cabal is a simple one: work in Aetherometry has just not been peer-reviewed in mainstream scientific publications. That bold is the focus of the dispute.  And the second focus of the dispute is that the same work has been peer-reviewed in alternative or non-mainstream scientific publications (including Infinite Energy), as well as by peers with the proper qualifications that neither PJacobi or Theresa Knott have or have admitted to have, and these two facts have been systematically suppressed by these two admins and their cabal, with one playing tag after the other so that the 3RR rule appears not to be broken.  The disingenuity of Knott and PJacobi, their self-victimized pleading in an entry that they kept only to deride it and classify it with pejorative terms, is merely a ploy to drag down the rest of Wikipedia with them. 216.254.165.65 04:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes Pjacobi - There is indeed a silly edit war going on at aetherometry, actually a malicious edit war, being orchestrated by you, Salsb, William M. Connolley, Karada, Theresa knott, - and other members to arrive shortly, undoubtedly - as soon as you all reach your 3rs....It's common knowledge, you know, that you lot are operating as a tag team doing your malignant best to destroy any hope of converying information in this entry, or on any entry in the non-mainstream science category and to mutilate them until they fit nicely into your braindead, brainchild 'pseudophysics' category.  You have not once entered a productive, intelligent addition to the page since its inception.  Only disparaging, uninformed, ill-intentioned comments - unabashedly showing both your ignorance of the subject matter and your clear intent to smear it nonetheless.  So you are getting legitimate opposition to your ugly little 'edit' aka smear war.  But you never fight squarely and fairly, do you?  No, instead, when you don't get your own bullying way, you go running hoping to find some admin cops to help you in your bully boy operation.  Pretty ugly little club you got there.    4.233.121.247 23:06, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * You do know that the 3RR applies to people not IPs. By coming in from multiply IP addresses you are fooling nobody. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Is this how you present your evidence Theresa Knott? A list of IP's and presto, one person?  And which person have you identified? Is everyone who disagrees with you and your cabal in various entries all clones of a fabled Paulo Correa, a Zorro of Wikipedia? You're ridiculous and delusional 216.254.165.65 04:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC).

 * That's typical of Teresa. Don't address the issue which is malicious, POV editing (and is more than well documented in the aetherometry archives as well as in the edit history, as well as in the other non-mainstream entries).  Just assume the beatitudinous attitude of a very neutral police officer jotting down license numbers.  The lttle tag team charade with their authoritarian policial tactics isn't fooling anybody.

. Edit wars are really dumb, and a colossal waste of time, energy, disk space, etc, etc, etc. Protected the page. Noel (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the anon didn't deny using multiple IPs Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Anon, I'm sure they'd delete the sentence as you do if you can provide some evidence peer reviewed journals about this. - Mgm|(talk) 14:40, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war on Missing sun motif and Missing Sun myth
There is an ongoing redirect war over these two articles. Missing Sun myth is currently listed on VfD (scheduled to close later today). I have protected both pages to put an end to the edit war; I ask that the closing admin take care of unprotecting the pages at the time of closure. (If another admin wants to deal with this issue speedily, that's fine, but I recommend preserving the VfD process in this case, especially since it runs its course in a matter of hours.) Kelly Martin 05:18, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Edit war on Template:Reqimage
I reverted edits by Netoholic to the previous version, as this template, along with others is currently being discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Template_locations and the main page. I stated I had no problem with the change of the template, but was discussing what changes were to be made. On my real first RV to the version that is currently being discussed. As you can see, I left a note on why I reverted, and where to visit to discuss its change. I did not appreciate the comments that were being made, and offered a discussion on his talk page User_talk:Netoholic, which he ignored. He had not participated in the discussions, and I was trying to leave it at the original version. Whether or not it is currently liked, the change was proposed and then implemented, now it is back up for proposed change. To attempt to end the rv war, I went back to the orignal version before the "box template" ALoans version. I am now listed on 3RR, as I did not violate, the first edit was to fix a red link on the template. I am not opposed to the change of the template, but feel that it should be discussed first, as it was. Please comment, and view all the changes, discussion and history. Thank you. ∞ Who ? ¿ ? 09:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If I would have remembered this previous discussion on Netoholic, I would have probably left well alone. As it seems discussing any topics for reverting is pointless.  ∞ Who ? ¿ ?  10:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

User:StockMail and copyrighted images
has been uploading a substantial number of copyrighted images. I left comments on his talk page (as had another Wikipedian before me) explaining that images should attribute a source and must have an appropriate license. I guess StockMail saw my message, but didn't understand the licensing, because after that he merely started including the source. These were images that were obviously under some sort of copyright (many with an embedded watermark). Now he continues to upload the images while including the complete copyright statement (apparently under the impression that merely mentioning the copyright means we can use it at WP). I don't know how to explain the issue any more clearly. Maybe I was to logorrheic?

I'm also wondering if there is a way to deal with all of these images more efficiently than going through them one-at-a-time, marking them with PUI or imagevio, then adding to WP:PUI or WP:CP (this is what I did the other day).

Or am I making too big a deal out of this? I thought it was pretty important. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * For the moment, just keep an eye one things. It's just been a few days, hopefully he will stop now. If it continues then try starting a rfc. We did this with another problem uploader here. As you can see from that rfc after all other possible solutions were tried we eventually started deleting copyvios on sight. The rfc gave the admins the necessary backing to take that step instead of going through the long process of listing on possible copyvios. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 20:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Marijuanaisbad
This is a rather odd situation, and after consulting a few other users, I've decided that it needs to be brought up. started out the week as a vandal, but has apologized and appears to have reformed. He left several notes on user's pages about ; he claims the account belongs to his mentally disabled brother. (I'm assuming good faith and taking him at his word.) His notes asked the users to overlook any odd edits by that account and to "go easy," as it were, on Marijuanaisbad if he got himself into any trouble. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod has promised to closely supervise his brother's editing and restrict his access to the site, but I and others are concerned about the propriety of having the account at all.

The user has made very few useful edits, and the majority of his edits demonstrate what I believe to be a lack of comprehension of his actions. Honestly, I'd like for our community to be able to help him, but I keep returning to one basic premise: We're here to create an encyclopedia, and anything that disrupts that is counterproductive. In my estimation, Marijuanaisbad is a potential vandal (albiet, he doesn't mean to do it) and because of his disability, won't benefit from the usual ways we pressure vandals to stop; any user who tries to curtail his actions will be met with hostility (see the edit history) and any blocking admin will be put in a very difficult situation.

I don't want to come across as heartless (and I think those who know me would agree that I am the last person who wants to chase anyone from the project) but I and others seem to have been dropped into a situation where we are between a rock and a hard place. Our basic question is this: Is this a situation where the community needs to step in and say to Iamzodyourzodeveryzod "While your contributions are appreciated and you are welcome to stay, our project simply isn't the right place for your brother," and if so, who in the community is empowered to make such a statement? Is it a matter for community consensus, should it be put through a more structured proceedure like RfC or RfAr, or does the community simply need to bear the burden and deal with the resulting disruption? -- Essjay ·  Talk 21:36, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia is not therapy, sadly - David Gerard 21:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If my sister can have retail therapy, why can't I have Wikipedia therapy? smoddy 22:02, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Oh, I see the benefit of Wikipedia as therapy; to keep a person occupied, for example, in order to manage disorders that manifest when there is too much time left alone (like depression). However, this particular situation is with an individual who is more like a child looking for a playground than an adult looking for a community to interact with. -- Essjay ·  Talk 22:25, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

 * I think we should treat him like any other user. If he vandalizes, warn him politely; if he repeats, we all know the drill:  be firm, be kind, and be fair.  That said, there probably are better places on the internet for him to go; is there a wiki somewhere that is intended to be a big playground?  Such a place might be perfect for him.  Antandrus  (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree - just treat this user as any other. If we actually assume good faith and don't be dicks, like we should with every user, I wouldn't expect trouble. As to the other-wiki suggestion: Uncyclopedia maybe? Nickptar 23:51, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * . Go Kelly! El_C 01:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree, treat as any other account, ignoring his illness (it could, after all, be a prank). For the purposes of the project, Users consist of their edits :) dab (ᛏ) 22:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps http://simple.wikipedia.org ... El_C 22:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * What, is that a jab at people who use the simple Eng. wiki? Just because they don't know English as well as some of us? I'm sure it's a serious wiki and they don't want us directing vandals their way. Everyking 09:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

My worry about both these users is that some of the information they have added is quite sneaky vandalism. Reports of a persons death and adding the age of children when it is difficult to prove either way. Their edits need close monitoring. violet/riga (t) 09:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree compltetely; what I'm hearing here is exactly what I was thinking, and what I was hearing from the others I discussed it with. I'm doing my best to AGF but the more I look at it, the more I'm inclined to believe it's one big prank to get out of being blocked for vandalism; vandalism is one thing, but playing on the sympathies of others to justify it is sick, twisted, and inexcusable. Even if the situation is exactly what Iamzodyourzodeveryzod says it is, it's still disruptive; Marijuanaisbad is starting to go after newbies who leave me thank you messages for welcoming them. I think the Marijuanaisbad account should be blocked indefinately as a sockpuppet, and Iamzodyourzodeveryzod warned that he is responsible for any edits under his account or any sockpuppet accounts. Further, I think Marijuanaisbad's userpage should be protected (because he'll be able to edit it even if blocked) with a note on it not to unblock the account without reading the commentary here, so that Iamzodyourzodeveryzod doesn't go find some uninvolved admin and play on thier sympaties to get it unblocked. Does that sound reasonable? -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say anything on here too but please take this down. My brother died in a car accident, and I don't want this thing to be up, saying that he was undeserving of being on wikipedia because he had a mental disability. Iamzodyourzodeveryzod 22:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Which means we can safely assume the whole thing is a prank, SqueakBox 23:09, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Did anyone really believe otherwise? Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Go to my talk page. Zod claims marijuana died in a car crash. You decide. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Already read it. Don't believe a word of it. This is a prank. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:18, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I got the whole "he died" message too; I think the whole situation is best explained by this edit. I'm going to block indefinately for vandalism; if anybody this this is inappropriate, please unblock. -- Essjay ·  Talk 14:42, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

user:Jennet
Please can someone keep an eye on this user who seems to exist to vandalise SPUI's user page and call him and anyone who reverts them a "Fucking idiot". Thryduulf 08:55, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wish you would have told me that before I reverted them! Sheesh! :) Even more annoying, this user apparently doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're." --Dmcdevit·t 09:08, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

SPUI's page seems to get a lot of vandalism; I think it's inherent to the way he has it layed out, and most of the people that vandalize there argue back that SPUI wants it vandalized. As for the vandal's spelling, I'm not surprised;have we ever been of the opinion that Nobel laureates were defacing the site? (I hate it when they get your/you're wrong, too.) -- Essjay ·  Talk 09:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Rickyboy
Uploaded numerous images without copyright information, one of which was definitively traced to the for-pay World Book Online. Claims he created the graphics and took the photographs, but as the photographs in question are from Afghanistan and Angola, and the graphics all appear professional.

It's also fairly obvious from contribution history that he's the same guy as Richardr443, who got warned against vandalism back in February, and has images of his own that he's probably "borrowed" from other web sites.

I've blocked the Rickyboy account indefinitely as a vandal, his only edits of substance were to upload the images and add them to articles, along with large captions he probably also pilfered from World Book. Deliberate uploading of copyrighted material without permission is vandalism of the worst sort. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * He e-mailed me asking to be unblocked, but I did not do so. While he claims that he is the creator of his images, when I compare  and  I reach a different conclusion. Antandrus  (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Also edits anonymously from . Rhobite 18:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

 * He was blocked after I specifically re-questioned him about that particular image. He immediately re-added it to tropical cyclone. That was a solid indication of malicious intent to me. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Ed Poor definitively sourced another one to World Book, noted with the rest over at Copyright problems. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Repeated spam from User:59.167.13.47
This anonymous user has been posting spam links to computer-security-related articles over the past few days. All their contributions have been spam links. --FOo 13:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I have left a polite message on their talk page. There's not a lot more we can do at the moment because they haven't been active for about 8 hours and no-one has left a message before now asking them to stop. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 20:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

User:212.44.58.161
There's a user I'm concerned about - 212.44.58.161. I noticed what they did on the Teletubbies page on 18th July - changing the female characters to male and using the word d!ck where inappropriate. I have reverted these changes.

Looking at some of their other posts, I am very concerned about the change to the Arcade game page - changing the year on Space Invaders. Maybe they corrected this year, but I have no idea.

Anything else I should do? --JimmyTheWig 13:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You have reverted the changes to the page, have you warned the user about their vandalism? There is no reason at this time to link the vandal of the Teletubbies article from 18 July and the arcade game editor of 12 July - there is every possibility they are separate people. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 20:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I notice there was no warning on their talk page, which is fine, they stopped anyway. Next time if you write   ~  on their talk page it leaves a polite message about where to find the sandbox. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 20:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Francs --JimmyTheWig 09:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism
Zephram Stark has asked me on my talk page to place an NPOV notice on the Terrorism article and protect it in that state. There is a dispute on that page, that primarily seems to be between him (or her) and user:Smyth. There are several other editors who appear to be working quite constructively around them however. Normally I'd say put the NPOV tag on there but leave it unprotected, however the history of the article shows that one of the prime focuses for disagreement is the presence or abscence of the NPOV tag. I'll leave this judgement up to more experienced hands than mine. Thryduulf 15:59, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmmm...if the article has NPOV issues, how does one fix them if the article is protected? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * One leaves the NPOV issues there and they get discussed on the talk page. As an admin you can edit an article to make it a more "preferred" version but I tend to leave it because you could be accused of "taking sides". -- Francs2000 | Talk [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 20:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

 * It isn't just me that's disputing with him; I've just been keeping a close eye on the article because I did a fairly major revision on it recently. As you can see from the talk page, the argument over the POV tag is happening because the substantial argument over the article's content (which had lasted for several days) petered out last week when myself, User:Jayjg and User:BrandonYusufToropov else became exasperated over Zephram's obstinacy and he was subsequently banned for a 3RR violation. Since then nobody has been willing to engage with him because he is just repeating old points. Nobody has supported him, apart from what is apparently a very crude attempt at a sockpuppet, User:Serena7.

 * I will leave the article alone today. Edit wars over tags are silly, but what else can we do when one lone user is making a nuisance of himself? – Smyth\talk 22:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha guy
Not long after I nominated the above page for deletion, HA! HA! guy was created and now everyone at Votes for deletion/Ha ha guy is saying redirect to the other one. Is the second page automatically part of the vfd process? Is it an attempt to sidestep vfd? I just don't know... -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The other page does seem better developed. But since they are about the same thing, I think non-notability should count on both articles. Still, I think VFDing the other one seperately is a better idea. - Mgm|(talk) 21:29, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, VfD the other one separately if you want. It's a better developed article with different content. Rhobite 21:31, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Strange edit(or)s from Canberra
User:MoralHighGround made a series of edits which were reverted without discussion by user:jtdirl. This user was then blocked without warning by user:jtdirl under the incorrect charge of 3RR. Please, someone, investigate! OhTheHumanity 23:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

How many identities is that that you have created now? Three in the last week alone. Not to mention the big one for vandalism, threats, harrassment, stalking, etc. Maybe the big ban will have to be made longer. After all you are banned from Wikipedia. But if you want to continue to make a laughing stock of yourself, go on. Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 00:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * MoralHighGround, HisHoliness, OhTheHumanity, 144.134.117.102, 144.138.159.43, 144.139.227.167 and 144.138.159.22 have all been editing the same articles in the same ways at the same times. Those are Telstra DHCP dialup addresses in Canberra. Note that Telstra is the biggest ISP in Australia, so that Skyring gets his DSL through Telstra does not necessarily mean a match. So we'll call it coincidence, though the MO matching Skyring's hypothetical discussion of how someone could sockpuppet to harass someone around Canberra raised more than a couple of eyebrows. (And Telstra is big enough that that reveals basically no info about Skyring.) - David Gerard 17:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks David. One the stalking tactics Skyring used, and which got him banned for a month, was to focus his edits on someone's work. He did it on me by focusing 100 of 102 edits in a row on articles I had visited — even where I had only touched an article to fix a frame, he would suddenly turn up. MoralHighGround and HisHoliness both focused exclusively on editing pages by me also. As you mentioned, Skyring had threatened to use anonymous IPs around Canberra to continue his campaign of stalking if banned. The circumstantial evidence suggests that they are him. (Of course it raises the questions, what would be the repercussions for his ban if they are him. The ArbComm judgment did say ''2.2) User:Skyring is banned from Wikipedia for a month for wiki-stalking and acting in bad faith towards other contributors, as demonstrated in evidence. Any attempt at sockpuppetry shall, as per policy, result in this ban being reset.'') Fear ÉIREANN \(caint)  21:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Aetherometry again
I've just done something controversial so I'd like you'all to review my actions. Having been unable to insert POV into the article, the anon or anons (it's difficult to tell. I suspect there ias only one person using multiple IPs editing style is difficult to fake) started vandalising the page. After a couple of blankings I said we'd protect the page to stop 'em. Then the page was blanked again and then it was restored by a helpful anon. I then vprotected the page. On checking the anon's contributions I noticed that the resoration of the page was his first edit. Sockpuppet radar on alert I checked the page and lo and behold it was a revert to an earlier version. Here is where you'all need to review my actions. I could have unlocked the page and reverted. (There has been tonnes of discussion on the talk page that he has not particlipated in) But that would leave the page open for vandalism. One page blanking lasted for over an hour (see history). So instead I edited the protected page and reveted to the preblanked page. I am 99% sure that both IPs are one and the same person. He is also writing nonsense on the talk page (see history because it's been deleted). I'm off to bed now. If you think I did the wrong thing. Feel free to unprotect. But if you do, please watch out for vandalism. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not part of the cabal quite yet, but it sounds to me like you followed the protection policy to the letter. Protecting the page to the POV version would have defeated the point of locking it, since the anon would have won; s/he wanted the POV in and was vandalizing because s/he didn't get it. Protecting on the NPOV version (or closest thing to it) was the right move -- Essjay ·  Talk 00:45, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

 * Heck sure, I'll bite. It sure wasn't CONTRAVERSIAL (sic or, is that SICK?).  And yes it's perfectly in line with the admin policy I've seen up until now.  I don't see any cabal by the way Essjay, just the usual twisted antics of the same obnoxious little group of clowns  -Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley,  Anome, Natalinasmpf and co.  You know the same droopy little group who have been trashing this page on an hourly basis since its inception.  The ones who like to pretend they're on a noble mission to preserve the sanctity of mainstream science.  The ones who don't know and don't want to know anything about the subject matter except how to find a way to smear it.  The ones who act as official sockpuppets on all the serious non-mainstream science pages (see autodynamics, hydrino theory, etc.).  The ones who tuck their tails between their legs and run when you confront them on facts - but are back the next day with a new set of slurs, lies and slander.  Goebbels school of Information.    The ones who plead on their webpages that they are 'notable' when their only notoriety is to be dicks.  The ones who make sure that the pages are locked on a version of the page distorted by Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley,  Anome, Natalinasmpf.  The ones who cry they're being oppressed by the corporations and then proceed to try to discredit anyone conducting serious research outside of the mainstream system.  The ones who pretend they are 'tidying up'.   The ones who pretend the category PSEUDOSCIENCE is an NPOV description. The ones who always go running to other admins to say 'I did right didn't I?  I followed wikipedia policy didn't I?'  - after they've just pulled off another round of  libelous slurs and suppression of information on the discussion pages.    WELL IF THERE ARE ANY ADMINS LEFT IN HERE WITH ANY REMNANT OF COURAGE OR SELF RESPECT, WHICH I DOUBT,  THEY SHOULD READ THE ARCHIVES OF THIS PAGE AND SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THESE ADMINS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ENTRY. 4.231.163.145 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * anon, Perhaps you'd get their attention faster if you used ALL BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS instead. And Theresa, relax.  You did just fine.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * OK Thanks for the advice official 'Uninvited' ADMIN/ANON. Just about what I expected. Here it is:

'''* Heck sure, I'll bite. It sure wasn't CONTRAVERSIAL (sic or, is that SICK?). And yes it's perfectly in line with the admin policy I've seen up until now. I don't see any cabal by the way Essjay, just the usual twisted antics of the same obnoxious little group of clowns -Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley,  Anome, Natalinasmpf and co. You know the same droopy little group who have been trashing this page on an hourly basis since its inception. The ones who like to pretend they're on a noble mission to preserve the sanctity of mainstream science. The ones who don't know and don't want to know anything about the subject matter except how to find a way to smear it. The ones who act as official sockpuppets on all the serious non-mainstream science pages (see autodynamics, hydrino theory, etc.). The ones who tuck their tails between their legs and run when you confront them on facts - but are back the next day with a new set of slurs, lies and slander. Goebbels school of Information. The ones who plead on their webpages that they are 'notable' when their only notoriety is to be dicks. The ones who make sure that the pages are locked on a version of the page distorted by Theresa Knott, William M. Connolley, Anome, Natalinasmpf. The ones who cry they're being oppressed by the corporations and then proceed to try to discredit anyone conducting serious research outside of the mainstream system. The ones who pretend they are 'tidying up'. The ones who pretend the category PSEUDOSCIENCE is an NPOV description. The ones who always go running to other admins to say 'I did right didn't I? I followed wikipedia policy didn't I?'  - after they've just pulled off another round of  libelous slurs and suppression of information on the discussion pages. WELL IF THERE ARE ANY ADMINS LEFT IN HERE WITH ANY REMNANT OF COURAGE OR SELF RESPECT, WHICH I DOUBT, THEY SHOULD READ THE ARCHIVES OF THIS PAGE AND SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGES OF THESE ADMINS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ENTRY. 4.231.163.145 01:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC) '''

And I second that: suspend administrator privileges on Aetherometry entry for the following: PJacobi, Theresa Knott, William Michael Connolley, Karada, Freddie Salisbury, the Anome and Mel Etitis. For repeated tag-team reversals, unfounded statements, abuse of power (deletion, suppression, alteration of records), denigration of participants, fraudulent presentation of facts, systematic harassment of participants. Similar activities on other entries on non-mainstream science. 216.254.165.65 05:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

(can we remove these spillings of anons-without-countenance? I mean who even reads text formatted like this?) dab (ᛏ)

If you want some background on this, see Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 11 for Category:Non-mainstream science. We had an anon(s) who argued against everyone who wanted to delete the category. Probably the same one(s) you're having problems with now. --Kbdank71 13:24, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Kbdank71 pretends innocence when s/he as an admin anon immediately switched to Pseudoscience four distinct realms of serious,scientific research - as soon as the Category Non-maintream Science was summarily abolished by the admin club. Now, s/he can helpfully refer any poor sod to a page that does not exist...such is the hypocrisy of administrators in charge of these entries.    In any case, since admins don't read, only count license numbers, and pat each other on the back, the matter is simply a travesty.  64.48.73.132 02:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Kdbank71's comment was intended primarily for the adminstrators reading this board. The CfD log does of course exist, and administrators can view the history of the deleted category itself. Is there a specific abuse of administrative power that you see? Like deleting an article in violation of the deletion policy or an unjustified block? If so, specific examples would be helpful. If you are simply upset with the behavior of a user or two, or would like comment about an article, filing an RfC would probably be more productive. It looks as though the concerns you have are not really administrator-specific—in fact, some of the users you mention are not administrators. Please realize that the way Wikipedia works is by consensus, and it is entirely appropriate for administrators or other users to seek feedback on their actions. Please also realize that when one person has a quarrel with most other users, while it may be that everyone else is wrong and the one is correct, there is a good chance that the reverse is true. And matters are not always right or wrong. For better or for worse, Wikipedia works by discussion and consensus—it's really the only system we have. In general, if you want to convince others to follow your way, you might achieve better results if you avoid the inflammatory remarks and the personal attacks. Finally, if administrators don't read, you are probably wasting your time posting remarks here, since we can't read them anyway. P.S. Theresa — I agree with your actions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jihad and Islam
could somebody look into the mass reversal campaigns by assorted IPs on these articles? I'd rather not issue 3RR blocks myself, here, since I am involved. dab (ᛏ) 12:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

User:65.182.172.72
(plus the IP addresses that he has used in the past) has decided to go overboard in a minor dispute over wheather a sentance is npov. When the user I posted about the issue on the talk page, the user decided to personally attack me repeatedtly, and has been unwilling to seriously talk about the isssue. Additionaly, the user has removed signed comments of mine from Talk:Italian Beef. He/She has also vandalised my user page, posting "Racist and professional asshole to the stars". I also strongly belive that he/she intentially created the argument and kept it going. I warned the user on Talk:Italian Beef, and the user deleted the warning, and responded: "More crap from Reub, as our teen terror tries to play lawyer. Ruby, no matter how yoy try to argue your way around this one through bizarre misinterpretations of the policy, the rules do not give you the right to demand that others not do unto you, as you've felt free to do unto them, and if Wikipedia suggests otherwise, I'll give serious consideration to the possibility of filing a civil rights action against said company. At the very least, I'll spread the bad word, and it isn't going to do much for this site's credibility." Despite his unfounded accusations of me being a racist, I have never done anything racist to him. Reub2000 06:18, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is in support of Reub2000's comment above. Anon IP poster, from varying IP's (most from 65.182.172.* netblock, but possibly others). Started by making generally abusive comments of anyone who wrote something he/she disagreed with, and within the last 2 days has started a "you're all against me because I'm not white" campaign, along with even more abusive comments.  I strongly suspect the same user is responsible for the abusive comments at Talk:Chicago-style hot dog as well - he/she seems intent on disrupting the normal Wikipedia process, and demonstrating that Wikipedia is "unreliable". --Dcfleck 12:46, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:EnviroFuck
I believe this user's name alone violates policy.

In addition, he/she/it has made only three edits, one as part of a revert war on Jihad (which I now regret even touching), one making un-signed statements to the talk page, and one making false edits to my user page. Existentializer 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This user is also very obviously the user 67.78.186.19 and is quite possibly an alternate name created by either Heraclius or BrandonYusufToropov (who were also involved in the Jihad bickering) though I cannot confirm this.Existentializer 16:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)\

 * EnviroFuck's been blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 16:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

3RR Page
Sorry to have to ask, but I tried to be helpful and fix a content-duplication problem on the 3RR report page and I seem to have altered something in the "Report new violation" section, but I'm not sure how to fix it.

Can anyone help me? Existentializer 17:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic mentorship over
I am sorry to say that Netoholic's mentorship has basically failed. For the moment, he is therefore on the ArbCom restriction of no edits to Wikipedia: or Template: space (or their talks). We'll be working on something less restrictive for him, 'cos he is frequently good value IMO, just rather lacking in judgement - David Gerard 17:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Popular-music editors in concert, or...?
I've been having problems for some time with a number of (apparently) relatively new editors on a wide range of articles related to popular music (Spice Girls, Mariah Carey, and the like); my impression is that they're all teenage boys. the earliest was with whom I eventually came to an amicable resolution, but who has begun to slip back to his old style; at the same time, he's been joined by two more editors:  and. Their approach to editing is to write articles according to their own ideas, and then resist attempts by other editors to correct the English and Wikipedia style aggressively and persistently. Aside from extensive naming-convention problems (capitalising every word in sight, in titles and elsewhere), they make lists using HTML "br", give song titles with no inverted commas, or opening but no closing inverted commas, or opening straight and closing slanted inverted commas, use fanzine/music-journmalism language (records hit the shelves, they hit the charts, they spend 2 weeks at #1, everybody's referred to by her Christian name, there are lots of gushing adjectives, and so on), there are misspellings galore, etc. — and every attempt to correct these is simply reverted.

What on Earth do I do? I've tried my hardest to get through to them (see, for example, User talk:OmegaWikipedia, which also contains a message from DrippingInk including: "Plus, I'm sick and tired of all the bullshit when it comes to "Wikipedia" style. I don't give a damn if something is not in Wikipedia style", which pretty much sums up all three of them). Are they all the same person, or are there really three clone-like adolescent boys out there acting together? Help! --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 18:10, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I've observed this dispute and I think Mel's behavior has been worse. He actually uses rollback in these content disputes, and continues to do so even after I cautioned him about it. Everyking 04:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * In one of his hourly releases of bile, Everyking did indeed attack me for using rollback; when I asked him to point to the policy that ruled it out, he went quiet. He has since repeated the attack, including the opinion that I should be de-adminned for using rollback.  That he thinks that my behaviour is worse than the editors I've mentioned suggests to me that he has a very weak understanding of Wikipedia or of good behaviour.  Still, the evidence is all there; if there's consensus that my behaviour is poor, then I clearly fail to understand my responsibilities, and I suggest that someone de-admin me. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 11:03, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Suggestion noted, and summarily denied . :) El_C 11:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

User:CockBot
Can somebody with admin rights please enforce a block on User:CockBot thanks? This user is vandalising many articles with no sign of stopping. -- Longhair | Talk 18:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Account has been blocked indefinitely by Karada. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Broonee
I blocked user:Broonee indefinately. Jimbo long long ago allowed us to block users who were only here to troll, and this couldn't be a clearer case. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:00, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack
I just made one on User:Chocolateboy. I believe the exact words were "Oh, fuck you". Suggest that an admin blocks me for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Done. --Michael Snow 04:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Undone - there is no blocking policy for personal attacks, and while I support it in some circumstances, lone personal attacks from users whose conduct is otherwise impeccable are not among them. Snowspinner 04:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I do believe that if someone recognizes their own personal attack, and asks to be blocked in order to have the benefit of a cooling-off period, we might as well grant that wish. It might even lead incrementally to greater acceptance of this type of block. --Michael Snow 04:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If Ta wants to stay away for a day over a personal attack, he is welcome to. Snowspinner 04:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything wrong with responsible self-blocking--clearly we don't want someone trolling WP:AN by constantly requesting 37 minute blocks or anything, but I think this is very reasonable. I personally (after my brief service on the AC) recognized that some editors felt singled out by the "personal attack parole" and the "revert parole" they were placed on, and so I have accepted them as my own personal policy.  If I had said what Ta bu did, I'd be asking for the same consideration.  I don't think we need to do anything to discourage admins who choose to live by a higher law -- on the contrary, I wish more took our site's standards as seriously. Jwrosenzweig 06:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Retreat to policy when the policy suits you, block and call it "common sense" when it doesn't. Everyking 04:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I await the explanation of why this suits me. Snowspinner 05:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * Because you're evil, of course, so any action you do is a priori evil.

 * Oh yeah, I almost forgot: drink! --Calton | Talk 05:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * He can start behaving uncontroversially any day now. Edits and admin actions are judged on their merits, at least by me. Everyking 10:30, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I see this act of TBSDY as showing off. BTW, did he apologize? mikka (t) 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Jethro Tull
Since Dee Palmer of that group used to be David Palmer, the edit I made to it that qualified them as an LGBT musical group is the truest neutral point of view despite and regardless of the fact that Dee had left the group as an official member. Dee has still worked with them and helped them out.

 * Administrator - Please read the correspondence on this issue on the Jethro Tull talk pages. Thanks David T Tokyo 23:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)