Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive13

Contents: March 24, 2005 - March 29, 2005

User:CPS deleting other people's comments
CPS is repeatedly deleting other people's comments from VfD and Talk pages. I have warned him in the past that he should refrain, but instead, he deleted my comments from his Talk page, and returned to his old behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours, and have warned him that if he continues with this behavior, he will be blocked for 48 hours the next time, etc. RickK 05:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing this user probably had some sort of reason for wanting to delete other people's comments. On the surface, it sounds terrible, but I would like to know what sort of justification he or she would have. Everyking 05:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well there is no way of finding that out if someone deletes warnings on their talk page instead of talking :-( Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 07:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, he or she might be deleting personal attacks, for all I know, or he or she might not be deleting comments at all, but simply moving them around, refactoring, or something of that sort. Anyway, I'm sure if he or she was asked nicely, he or she would stop. Everyking 08:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is RickK's warning it's firm but not rude.

This is what was deleted: it's critism but not a personal attack.

But I'm willing to give dialog a go. I'll go do it now. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This was his first Talk page deletion. RickK 10:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

There is a "semi-policy" which says that it is advisable to delete personal attacks on Talk pages. I don't know what a "semi-policy" is, but clearly it countenances the deletion of comments on Talk pages. As soon as you have a policy that sanctions the deletion of personal attacks, it opens the question as to what is a "personal attack". When is a personal attack just "criticism"? Who decides what is a personal attack and which personal attacks to delete? The person who feels attacked? Some neutral third-party? Also, again I ask: what policy gives RickK the authority to block somebody for this reason? The policies give administrators authority to block people in a limited number of situations. This is not one of them. We have an Arbitration Committee for dealing with behaviour that might require sanction that falls outside those specific situations. --BM 14:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The policy that gives RickK the authority to block somebody is vandalism. CPS is deleting other user's comments on article talk pages (ie, not the user talk page). This can be construed as vandalism, and IMO, is a blockable offense. --Deathphoenix 15:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well deleting user's comments on article talk pages is not prime facie vandalism since, as I said, there is a "semi-policy" that actually advises people to do this in the case of personal attacks; namely Remove personal attacks. There might be some debate about whether something is a personal attack, but the consequence of getting that wrong should not be that one is summarily found guilty of "vandalism" and blocked forthwith.  Moreover,  assuming the behaviour in question is vandalism, with respect to vandalism, Blocking policy states: Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner. Blocks should not be used against isolated incidents of vandalism.   In other words, even if this behaviour is "vandalism", which is debatable, administrators are not authorized to block a logged-in user for vandalism, unless the account is only be used for vandalism.    What do these policies mean if administrators can make up the rules as they go along?  Do administrators blocking people actually pay any attention to these policies, or are they all doing what they consider to be "the right thing", reckoning that they will be backed up by the consensus?   Are administrators actually expected to read and comply with these policies?   If the administrators aren't expected to read and comply with them, why should anybody be expected to?  --BM 16:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously trying to apply Remove personal attacks and getting it wrong is not a reason to be blocked. But that's not what happened here, so what is your argument? The key thing that you don't understand BM is that administrators are trusted members of the community and are supposed to use thier judgement. RickK warned the user that he'd block if he removed anymore comments.This is not a well meaning but misguided user trying to apply policy. This is someone who deleted comments from a vfd debate because they critisised his behaviour. I for one fully support the 24 hour block. (I wouldn't support a permenant block). Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I've occasionally (and probably more than anyone else) employed Remove personal attacks, and I can confirm that it's rather tricky and easy to get wrong. If applied widely it might well make a Wiki unusable because it could become infested with trolls determined to take offense at the least negative statement.  It can be a very effective tool, however, for keeping a discussion on track where one or two participants get into flame war mode, or where one obnoxious person is trying to bait you with insults.  My rule of thumb is that if a sentence or fragment is solely intended to draw a negative inference concerning another editor it can be removed without changing the salient facts conveyed. "There is no evidence to support X's claim--he's clearly lying" can be reduced to "There is no evidence to support X's claim." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This user seems to have taken any comment that was slightly negative as a personal attack. In this case I think Rick was right to block CPS. Mgm|(talk) 18:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * As do I. CPS aapears to be happy to use personal attacks a plenty himself though: you pathetic wiki-cop keep trying, dimwit look it up yourself dimwit get a life you jackass Republican scumbag remove personal attack: this is the chickenshit hillbilly's idea of an insult Note that last one was a removal of someone elses vote on a vfd debate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 18:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether the behaviour is appropriate or not, neither Mgm nor Theresa is addressing the fundamental point.  The main question is not whether this behaviour is appropriate or not, it is WHO DECIDES and WHO APPLIES THE SANCTION for misbehaviour.  The  project has policies.  What do those policies mean?    In this case, one can argue about whether the behaviour was permitted under Remove personal attacks.   But even if it was inappropriate behaviour, it is not VANDALISM, and even if it were, administrators cannot block logged-in users for VANDALISM under the blocking policy.  Whenever this type of topic comes up, people always dodge the basic question as to administrator powers and conformity with policy, and try to focus on the behaviour that prompted the admin action.  The presumption seems to be that if the behaviour was inappropriate (even if there is no policy against it), then any administrator has power to deal with it.  It is like trying to excuse a cop for roughting someone up by arguing: "Well anyway he was guilty, and look, besides that, he isn't a very nice guy".   My point is that in general ADMINISTRATORS HAVE NO POWERS to discipline logged-in regular members for misbehaviour, except in certain specific situations defined by policy.  This isn't one of those situations.  The only people with power to deal with it are JIMBO and the ARBITRATION COMMITTEE (as a group).  That is the issue here.   If you want to tell me I'm wrong and that admins have greater powers than I think, please point me to where it says that.   --BM 21:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Could someone block this guy for excessive lawyering? ;-) This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. --Carnildo 21:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it isn't me who is excessively legalistic.  The whole ethos of the Wikipedia is legalistic -- what with its extensive "policies" and "semi-policies" (good grief!), and a quasi-judicial "arbitration committee", with "petitioners", "respondents", "evidence", etc.  However, it is all a bit of a sham, in my opinion, because there seems to be a group of administrators who basically discipline other members as they see fit, and the fact that there is no policy which authorizes their actions doesn't seem to slow them down much.  I really don't even object to this, since I'm the God-King on my own web-site, and on my own site if the Terms of Use stop me from keeping things running smoothly, I just change the Terms of Use.   If Jimbo wanted to designate "super-administrators" with greater discretion than others to block other users, etc, regardless of policy, I wouldn't object. The only thing I object to, really, is the intellectual dishonesty of the current situation -- the fact that administrators are described as "janitors", etc, subject to the same policies and consensus as everyone else, but that it is not really so.  I think the actual system should be made clear.   It would be kind of nice to know who those super-administrators are, too, and how and why they were chosen.  Either that, or maybe people should be doing what the policies say they are supposed to be doing (and not doing what the policies say they shouldn't be doing.)  --BM 22:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Firstly blocking someone for 24 hours from editing a website is nothing like a cop roughing someone up. Please let's keep things in perspective. Really BM you need to pick your fights mate. Yeah you're right administrators are more than janitors. They are trusted members of the community. trusted that is not to abuse their powers. RickK did not abuse his powers in this case. We are all here for the same reason. Namely to build an encylopedia. Our policies are here to help us do that, and to prevent admins from abusing their power. Policies are not laws, and they are not straight jackets. This is a clear case of someone who was being disruptive, they were warned not do do something, and that warning was reasonable, yet they persisted. Note that we have no policy that states admins should use a measure of common sense. The power that RickK, and other admins have comes from the community. If you think he shouldn't have blocked CPS you are going to have to go to the community on it. Start a rfc. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there's a problem in that admins tend to make reference to their powers too often. When asking someone to stop doing something, one need only ask; there isn't necessarily any need to threaten: most people will stop even if they have no idea you're an admin. But an arrogant pretense of authority is enough to goad some people into continuing whatever behavior they shouldn't have been doing. A person should really have to be causing some problems to warrant a block. Page move vandalism, uploading vandalistic images, repeatedly blanking pages, etc. Blocking people is serious business: if a revert is a slap in the face, then a block breaks a nose and knocks out some teeth. It's not something one should do without a very clear and indisputable reason. A block does two very serious things: it prevents a person from contributing, when they could be doing a lot of good work, and it marginalizes the person and fills the person with animosity, and turns them off from the project. So we need to be more careful. If you can reasonably expect some people to dispute the block, don't do it. Everyking 00:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that blocking should not be undertaken lightly. And I agree that polite warnings should be given not heavy handed ones. But I support RickK's block in this instance. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, I appreciate the advice, but in fact I am picking my fights. If I chose to protest cases where everybody was protesting -- where everybody thought that the admin had been unreasonable and the outcome unjust -- the issue would be buried. Nobody argues that administrators should be able to abuse their powers in order to achieve an unreasonable result. Everybody will be saying the administrator abused his powers in those cases. Those are not the interesting cases. I am saying it is an abuse of powers, EVEN WHEN THE OUTCOME IS REASONABLE. It is only when the result is reasonable that there is an issue about the process. My argument is that Wikipedia cannot have 400+ administrators all exercising their "judgement" about what is reasonable. If the policies are getting in the way of administrators dealing efficiently with problems, then we should fix the policies. The blocking policy SAYS, very clearly, with no latitude for interpretation, that administrators are not supposed to block logged-in users for vandalism unless the account has been, in essence, used exclusively for vandalism. If that is not the consensus of the community, and administrators are not obliged to follow the policy when in their "judgement" it shouldn't be applicable, then why does the policy state that? The policy could easily state what you say is the de-facto consensus: "Administrators can block logged-in members for vandalism after a warning for up to 24 hours. But it doesn't state that.   Why not?   If you think it should, then why not try to get consensus for a change in the policy.  If the de facto consensus is already there, it shouldn't be hard.   What is the meaning of these policies if any administrator can substitute his or her own opinion as to what the policies should be?  Why bother having written policies that contradict what you claim is the unwritten consensus? --BM 00:16, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the blocking policy:

"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. (emphasis mine)

Now does removing people's signed comments from a vfd debate disrupt the functioning of vfd? Of course it does! When the admin who has to decide whether to delete a page or not comes to the page they need to be able  to read through what everyone has said. If you don't agree that this user should have been blocked you really should start a rfc and see what the community thinks Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, now you a shifting to another pretext for the action. The disruption policy. Which is it, disruption or vandalism? And you've dodged my basic point and your previous answer, and are now arguing about policy again. So does that mean you have conceded my point that administrators should follow policy? By the way, the sentence you quoted refers to IP addresses. User:CPS isn't an IP address. --BM 01:21, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course administrators should follow policy. But no policy can cover all situations. Here is where we have a difference of opinion - I'm saying that administrators have to use thier judgement sometimes, whereas you are arguing that they shouldn't. We can argue this all day but we won't get anywhere. I feel admins are there to serve the community by making descisions and exercising good judgement. They shouldn't abuse thier powers, but they shouldn't be afraid to use them when doing so is the right thing to do. You are not going to change my mind on that. BTW I never claimed he was blocked for vandalism and neither did RickK, and we are not arguing pretexts we are giving reasons.

Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 01:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct that it wasn't RickK that claimed this block was under the rubric of vandalism. He didn't bother to mention which policy sanctioned it, and I dare say he was not detained much by the need to find one, since he was exercising his "judgement" and that, according to you, is sufficient.


 * Yep, you'll notice how he also posted his actions here for review.


 * So lets look at "disruption". If you actually look at User:CPS' edit history, you find only two cases where CPS edited Talk pages or VfD and removed comments, going all the way back into February.  One of these was on Mar 24, where he twice removed the same Megan1964 comment from a VfD vote that was referenced above.  This was not a vote, but a comment critical of CPS' vote on VfD.  One can argue about whether it was a personal attack,


 * It clearly isn't and he was warned not to do it a second time but he went ahead and did it anyway.


 * but as we discussed above, there is a policy allowing removal of personal attacks,


 * No there isn't.


 * and if there is a (semi-)policy allowing for their removal, then it should not be deemed a blockable disruption if someone somewhat oversteps consensus about what constitutes a personal attack.


 * Yes it should in a clear case like this one


 * The other case was on Mar 21, where CPS blanked User_talk:198.82.71.55. This was his own Talk page from before he registered as User:CPS, and the comments he removed were all in Nov-Dec, 2004.


 * Irrelavent. The block was for the above two removals of other people's comments from a vfd page.


 * So, removing one marginal comment on VfD, and blanking the Talk page he had as an anon before registering.  Still think this was sufficient disruption of Wikipedia to warrant being blocked, Theresa?   To me it doesn't look disruptive at all.   --BM 02:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I know exactly what he did, i read through his past contributions before commenting here.  I even posted a link further up the page where he removed a vote from a vfd listing. So yes I still think he warrents a block. Theresa Knott  (ask the rotten) 02:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, IMO, it was vandalism, and my opinion only, no-one else's. BM, I think I mentioned this before, but if every admin did things the way you suggest, they'd be looking up policy 2.3, section A, paragraph 32, subparagraph C "Woops, better check another section", while bad faith editors are hammering away at Wikipedia and laughing at us for being so slow to react. Sometimes, police, customs agents, detectives act on instinct honed from experience. I think admins are trusted members of the community who are experienced enough to spot a bad faith editor when they see it. If they're wrong, there are many other admins who can revert. I've read this board long enough to know that other admins can and will revert when they think the action is wrong. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. Blocking policy is short.  So are the other policies.  An admin can be reasonably expected to know these policies.   You'd think before an admin blocked somebody, he might concern himself with whether he is allowed to do that.   Nobody compelled them to become admins, and since the community is trusting them to follow policy and comply with consensus, they had better know what the policies and consensus are.   Besides, the policies are simple. For example Blocking policy gives admins wide latitude to deal with vandalism by blocking anonymous IP's.  That is the "mop and bucket brigade" part of the job. It cautions admins to be very circumspect and conservative when blocking logged-in users.   Admin's don't have to carry and thick law books.   It is simple: when dealing with other established members of Wikipedia, you have very little weight to throw around, so don't.   That is why we have the Arbitration Committee.  Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of admins who won't accept this. --BM 03:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Theresa so we are down to whether removing one comment on VFD was "disruptive". Note that RickK's justification above is "repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VFD and Talk pages". "Repeated" turns out to be one comment deleted twice. Let us look at the edit histories.
 * 1) At 6:21 21 Mar, he blanked his old User_talk page from when he was an anon.
 * 2) At 6:24 21 Mar, RickK asked him on his Talk page why he had done this.  CPS doesn't seem to have replied.
 * 3) At 10:26 21 Mar, Megan1964 made the following comment on VfD/List of dead rappers: Well I guess your plea is better than simply blanking/removing/censoring other people's votes you dont agree with which you have a previous record of doing btw. Thank goodness you don't run a democracy. P.S. I seriously doubt there is a pro-Libertarian bias on Wikipedia. Megan1967 10:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) This seems like a personal attack to me, although in fairness, it is in response to an ad hominem comment by CPS concerning Megan's vote.   Whether it is a personal attack or not, I can see someone reasonably considering it to be one.   Incidentally, I'm not sure where Megan1967 found evidence for this accusation; certainly it wasn't recent behaviour.
 * 4) At 10:47 21 Mar, he reverted the comment, with the edit summary was rv immature and irrelevant remarks.
 * 5) At 20:34 21 Mar, RickK restored the deleted comment, with the edit summary restoring Megan's comments improperly deleted by CPS
 * 6) At 20:36 21 Mar, RickK wrote on his Talk page: PLEASE stop removing other people's comments from Talk and VfD pages. This is vandalism, and will result in your being blocked from editing. RickK 20:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Three days later, at 3:15, 24 Mar he reverted the Megan1967 comment in the VfD again, this time with the edit summary, these are personal attacks meant to distract from the actual issue at hand...please Megan1967, grow up.   This makes it clear that he considered the comment to be a personal attack, the removal of which is allowed by the "semi-" policy, Remove personal attacks.
 * 8) A few minutes later at 3:21, 24 Mar he removed the two edits by RickK from his Talk page.
 * 9) At 5:43, RickK blocked him for repeatedly deleting other people's comments on VfD and Talk pages. Has been cautioned before).

From this sequence, it is clear to me that CPS thought he was removing personal attacks from a VFD, and the User Talk pages he was editing were his own. Also, RickK warned him about vandalism, but these edits were not vandalism, and anyway as we discussed above, administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism. As for whether it was disruption, I don't see how removing one comment from a VfD vote, especially the one in question, could be construed as disruption of the Wikipedia rising to the level of blocking. Nor can I see it being disruption justifying a block to edit your own Talk pages. --BM 03:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if any admin agrees with you, they will unblock CPS. FWIW (not being an admin), I don't think RickK was in the wrong here. --Deathphoenix 03:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The consensus (among the people who read this page) is that the block is appropriate. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:32, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The amount of time spent in pointless, wasteful, inane wiki-lawyering here boggles my mind. Get a life, and use that energy doing something which actually contributes to the real point of this project - produce some content.

Having said that, one comment, about the claim that "administrators don't have the authority to block logged-in users for vandalism". If that were true, all vandals would have to do is sign up for a user-name, and we'd have to resort to the ArbComm to get rid of them. People block vandals with user-names every day. The policy says something rather different. Noel (talk) 14:02, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not really. Why do we have these policies if it is "inane wiki-lawyering" to actually read them?   Have you not read the blocking policy?  What it actually says is that a logged-in user cannot be banned for vandalism unless the account is used "effectively" only for vandalism.   So, yes, what you put forward as obviously stupid is precisely what the policy states: if someone intent on vandalism creates an account and makes some number of reasonable-looking edits, then according to the policy he cannot be blocked for vandalism by an administrator.  It also says that a logged-in user cannot be blocked for "isolated vandalism".   Presumably the vandal can still be blocked by Jimbo or the ArbComm.   I would not argue that this policy is especially logical, but that is what it clearly states.  (Really. Read it.)    So what is the solution?  (1) all the administrators just ignore the policy and try to follow the "unwritten consensus"  about when they can block people, whatever they might think that consensus is; or (2) we revise the policy so that it reflects the de facto consensus.    It is obvious that most admins have decided on option (1). Since few people seem to care what the policies really state, option (2) is just too much trouble.  This is basically my point: the policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support his pre-conceived position.  When they don't support what someone wants to do -- well too bad for the policy and any "inane wiki-lawyers" with the poor taste and lack of common sense to mention the policies. --BM 14:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * BM, I think you may be slightly misinterpreting the blocking policy. You have repeatedly quoted the following line: "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." Taken out of context, it appears that logged-in users should not be blocked, but if you notice, the phrase "the same time periods" and "in this manner" refers to the earlier sentences. I recently became an administrator and I have read through the relevant policies very carefully; this is how I interpret the Vandalism section: Dynamic IPs should be blocked for 24 hours. Static IPs should initially be blocked for 24 hours; repeat violators for increasing amounts of time up to one month; and that there are various rules of thumb for the schedule of increases. Then comes "Logged-in users that do essentially nothing but vandalism may also be blocked for the same time periods. However, user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and vandalism should not be blocked in this manner." (emphasis mine) I interpret this to mean that if a logged-in user is only vandalizing, he may be blocked for the same time periods, that is, up to a month for repeated vandalism. However, an account that is performing a mixture of edits should not be blocked in this manner; that is, not using the same increasing block lengths. However, it does not say that logged-in users who have good and bad edits should not be blocked at all. This seems the most logical interpretation to me, but perhaps we can reword it if you feel it is ambiguous. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 18:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * BM, there's some page I spent a while looking for (and couldn't find) that basically said "not all policy on Wikipedia is written down". (It might have been Policies and guidelines that I was thinking of: In many cases, policies are not always formally written down. Or perhaps the page I was thinking of has been edited since I saw it. And of course there's always Ignore all rules - simply use common sense .. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective.)
 * I agree that there is a problem where policies are more or less shams and nobody pays much attention to them except when they happen to support [their] pre-conceived position. However, more detailed written policies aren't the answer to this - without more time and energy than we are (in practise) willing to expend (first to formulate policy, second to have everyone learn it, and third to do it in practise), that will make the problem worse, not better. Perhaps we have some janitors who aren't suited to mop-n-broom duty, whose "common sense" (above) isn't up to snuff. But the answer to that is to exercise better care on selecting janitors. I myself would be in favour of a mandatory "probationary period" - i.e. new janitors get a month on the job, so people can see them actually in action, and then have to go through the approval process again to get permanent janitor status. Noel (talk) 16:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BM is absoluetly right. If people think that current policies are unworkable, they should change them, not disregard them. The persistent attitude that procedure and consistency in enforcement of policy are irrelevant, as long as there is a general consensus that the result is right, is what gives rise to the sneering and the threats and everything else that gives Wikipedia the Lord of the Flies feel. At least that's what turned me off Wikipedia. Zocky 22:42, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Coming back to this discussion after a bit of gap, I think Noel is leaning a bit hard on the "in this manner" phrase to find justification in the blocking policy for an admin blocking a logged-in user with a reasonable number of edits for "vandalism". Why would the policy make an exception for a logged in user, anyway? It seems to me clear that the intent of the policy is that a logged-in user who has made a reasonable number of good faith edits and is a "member of the community" is to be given the benefit of the doubt and some immunity from the actions of administrators. That is why we have the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo. A user who is not logged in need not be treated with that deference, and administrators need not be slowed down in dealing with vandalism from such users. The in-between case of a named user who starts committing vandalism without having established himself as a member of the community (by making a reasonable number of good faith edits) is treated more or less the same as an anon user. That is, creating an account is not a get-out-of-jail free card.

As for whether the policies should be revised, I think there are several people who would be willing to work on revising the policies, if it was not apparently a waste of time and if they were not so likely to be insulted as "wiki lawyers", etc. Such a revision would be difficult: many users would resist policies that gave administrators de jure the authority which they habitually assume de facto. If you look at the history of these matters, only policies that very clearly circumscribe the authority of administrators ever pass. (These circumscribed policies are then very liberally interpreted by the administrators: look at 3RR.)  But any revised policies which did not give administrators something approaching their de facto powers would simply be ignored in the name of "common sense", with the Arb Comm (and Jimbo) more likely to censure critics than admins who overstep the policies. --BM 22:12, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lots of copyvio articles
I've been going through Special:Contributions/FactFinder, listing most of this user's created articles on WP:CP. But it's time to go to bed now, so I'd appreciate if someone else would finish. Thanks. (By the way, I know this isn't really the right place to list this; where would have been better?) dbenbenn | talk 02:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Not only has he posted piles of copyvio, he's posted it under multiple titles as he doesn't seem to understand/know about redirects. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 08:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:RJII
Three revert rule violation on. Has been going on for days, with multiple partial reverts of key phrases or sentences from the introduction. User is being opposed by several editors, and the sections he's deleting have been referenced. The issue reported here is that he won't allow the intro to say that capitalism involves most of, or predominantly, the means of production being owned privately: he keeps deleting "mostly" or "predominantly." Even a warning might be helpful. Article history
 * First deleted this phrase: 03:57 March 23
 * 1st revert: 17:07 March 23
 * 2nd revert: 20:14 March 23
 * 3rd revert: 02:58 March 24
 * 4th revert: 04:37 March 24
 * 4th revert: 04:37 March 24

Reported by: SlimVirgin 05:33, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * I elected to protect the page instead, which will last a lot longer than the maximum 24-hour 3RR violation block I can hand out. I don't think this is a problem, since the article seems to be in pretty good shape (it's been around for a long time) and therefore we can live with a static version for a couple of weeks. Noel (talk) 13:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Noel, good idea. SlimVirgin 21:08, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 15:21, 24 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 16:13, 24 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 16:25, 24 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 16:44, 24 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 16:44, 24 Mar 2005

Reported by: &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: None of these were reverts of simple vandalism as defined in Vandalism, though unsurprisingly he tried to claim that one of them was. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Mirv, you are engaging in disruption with your edits at District Attorney's Office. I'm still not sure what the District Attorney's Office is all about, but there is no need for prank edits on that page.  If what you're up to is not vandalism then it comes fairly close. -- Curps 17:10, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Book him, Danno. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What I did was not vandalism, a prank, or intended solely to disrupt. I mean, and still mean, every word I wrote on that page. To which provision of Vandalism did my edits come fairly close? My edits were bold, but policy makes it clear that that is not vandalism. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What, then, was your intent? Jayjg (talk) 17:35, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * To make the implicit explicit instead of dancing around it. To provide links that help one understand the motivations and purposes of the organization. To apply the organization's principles fairly. To cross-link a relevant organization. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you think the creator of that page and organization shares your view about "the motivations and purposes of the organization", or thinks that your organization is "relevant"? Did you actually intend to set up an organization to carry out the actions described on the page, for the purposes set out there? Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you think the creator of that page and organization shares your view about "the motivations and purposes of the organization", or thinks that your organization is "relevant"?&mdash;Maybe he doesn't. Maybe he does, but doesn't like the wording. In either case, he has no more right than I to declare himself absolute authority over the page, or to have the page reflect his view and his view only, or to decide what is relevant and what is not. Did you actually intend to set up an organization to carry out the actions described on the page, for the purposes set out there?&mdash;Yes. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:51, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You did commit pagemove vandalism in moving the page to Congregatio pro Doctrina Vicipediae and Torquemada Brigade. (and Sacred Office of the Inquisition seems to be a prank page).


 * I have no involvement whatsoever with the DAO, I only know about it because I make a habit of adding Wikipedia: pages to my watchlist as a tripwire for detecting vandalism, so I've been watching this unfold. As a third party, I really think you should stop, and find some more constructive way. -- Curps 17:37, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Boldly renaming a page to something that I believe to be more appropriate is not pagemove vandalism. Pagemove vandalism is moving 50 pages to gibberish titles or renaming them all PAGENAME on Wheels!. The Sacred Office of the Inquisition is not a joke, it is meant to deal with people who hold heretical opinions without breaking policies. I believe what I am doing to be constructive. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but as a third party, I believe every single sentence above is made in bad faith (see my comment at Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition). -- Curps 18:42, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * To this outside party it appears that WP:POINT is more relevant. Jayjg (talk) 18:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clear case. The reverts were not to correct vandalism. Snowspinner should read Ownership. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * To Curps: You are free to believe that if you wish. To Jayjg: I don't think expressing a difference of opinion about one Wikipedian organization counts as point-illustrating disruption. You are likewise free to believe otherwise, if you wish. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The issues are serious, the method of raising them was disruptive, and has certainly wasted a great deal of time already, both on the pages in question, here, and the VfD. And the proof is that instead of discussing the issues, people are now wrangling over the actions taken. In my opinion of course. Jayjg (talk)  19:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The initial revert against User:Netoholic is a revert of silly vanderlism.Geni 18:17, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The principle declaration of the page named Snowspinner as a Dictator. Violent revolution deposing said dictator is not silly nor vandalism. -- Netoholic @ 18:21, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
 * The whole dispute is silly. Jayjg (talk) 18:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * but your uprising failed. Now this should either result in you being shot (something not posible with admin powers) or you being forced to flee. However for some reason I suspect if I followed this to its logical conclusion and banned you indefinetly you would complain that that was an abbuse of powers.Geni 12:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute centers on some rather important issues, chiefly authority over pages outside one's userspace and preferred methods of dispute resolution. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As above; the issues are serious, the dispute is silly. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For anyone interested, User:Blankfaze has started a Votes for deletion/Sacred Office of the Inquisition. -- Curps 18:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * . . .on no valid grounds, it should be said. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:53, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A User:Faethon sockpuppet voting on a VfD page
User:Aeropus II of Macedon made an anonymous vote on Votes for deletion/The Tetragrammaton in the Bible, despite the arbitration injunction currently in place against him. --Deathphoenix 18:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * He has been permanently blocked for being yet again another Faethon/Iasson puglic-password account. RickK 21:29, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, RickK. --Deathphoenix 23:28, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocking by User:Neutrality of User:24.18.59.229 for "Vandalism"
Neutrality blocked an anonymous user for "vandalism" for 1 week. The person has protested the blocking on the wikien-l mailing list, claiming, in effect, that it was not vandalism, but a content dispute with Neutrality regarding the Terri Schiavo article; specifically he claims that it is a dispute concerning whether the article should mention suspicions about the authenticity of the Republican "talking points" memo. Could Neutrality please provide some links to the vandalistic edits of this user which warranted the one week ban? --BM 21:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've no idea about the topic but the anons edits don't look like simple vandalism to me. Since Neutrality didn't (as far as I can see) even warn the user, I've undone the block. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 23:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to hear from Neutrality about what he thought the justification was. This seems worse than just an honest mistake, based on a reasonable, but erroneous, interpretation of events.   In examining the edit history, it looks like just straight abuse of authority: Neutrality blocked somebody for "vandalism" merely for having a different POV on an article they were both editing.  This is especially disheartening considering Neutrality is an arbitrator.  --BM 13:08, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Try asking him on his talk page. Not all admins have this page on their watchlist. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Wareware - blatant racism, profanity.
I posted the following in the Request for Comments section, along with specific examples of the kind of posts to which my complaint refers -- but so far have gotten no meaningful response. I would appreciate this receiving prompt attention from someone.

Thanks. deeceevoice 23:00, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

The subject has been stalking me from forum to forum since long before these discussion threads represent. I've warned him repeatedly and simply finally decided to report him. There should be absolutely no place on Wikipedia for this kind of blatantly racist vitriol. In the past, I have at times lost patience with him and responded angrily. In the last several weeks, however, I have maintained my composure, admonishing him to stop such behavior -- without success. Interestingly, when I've lost my temper with him (or with other Wikipedians who have engaged in unfortunate behavior directed toward me) other Wikipedians have admonished only me. Keep in mind that the posts that follow are only some of exchanges that have taken place between this user and me. Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable. I can only interpret such behavior as racism. It's time for Wikipedia to do something about this individual, and it's time for other Wikipedia members to clean up their act as well in this regard. deeceevoice 13:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Admins cannot ban for personal attacks; this power has been proposed more than once, but never gained acceptance. The RfC is the way to go; if the problem doesn't stop, then the next step is mediation or arbitration. Jayjg (talk)  23:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Admins can block users for being annoying but not blatantly racist? What a peculiar dividing line. As for whether admins can block for personal attacks, a look at the Block Log since January 1st indicates otherwise:


 * 00:09, 11 Mar 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:Martin2000" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attack http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bah%E1%27%ED_Faith&diff=11006426&oldid=11005950)
 * 05:52, 9 Mar 2005 Mustafaa blocked "User:RICKKSUCKS!" with an expiry time of 24 hours (his/her name is a personal attack, so is his only edit.)
 * 22:27, 27 Feb 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:..-.." with an expiry time of infinite (acct only used for personal attacks and trolling)
 * 15:26, 27 Feb 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:Osmanoglou" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks, disruption, etc.)
 * 09:49, 17 Feb 2005 172 blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 96 hours (personal attacks, disruption, ranting)
 * 21:52, 16 Feb 2005 Eloquence blocked "User:202.175.234.162" with an expiry time of 7 days (personal attacks)
 * 03:51, 16 Feb 2005 172 blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 1 week (personal attacks in edit summary, disruption)
 * 00:55, 16 Feb 2005 David Gerard blocked "User:24.150.168.211" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks in edit summaries)
 * 21:27, 15 Feb 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:Xed" with an expiry time of 72 hours (profanity and insults on Prof. Rubenstein's talk page)
 * 22:26, 14 Feb 2005 Ahoerstemeier blocked "User:66.210.60.166" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks and vandalism)
 * 18:01, 14 Feb 2005 CryptoDerk blocked "User:Keetoowah" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks)
 * 01:05, 14 Feb 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:User:PSYCH" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Repeated personal attacks after warning/Disruptive user.)
 * 22:40, 11 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)
 * 22:40, 11 Feb 2005 Postdlf blocked "User:User:Dnagod" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeated racist attacks on VfD voters)
 * 05:26, 11 Feb 2005 RickK blocked "User:Borderer" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks, disgusting invective)
 * 07:47, 5 Feb 2005 RickK blocked "User:Amir1" with an expiry time of 24 hours (attacks on other people's religion)
 * 18:29, 28 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:The Number" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks, repeated warnings, second block)
 * 22:46, 27 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 5 days (Fred Bauder, I was not and I am not in a dispute with this editor. That is a lie. I blocked this user for personal attacks directed at Everyking and causing disruption on Talk:Joseph Stalin while I was UNINVOLVED in the conversation on the page)
 * 19:22, 27 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 1 week (NO ONE is entitled to cause disruption, troll, and personally attack users on Wikipedia.)
 * 22:22, 26 Jan 2005 Violetriga blocked "User:208.62.7.133" with an expiry time of 24 hours (vandalism and offensive attacks)
 * 20:41, 26 Jan 2005 172 blocked "User:195.70.48.242" with an expiry time of 1 week (Trolling, personal attacks, ranting)
 * 06:07, 26 Jan 2005 RickK blocked "User:63.70.62.84" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks)
 * 21:00, 24 Jan 2005 Fvw blocked "User:Jimjo" with an expiry time of 12 hours (repeated personal attacks)
 * 17:53, 19 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:The Number" with an expiry time of 12 hours (personal attacks on Talk:Sollog, was repeatedly warned)
 * 15:41, 18 Jan 2005 Gamaliel blocked "User:222.126.68.128" with an expiry time of 24 hours (disrupting vfd, attacks, was warned)
 * 18:11, 14 Jan 2005 Infrogmation blocked "User:Bleedy" with an expiry time of 48 hours (personal attacks, was warned, has been blocked before)


 * I also counted 30 other blocks whose edit summaries cited personal attacks as part of their rationale -- which, if you're correct, they shouldn't be using. --Calton | Talk 00:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Jayjg is correct that the personal attack policy does not empower admins to enforce it by blocking.  There has even been an attempt to gain consensus to revise the policy to allow admins to block people who make personal attacks.  This failed.   However, this does not stop administrators from blocking people for personal attacks anyway.  As you see from Calton's post, in reality it happens all the time.  Basically, many of the administrators don't bother too much with policies.  They assume authority that they think the policies SHOULD give them, and for which they think there should be consensus, without too much regard for what the policies actually say and what the consensus has proved to be when actually tested by votes, etc.   Accordingly, it really shouldn't be hard for deeceevoice to find some admin willing to block wareware for his racist comments.   Nevertheless, I would suggest that deeceevoice bring this case to the Arbitration Committee.  Because when there are 400+ administrators all deciding for themselves what the policies and consensus are, it might be easy to find an admin to block someone, but it is just as easy to find another admin who will unblock him.  It is  better to go to the Arbitration Committee so that the block will stick.  --BM 01:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 *  Not once has anyone in these forums reproached this person about his behavior -- not once. This kind of selective treatment and the repeated overlooking of such despicable behavior on the part of a member of the Wiki community is unacceptable. I can only speak for myself, but I just check VIP and similar sources to see if someone needs blocking, then I investigate and block if I agree with the complaint. If you think this user is being overlooked, you can simply try to get more attention for the issue. But I doubt anyone is being purposely selective. -- Mgm|(talk) 11:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, MacGyver. Thanks for your comment.  But, yes, editors indeed have been purposely selective.  Certainly, some of those participating in the pertinent discussion threads have been.  Wareware's racism is precisely that blatant; you can't not notice it.  There is one particular instance where I actually call someone out for criticizing me for what he sees as subject-matter bias on my part and refusing to comment at all on Wareware's repeated use of simian references (I am an African-American) and other such slurs.  I ask for an explanation, and the editor simply refuses to respond. deeceevoice 12:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, everyone needs to be careful with this complaint until we hear from User:Wareware. If you look at Talk:Afrocentrism you will note strongly conflicting viewpoints between these two people on a refractory topic, and that (and similar topics) may be what's behind this. Noel (talk) 14:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Looking at Requests for comment/Wareware, WW has made a series of comments (which I hadn't seen before looking at that page) in which they have completely lost it. Alas, admins don't have the power to deal with this, it'll have to go to the ArbComm. Noel (talk) 15:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are any number of subjects on Wikipedia on which Wareware and I have differed. Afrocentrism is by no means the genesis of this.  With regard to what is "behind this" ugly, little situation, ideological disputes and differences of opinion are no excuse for this kind of conduct.  See the RfC page on Wareware for more information.  deeceevoice 14:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The blocking policy allows for blocks in certain cases based on "disruption". Personal attacks are disruptive. When I see personal attacks as a justification for a block, I treat it as this type of block - basically, the admin is trying to explain exactly what type of disruption was involved. It may be possible to question whether some of these blocks were acceptable based on the policy. However, I don't think that a block reason that mentions personal attacks is automatically invalid. --Michael Snow 00:09, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Time to speak out.This RfC, thanks in great part to the efforts of User:SlimVirgin, and also with the help of User:El_C, has been put in a more formal format, which is easier to follow and verify. Those of you who have an interest in speaking out against the use of racial slurs (of the vilest kind) on Wikipedia may want to take the time to drop by and read the documentation; it is considerable.  And, if you are so moved, weigh in on the matter by endorsing the complaint (or the defense).  Because of the repeated silence of some Wikipedians in the face of such behavior, I think it important that as many people take an opportunity to weigh in on this matter as possible.  It's an opportunity for the Wikipedia community to take a stand.  And, yes, I would write the same thing if I were not the aggrieved party.  Peace.  deeceevoice 17:45, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner
Despite a straw poll showing an approx. 2:1 ratio against his WP:RFDA policy proposal, Netoholic has initiated a proposal to have Snowspinner stripped of his broom. See link in this section header. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I wish I could say I was surprised. First Netoholic tried to insist his new policy didn't need to be voted on.  Then when he actually solicited a vote, and it went 2-1 against the policy, he decided to implement anyway.  Is he taking advice from User:Iasson? Jayjg (talk)  23:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators" -  Tony's post is not in scope for this page. This is a petition to measure opinion on this subject of Snowspinner's continued adminship - nothing more. -- Netoholic @ 00:44, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * I see one form of administrator intervention that could be applied here: speedy-deleting the page as a personal attack. --Carnildo 00:58, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What basis do you say this is a personal attack? I think you need to go read the policy page; you'll see that true personal attacks are quite serious and accusations should not be given out lightly.  This petition certainly is critical of him, but not a personal attack.  -- Netoholic @ 01:07, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * It feels like a personal crusade against Snowspinner, an RfC apparently didn't get enough support, the arbcom (incidentally doens't that sound rather Orwellian?) have rejected more than one request. This doesn't seem to suggest to you that the problem isn't as widespread as you think, and so you use a subpage of a proposed policy that was overwhelmingly rejected to launch a "petition" against him that apparently has nothing to do with that policy. I fail to see what this is if it isn't a personal attack. Thryduulf 12:29, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * no, it isn't a personal attack. We are, however, crossing into WP:POINT territory now. If all available procedures don't yield the desired result, keep inventing new procedures? This will lead nowhere. Let him have his petition, somewhere appropriate, either on RfC, or in his user space, no harm done. dab (&#5839;) 12:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a personal attack to me. There are a very few places on Wikipedia where criticism of another Wikipedian is not a personal attack. For example, RFC, RFA, and the Administrator noticeboard and its sub-pages are among the few places where a criticism of another member is not a personal attack, and only if it factual and civil. The RFDA process does not have the consensus of the community behind it. Despite the official sounding title, it is just another Wikipedia namespace article started by Netoholic. Therefore it is not a safe harbour for mounting a criticism/attack of another person. It should simply be deleted. --BM 22:26, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * criticism should be allowed. sure, netoholics criticism is condemning and repetitive, but saying "snowspinner is doing a terrible job as an admin" should not be considered a personal in the same category with "snowspinner is an ugly, bad man who likes to crucify kittens". it's just pointless to keep aiming potshots at him when nobody else seems to be eager to de-admin him, and of course personality is involved, but that doesn't make it a personal attack in my book. dab (&#5839;) 08:52, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huh. You'd have thought, you know, someone might notify you when they're requesting you be stripped of your admin status. Snowspinner 22:46, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 04:31, 25 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 05:16, 25 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 05:48, 25 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 06:26, 25 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 06:26, 25 Mar 2005

Reported by: RadicalSubversiv E 06:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Newly returned from a multi-day block for various other obnoxious behaviors (personal attacks, sockpuppetry, etc.), Trey has now returned to take up his POV edit warring. After three reverts affecting several bits of the article, he attempted to evade the 3RR by removing only a specific phrase about war crimes; once that was reverted, he removed the phrase again, this time removing the descriptive "Cold War" along with, I assume in an another attempt to game the 3RR. It seems another block would be in order. RadicalSubversiv E 06:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't see anything about technicalities in the 3RR. Editting a page is fine. J. Parker Stone 21:38, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the 3rd suggested revert is just about "complex" enough to get away with it. However if User:Trey Stone continues this pattern they are likely to get blocked.Geni 09:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything complex about the third -- do you mean the fourth? If so, I think that's unfortunate: here we have a user whose history makes clear that he's not willing to abide by our policies (either editorial and procedural)  -- it shouldn't take a prolonged dispute resolution process to get such a person blocked for obviously and blatantly violating the spirit of the three-revert rule. RadicalSubversiv E 12:11, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * the 3RR can't remove people from wikipedia for more than 24 hours anyway.


 * Trey and any sockpuppets need to be removed from Wikipedia. Chamaeleon 12:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Trey Stone is a problem user; for example, his "anti-Castrosanitization campaign" diff. &mdash; Davenbelle 20:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know why he was unblocked to begin with. He was supposed to be blocked two weeks for using half a dozen sockpuppets to evade blocks and continue revert warring and making personal attacks agaist anyone who questions any of his edits earlier this week. WebLuis 21:40, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Neutrality
Three revert rule violation on Terri Schiavo. Changed phrases such as "pro-life" into "anti-abortion" several times. minor but annoying.

Neutrality:
 * 1st revert: 06:29, 25 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 06:47, 25 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 06:54, 25 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 06:58, 25 Mar 2005
 * 5th revert: 18:12, 25 Mar 2005
 * 6th revert: 18:44, 25 Mar 2005

Reported by: Macdougal 19:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * too mach other stuff along with the repated chages to count as a revert.Geni 00:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Itai
Three revert rule violation on various Sister projects templates. The fourth revert was done via a Sock puppet (User:KingOfAllPaperboys). Itai has already been blocked 3 times for violating 3RR on these templates, and must be trying a new tactic.

Itai (talk &middot; contributions) / KingOfAllPaperboys (talk &middot; contributions):

He has reverted all these in succession. Approximate times within the 24-hour span are on March 25 at 08:38, 15:16, 17:55. & 20:19.


 * Template:Commonscat history
 * Template:Wikibooks history
 * Template:Wikibookspar history
 * Template:Wikinews history
 * Template:Wikiquotepar history
 * Template:Wikisource history
 * Template:Wikisourcecat history
 * Template:Wikisourcepar history
 * Template:Wikispecies history

Reported by: Netoholic @ 22:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Please block Itai for 3RR, block the sockpuppet account indefinitely, and please revert the templates. Using a "meta-template" is an avoidable drain on the server resources, see Meta-templates considered harmful.   If anyone would like to co-sign an RFC... this is long overdue regardin Itai's behavior.  His only activity on Wikipedia for the last couple months has been warring over these templates. -- Netoholic @ 22:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * The sock puppet account is also compounding this, and proving the bad faith intent of his presence by revert-warring on my Talk page (history). -- Netoholic @ 22:46, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
 * I state categorically that I am no one's puppet, sock or other flavor. I am my own man. I have been monitoring this pissing contest for over a week, and I took a side. I stand by my decision. I have had no contact with Itai, and will be heartily disappointed if she or he is disciplined for my actions, which were wholly legal and justified. KingOfAllPaperboys 23:04, 25 Mar 2005


 * legal? this is the wikipedia not a court of law. I'm not going to block since I'm not certian either way. There are a number of posibilities here and I don't have enough information yet to select one.Geni 00:15, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I used the term "legal" to mean I have broken no law, nor any WikiPolicy. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. I followed the rules. I was cautious, not bold. If any action is taken against User: Itai for my actions, that will be a sin and a crime. If any action is taken against me, that will be merely unfortunate, since I know I have low standing here. However, I can disprove any allegation that I am a "sockpuppet." Just ask. KingOfAllPaperboys 00:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a long-standing edit war which has been here before recently, and I have no confidence at all that another block will do any good. I elected to protect the pages instead, which will last a lot longer than the maximum 24-hour 3RR violation block I can hand out. Noel (talk) 12:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic
Three revert rule violation on User Talk: Netoholic.

It is established Wikipedia policy that a user does not own her or his talk page. Netoholic tried to bully me into not commenting on her or his talk page; I declined to be bullied.

User:Netoholic:
 * Initial instance: [13:51, 25 Mar 2005] (She/he called it an archive... it's a delete.)
 * 1st revert: [14:15, 25 Mar 2005] (Revert)
 * 2nd revert: [14:43, 25 Mar 2005] (Revert)
 * 3rd revert: [14:49, 25 Mar 2005] (Netoholic tried to classify as a minor edit; it was, in actuality, a complete revert.)
 * 4th and illegal revert: [14:58, 25 Mar 2005] (Revert, in violation of WikiPolicy.)

Reported by: KingOfAllPaperboys 23:28, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have not reverted the final edit by User:Netoholic because that would be a violation of WP:POINT


 * Blocked for two hoursGeni 00:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * This is not inappropriate. Now, may I revert the illegal (unlawful, unauthorized, what-have-you) edit? If it's allowed to stand, the two-hour block is the price for a fourth revert. KingOfAllPaperboys 00:36, 26 Mar 2005


 * If you revet it I will block you. Any block I can give can be reagrded as a price by cartian class of editor (I know there are some editors who take this view). Yes Netoholic's reverts are strickly against the rules of wikipedia however the rules are somewhat contriversial so I use my discression (as allowed under the 3RR) to limit the block to 2 hours. There is currently an open arcom case on Netoholic. If you fell that the contents of the talk page is significant then add it to the evidence page with a link to the correct history entryGeni 00:49, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If you revet it I will block you.
 * Then I guess I was wise to ask first!! By the way... did you mean "revert?"
 * Any block I can give can be reagrded as a price by cartian class of editor
 * I'm not sure what "class" of editor I am, but I just didn't want him to get away with it. By the way,,, did you mean "certain?" And did you mean "regarded?"
 * Yes Netoholic's reverts are strickly against the rules of wikipedia however the rules are somewhat contriversial so I use my discression (as allowed under the 3RR) to limit the block to 2 hours. 
 * Frankly, Netoholic's particular abuses don't fall under the "controversial" category. All his edits in this instances were made within one hour. By the way... did you mean to say "strictly" and "controversial" and "discretion?"
 * I had to guess.
 * There is currently an open arcom case on Netoholic. If you fell that the contents...
 * I am aware of the case, thank you. When I learn how to use WikiPedia, I'll share some stuff there. By the way... did you mean to say "arbcom?" Did you mean to say ""feel?"
 * Thanks for letting him get away with it. All I wanted was truth. KingOfAllPaperboys 01:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This is my user talk page. I manage it however I want.  In another report, Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive11, Neutrality violated 3RR twice, and was not blocked.  Seeing as how many people agreed he should not be blocked and as an Arbitrator is supposed to be held to the highest standard, I saw that as precident.  I reverted multiple unwelcome (and possibly vandalous) edits and messages from User:KingOfAllPaperboys posted to my talk page.
 * So, how is Neutrality deserving of nothing, yet I was blocked?
 * How is it an annoying sock puppet like User:KingOfAllPaperboys wasn't blocked?  Take a look at that account's actions - nothing but disruption and threats. -- Netoholic @ 04:09, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Look at his contribs on Feb 10, when he helped fight off vandals like a pro. Out of the blue after one month of inactivity, and practically no experience (only 4 edits, WOW!!), he jumps right in to where the action is and somehow knows his way around.  He should be nominated for admin status.  Few could learn the ropes as quickly as he.--Silverback 04:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I may be annoying, but I'm no one's sock puppet. And you're reverting again when you were specifically forbidden to do so. I renew this complaint. KingOfAllPaperboys 04:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User Kelisi
Has 3RR the Panama article 4 times in his edit war over various countries.
 * revert cantus
 * Kelisi again
 * Kelisi reverts again
 * Kelisi reverts

The reverts of Kelisi version Kelisi is edit warring in many countries with Cantus without reference to talk pages. --SqueakBox 23:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Cantus reverted him
 * ABCD reverts
 * SqueakBox reverts Kelisi

He has also reverted 4 times at Argentina ignoring [[WP:3RR] rule.
 * Ist revert
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th revert

This time both Cantus and Jooler reverted him. Again no reference to talk page. Just unilateral unasked for action quicklly taken to the point of edit war with whoever ignoring 3RR rule. I don't mind the maps, but this is not the way to bring them in. --SqueakBox 23:55, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

He has also reverted 4 times at Trinidad and Tobago here, and is edit warring over a large number of sites. --SqueakBox 00:09, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you create needless work through your vandalism. May I suggest that if you don't consider Wikipedia a reliable source of information that it might have something to do with your needless contributions? I'll make as many colourful maps as I like and to hell with whether you like the colours or not. Kelisi 04:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) is what kelisi wrote to Cantus at latter's talk page. i don't want to get involved in which map is better, but his attitude, when it includes 3RR reversions, is not acceptable. --SqueakBox 00:26, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * User blocked for 24 hoursGeni 00:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requesting lift of protection on redirect-target-000.txt
Earlier today, Michael Hardy has unilaterally protected redirect-target-000.txt, which is part of the Wiki Syntax cleanup effort, due to a disagreement over redirect deletion policy. This was done without adding the required template, without adding the page to the list, and despite the fact that he was directly involved in the argument. I'd like to request a lift of that protection, on the basis that it was applied counter to policy.

(For those who are interested, I've posted a link to a summary of the original argument over at the policy pump.)

--Fbriere 06:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I unprotected it with the following clarification: Page was protected for a reason not covered by Protection policy. Besides, "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over." The debate on Michael Hardy's Talk does indicate that he is involved in a dispute over this page.  &mdash; mark &#9998; 09:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit of a tempest in a tea-pot. I can't speak for others who may be doing deletions, of course, but I am trying to exercise a considerable amount of care there. As you can see from my note here about this batch, I'm going through this list carefully, and not simply bulk-deleting them. (I even found an article that had been mistakenly deleted!) Having said that, if anyone else is working on this, I hope they take equal care - there are as many mistakes, etc, here as there are things truly worthy of deletion. Noel (talk) 13:23, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The protection of this page was terribly inappropriate, and quite frankly, one of the very few things I've seen that qualify as "administrator abuse" rather than "mistake". -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Cyrius. dab (&#5839;) 09:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Christiaan
Three revert rule violation on :
 * 1st revert: 12:32, 25 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 13:17, 25 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 13:22, 25 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 13:32 25, Mar 2005

Reported by:--MONGO 14:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Ongoing edit warring, failure to provide discussion for latest edit in talk, pushing POV, failure to grasp meaning of neutrality. MONGO 14:11, 26 Mar 2005
 * Umm, those are links to various reverted versions, not diffs. Someone else feel like digging for the details of this one? Noel (talk) 12:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if there is 4 reverts in there, which I don't think there are, one was actually a self-revert back to a version that the other editors wanted. &#8212;Christiaan 21:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I just added the diffs, but haven't analyzed them. I don't see a self revert, however, I see that Christiaan was reverted 4 times by different people, more analysis is needed to see if his edits are similar enough to be reverts.--Silverback 22:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In all four edits he created roughly the same version with the "U.S. would invade Iraq whether or not" language that was being objected to as a POV modification of what was actually said. Only 3 or 4 other words with may a wikilink or two difference was all that was changed.  Not enough to even qualify as a complex edit.--Silverback 22:11, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The last edit was self-reverted by myself:, very clearly labelled "going back to something closer to Rama's version".
 * You still reinstated the invade language. And retained it in the next few edits.--Silverback 22:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't reinstate anything of the such, the previous edit was Rama's. &#8212;Christiaan 22:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama's version did not have invade, he had made slight modifications to the version you objected to, you reverted him, then went slightly back to his adding disputed invade language which you retained through your whole sequence of edits.--Silverback 22:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All edits were three days ago. No point in blocking anyone today, is there? Refdoc 23:02, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, he just reverted the same language twice this afternoon, replacing the language that is actually in the citation with his POV. So he is fighting the same battle.  He is an experienced user who has been blocked for 3RR recently.  If you are going to keep flirting with 3RR and know what you are doing, you should pay when you go over.--Silverback 00:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahem. The 3RR rule says The 3RR .. does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. Flirting with the rule is just as unacceptable as crossing it. Noel (talk) 13:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahem. Ahem. You overstate your position, I assume you still believe that crossing it is a little more unacceptable than flirting with it.  But in any case, Christiaan is was flirting with it rather continuously on several pages both before and since.  It that is just as unacceptable then the statement "All edits were three days ago." is irrelevant isn't it?--Silverback 14:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're forgetting Silverback that your above statement is in contention and your own POV. I beg to differ with your description of events. Also, are you arguing that 3RR is a retrospective punitive policy? &#8212;Christiaan 00:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is necessarily retrospective, we don't want admins to punish for anticipated violations. The point of the punishment is to make sure that if you really want to use your 3 reverts on several articles each day, then you best avoid making 4 reverts or you won't get to make them because you are blocked for 24 hours.  IT is an incentive to be moderate.--Silverback 04:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not supposed to be a punishment, it is supposed to be an edit-war squashing measure. If there's no edit war, then there's no point in blocking. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this raises the question of what the hell this rule is for. Is it really for stopping edit wars?  That is not in line with the discussion I see.  It is a tool to punish those with whose edits one disagrees.  Why pretend otherwise?  Chamaeleon 14:33, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In that case we need a better tool, the pesky 4 revert requirement is too limiting. 8-)
 * Really, 3RR is arbitrary (why not 2RR or 4RR?), but helpful in throttling, if you make it a little softer limit, you perhaps increase the perceived subjectivity of its enforcement. It is already subjective enough with the judgement of complex edits.  Why increase it.  We've all been notified and are adults here, if we go over the arbitrary limit whether by mistake or in the heat of the moment, we should take our medicine.  It is subjectivity to the point of appearance of bias that should be a concern.--Silverback 14:52, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christiaan, you're constantly near or over the 3RR principle. I used to be as careless and see edit warring as a waste...I was told by another to join the [] and though I didn't, I got the point...maybe you should too.--MONGO 08:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Mongo, I'm really not sure your in a position to be handing out advice on this type of thing. You're one of the most combative editors I've come across, bar TDC. &#8212;Christiaan 09:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You miss the point as always.--MONGO 16:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for IP lookup for KingOfAllPaperboys and 172
I have reported to the arbcom, my suspicion that User:KingOfAllPaperboys is User:172 or some other administrator who has left. I suspect that the committee will be requesting this because I documented my evidence and suspicions here. Since the information needed will be time sensitive, I am giving y'all a heads up here. It may not be appropriate to reveal the IPs to me? but the results should be sent to the arbcom committee. --Silverback 14:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess it's always possible, but why would a leaving admin return under a different name? Mgm|(talk) 14:58, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * A fresh start, because old identity has too much baggage? Revenge?  Gaming sanctions?  This KingOfAllPaperboys has taken an interest in harassing Netoholic.--Silverback 15:05, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoever he may be, KingOfAllPaperboys is not 172. I'm not aware that 172 ever used sockpuppets for any purpose, and this behavior is not at all 172's style. --Michael Snow 22:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * What made me suspect 172 was the KingOfAllPaperboys claim that he was not a sockpuppet and challenge to Netoholic to prove that he was. Since 172 had just left wikipedia, once again, earlier in the day, he could technically make that claim.  However, 172s return with a different nom de plume, would be a serious breech of trust based on the good faith the arbcom is showing in his representations. KingOfAllPaperboys is merely suggestive and circumstantial. The evidence against 172 being  Such as serious possible offense should at least be investigated.  Of course another admin using a sockpuppet to harrass would also be a serious offense.--Silverback 08:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lots of people don't like NetoholicGeni 00:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That's an understatement. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 01:06, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you both happy now that you've gotten that off your chest? -- Netoholic @ 09:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

You might want to ponder their point for a while, though. Having rocky relationships with lots of people makes what you are trying to do here - create encyclopaedic content (or, at least, I assume that's what you're trying to do here) - that much harder, no?

Yes, yes, I know the counter-argument - that for many of those of us who aren't in that state, we get that by simply staying away from contentious issues, and leaving the POV-battling to others, and there is some truth to that. (I am so tired of arguing with people about Dresden, Hiroshima, etc.) But I do think there's more to it than that - and the number of people you have problems with has to be making what you're trying to do harder. Noel (talk) 17:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner is also a candidate to be KingOfAllPaperboys, because his contributions also bracket the Nov 10th activity:


 * 06:31, 11 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting (&#8594;film-stub, movie-stub, mov-stub)
 * 19:31, 10 Feb 2005 (hist) (diff) User talk:Anthony DiPierro/Archive

And he may be more likely than 172 based on the pages edited, especially the templates where Snowspinner was already involved. I will also document this at the 172 arbcom page. Sadly if it is Snowspinner, then he would have been lying when he denied being a sockpuppet when he harassed Netoholic, so I prefer to believe it is not him. --Silverback 20:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Maaaan, there are too many possible candidates. User:Itai is a good one too. I have asked the developers to check on this.--Silverback 00:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cheese Dreams or her minions
A new user, User:Arius_Heresiarch, made the following change to the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article. This change is identical to the change made by His Own Rectum, Their Bowels , Red before Blue , Tigermoon , Tigermoon, , Tigermoon , Neutra|ity ,81.156.93.188 , 81.157.11.54 , 81.157.15.105 , 81.156.179.223 , 81.157.101.99 , 81.157.101.99 , 81.157.101.99 , 81.157.101.99 , CHEESEdreams , Acidmonkey , Acidmonkey , Tigermoon , Tigermoon , 217.150.114.18 (also Tigermoon). These are all instances in which CheeseDreams or someone acting on her behalf deleted the article, reached through a long process by many editors, and replaced it with her own version. This matter was addressed by the ArbCom twice (first ruling, in which she was banned from editing Christianity-related articles for one yearsecond ruling, in which she was banned for 6 months for disregard for previous rulings by the arbitration committee; 3 months for abuse of Wikipedia processes and procedures; 3 months for abuse of sockpuppet accounts). I believe Arius Heresiarch is either a sock-puppet of CheeseDreams or of Tigermoon. All of his/her changes were on March 12; s/he also made a change to the Arianism article that was reverted, see. If this is not the appropriate place to request action, I'd appreciate it if someone would let me know, Slrubenstein  |  Talk  19:46, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocked for a year as a reincarnation/impersonation (either prong will do). --Michael Snow 22:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, 132.235.210.72 19:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Koko90
Koko90 redirecting peoples talk pages to autofellatio.jpg


 * User_talk:Ktemkin
 * User_talk:Jhballard
 * User_talk:Cookie_Monster
 * Trampled

-- Trampled 23:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Martin2000
Three revert rule violation on.


 * insertion12:52, 26 Mar 2005
 * 1st revert: 15:13, 26 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:13, 26 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 15:13, 26 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 15:13, 26 Mar 2005

Reported by: Geni 01:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Admin Geni has been trying intentionally to get me banned (with success before) ONLY because I stand in his way when it comes to his personal taste in making one wikipedia article out of line with wikipedia standards. How does a person like this become an admin is beyond me.  The fact that such a person is an admin here is a good indication that there is something wrong in your admin selection process and procedures.  Anyway, he has been trying for a long long time to make this one article out of conformity with Wikipedia standards and style, and even when consensus has CLEARLY failed to be reached (INCLUDING SOME OTHER ADMINS disagreeing with his unreasonable insistence), still, he waits for a while, and starts his attempt all over again, and again, and again.  Somebody have the decency and courage to nominate this idiot for losing his adminship.  Martin2000 02:44, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Martin2000 for 12 hours for this 3RR violation. Carbonite | Talk 04:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * and oncew again a proxy revets the article while User:Martin2000 can't. An interesting pattern.Geni 14:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Another reason to prefer page protection; all the sock-puppets in the world won't help with that. The 3RR is close to useless - between complex reverts, sock-puppets, etc it's almost a dead letter. Noel (talk) 17:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Only a minority of users are sophisticated enough to use proxys, and regular proxy blocking helps too. 3RR is just one tool in the box. Jayjg (talk)  00:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Albanau
User:Albanau moved the Origin of Albanians article to Testttttttttttt and then wrote "delate" all over it. He then wrote on User talk:RedWolf asking RedWolf to delete it, since it was Albanau "testing".

The only reason why the page didn't wind up getting deleted is because it has block compression problems. I just happened to notice an extensive edit history and had to work my way through things to try to figure out what was going on.

These actions should lead to Albanau's being blocked for vandalism. RickK 09:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with RickK, and furthermore I wouldn't be surprised if User:Albanau again attempts such a deletion on another page, as his previous behavior (see the history of the Origin of Albanians article) shows that he disregards Wikipedia standards by constantly adding and readding nonsense to articles after repeatedly being warned not to do so (but he doesn't seem to care). He should be blocked, and even banned. Decius 10:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It does sound serious. Is this a POV dispute at the core of the issue, or a plain vandal? Everyking 10:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No POV, see the Origin of Albanians article. Point of Views have been stripped from the article, and every argument against the Illyrian origin theory is taken from a current scholarly reference. Decius 10:33, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The extreme dishonest manner in which he tried to illegally delete the page is outrageous, and I would say disgusting, and shows that he has no regard for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Decius 10:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article in question is mainly presenting the two sides of a debate regarding the ethnic origin of the Albanians. Albanau apparently does not agrees with some of the arguments given and tried to remove them from the article and then tried to add other arguments not supported by any reference or supported by references to dubious homepages. He was asked in the talk page to bring in real references to an actual published article/book whenever he adds a controversial argument, but did not comply. Bogdan | Talk 10:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * is he blocked now? pov or no pov, his dishonesty and "criminal energy" should lead to a short block at least, and any future disruptive edit should be slapped with another short block. This is obviously not a case where negotiation commends itself. dab (&#5839;) 09:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't block him, but I did give him a warning not to try anything like that again. RickK 09:07, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose we could be attributing to malice what we could explain by ignorance. Maybe he moved it by accident and didn't realize that deleting his "testtttt" article would kill the old article history too? I doubt it, but I hesitate to convict someone of such an underhanded move so quickly. Everyking 09:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Ollamh
Vandlised my home page. Suspect they are a glove puppet of one of the rightwing americans on here.--Jirate 19:07, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)


 * In fact if you check there contributions you will see that they have pointeda large number of people's home pages at autofellatio. It may be something to do with them not liking British spelling.--Jirate 19:15, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)


 * Seems to have been blocked now.--Jirate 19:43, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

Blocked for two POV edits

 * From the talk page - Ta bu shi da yu 00:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has blocked User:65.139.81.40 for 48 hours for making two arguably POV edits to Bernard Lewis, and for one comment on Talk:Bernard Lewis, even though Mikkalai was himself involved in editing that article. I understood we weren't supposed to (a) block for POV, or (b) block in contexts where we're involved as editors. I've not been an admin long enough to feel I can judge whether this block violates policy. Any advice would be appreciated. SlimVirgin 20:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * 03:02, Mar 27, 2005, Mikkalai blocked 65.139.81.40 (expires 03:02, Mar 29, 2005) (contribs) (unblock) (repeatedly deleting true facts from article while engaging in name calling at talk page)

I unblocked the anonymous editor. I left a message for Mikkalai. Slrubenstein  |  Talk  20:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, SL. SlimVirgin 21:11, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Link spam
Could somebody please revert the changes made on March 27 by User:69.83.92.135? They have simply spammed a single, POV link onto about a dozen pages. The link is less than enlightening and shouldn't be spammed across so many pages in any event. --Fastfission 21:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:HappyApple
Three revert rule violation on


 * 1st revert: 18:22, 27 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 19:48, 27 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:05, 27 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:50, 27 Mar 2005

Reported by: Viajero 22:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: The problem is compounded by the fact that part of what the above-mentioned user is reverting is in opposition to the results of a recent straw poll taken on the Pump regarding a naming issue, which he stubbornly refuses to adhere to. I have tried to engage him in dialog on his talk page to no avail. -- Viajero 22:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've blocked for 16 hours. The reverts are complex. Jayjg (talk) 00:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Quinlan
Four reverts on :
 * 1) (cur) (last) 00:22, Mar 28, 2005 Daniel Quinlan (rv POV)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 23:29, Mar 27, 2005 Daniel Quinlan (remove unexplained and unimportant sentence again)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 06:38, Mar 27, 2005 Daniel Quinlan (nobody cares about that trivia)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 05:33, Mar 27, 2005 Daniel Quinlan (rv - not encyclopedic)

Reported by: 63.209.14.211 23:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it seemed more like 2 a day to me and these aren't actually reverts. There was lots of other editing going on, including changes of my own.  Besides, it's a guideline, not a law.  Anyway, I already put a note on the talk page for other's to monitor the so-called newcomer's additions since I had already realized I was at or near the limit.  Welcome back to Wikipedia, whoever you are.  Daniel Quinlan 23:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Refdoc 00:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Account Block
Account: BurnInBlue

Reason: Public Account

Proof: Username == Password

Proof2: The creation of this message. I hereby assert that I am *NOT* the creator of this account... however I am using it to prove that the account has (or at least had) public access.

BurnInBlue 04:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Password changed, thanks for reporting. silsor 04:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * If the real owner of this account would like to step forward they can have it back, with a good password of course. Funny how you knew it was a public account when it had never made a contribution. silsor 05:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I know it is a public account because i found it on bugmenot.com, which is a well knoiwn public account distributer... indeed that is the purpose of said site.. to distribute public accounts for various websites... 69.68.36.55 05:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Also I have checked all Accounts listed from bugmenot.com at this time, none worked except this one.. because this is a wiki and thus there is no *valid* use for a public account it may be advisable to request removal of *.wikipedia.org; *.wiktionary.org, etc from bugmenot... 69.68.36.55 05:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Sent such a request. 69.68.36.55 05:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you, we do block all bugmenot accounts when we find them. As far as I know they ignore all requests to stop hosting public account information for Wikipedia sites. silsor 05:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is funny becaue according to BugMeNot: "BugMeNot also willingly removes accounts for any web site that requests that they do not provide accounts for non-registered users." 69.68.36.55 05:35, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I sent BugMeNot an e-mail, and they say they've stopped supplying accounts for any of the Wikimedia projects. They were very friendly about it, and complimented the project, so that should make the public account problem a little better. Snowspinner 17:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to block public accounts, which clutters up the block list. Instead, just change the E-mail and password in the account preferences, you don't even need to be an admin to do so. --Weyes 13:23, 2005 Mar 30 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to disagree. Such accounts are easily abused by vandals. Simply change the password and lay low. I certainly support preventive blocking in this case. Mgm|(talk) 12:52, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we have some misunderstanding here. I'm arguing for disabling public accounts, but for doing so by changing the password instead of through blocking. Blocking means the account will clutter up the block list for all eternity, which in the long run doesn't scale. Changing the password prevents use of the account too, but without cluttering up the block list. --Weyes 14:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Well done! Unknown public accounts are a big security hole for our Wikipedia society. Wikipedians must find them all asap! We, the known public accounts, in order to help wikipedia community to escape from the unknown public accounts curse, we are declaring that we join the admins, the arbitrators, the private accounts and the anonymousIP accounts in their fight against unknown public accounts. We are going to find them all and burn them to fire! Agasias 17:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user with two new accounts
The Oliver North article has been attacked for a while by someone trying to insert hagiographical material; the current avatar is Ger6 (talk &middot; contributions), but he's making exactly the same edits as Winston88 (talk &middot; contributions) and Tnuctnurgemetib (talk &middot; contributions). That last account was blocked indefinitely I think (don't read the name backwards if you're easily offended). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:00, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I did block Tnuctnurgemetib indefinitely due to the username issue. I'm also concerned that this user is a Libertas/Ollieplatt sockpuppet (under a year-long ban by the ArbCom). Maybe a developer could verify this. Rhobite 20:41, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * He's now opened another account, making identical edits: Hairamerica (talk &middot; contributions). Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:58, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

GRider: Votes for deletion/Blake Junior High School
User:GRider is removing a comment by another editor claiming that he is attempting "vote-swinging" claiming this is a "personal attack". I don't think this meets the standard for personal attack and that the voters have every right to know (and factor in or discount) if he is rallying votes for this vfd. I don't think the "remove personal attack" rule should give people grounds to remove whatever they dislike from a discussion and frankly this veers pretty close to vandalism. Thoughts? Gamaliel 22:49, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll go ask the arbcom for a temporary injunction barring him from VfD. Snowspinner 22:52, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no "remove personal attacks" rule - the second sentence of WP:RPA reads "This proposal is not currently policy." &mdash; Dan | Talk 23:03, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think what is more worrying is placing "Discount vote as result of ballot-stuffing by GRider" under votes. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with violet. Even though GRider and I disagree with each other on most VfD votes, Chriscf's comment is inappropriate.  RickK 00:16, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, similar remarks have been made previously (on Votes for deletion/Robert Frost Middle School and others by AllyUnion, and on Votes for deletion/Ginglith by Grue). &mdash;Korath (Talk) 00:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think what Chriscf did is any worse than comments like "bogus vote" or "invalid vote" posted beneath many comments in vfd discussions which use notability as a reason for deletion. Gamaliel 03:16, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Those suck too. VfD is inherently subjective - any vote by an established user should be counted, even if it's followed by an "invalid" argument. Rhobite 03:18, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Highlighting "invalid" votes (because a user is a potential sockpuppet) is not the same as trying to discount someone's vote just because someone posted something on their talk page. I really doubt that these people would vote one way because of peer pressure! violet/riga (t) 17:49, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention sockpuppets. Gamaliel 18:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * True, you didn't. Discussion of a vote is OK, but I agree that too many people "invalidate" votes for silly reasons. violet/riga (t) 22:04, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, "invalidating" someone's vote is harmless in the sense that those of us who work WP:VFD/Old ignore such comments. dbenbenn | talk 00:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:69.197.120.131
Can anybody take care of this vandal? He's been vandalizing Developed country for days, reverting and reverting. His point is that Central European countries should be included in the list. I have edited this page extensively and have only added those countries that are mentioned in the sources I've consulted (World Bank, IMF, CIA, UN). It looks like a very persistent vandal that won't go away unless it is blocked. &#8212;Cantus&hellip; &#9742;   01:54, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not Vandalism - please read the definition there, and tell me how it falls under this definition. It's just another POV editor problem (I think using the sources you listed is probably a good non-subjective test). Their edit rate was a little troubling, but although they are still editing just this page, their rate has slowed: 11 times, on the 26th, 5 times on the 27th, 3 on the 28th, etc. The last time they posted to the Talk: page was on the 27th. Noel (talk) 14:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This seems to be the same person as, no? Noel (talk) 13:35, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category:Puerto Rican people
This cat has about 430 people and should be depopulated since it is a parent category for Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation. I don't relish the thought of doing this manually - can we get a bot to do this? Gamaliel 07:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Bot requests. HTH. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 08:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't know there was such a page. Gamaliel 18:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked proxy
Just FYI, this open proxy that I'm using right now (168.12.21.91:80) is currently unblocked. --168.12.253.66 (actually Goobergunch|?) 15:02, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocked indefinitely. dbenbenn | talk 01:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:205.174.8.4
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 21:32, 28 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 15:38, 29 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 16:36, 29 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 16:51, 29 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 16:51, 29 Mar 2005

Reported by: John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Actually on the 5th revert as I write. User is an entrenched battler on this page, and can't reasonably claim ignorance of Wikipedia's rules. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fifth revert: [|17:07, 29 Mar 2005] Smoddy (tgeck) 17:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 17:22, 29 Mar 2005 Jiang blocked "User:205.174.8.4" with an expiry time of 24 hours (violation of 3RR at Taiwan; mass reverting without effort to discuss) -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 17:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:66.20.152.241
Three revert rule violation on.
 * 1st revert: 20:26, 29 Mar 2005
 * 2nd revert: 20:44, 29 Mar 2005
 * 3rd revert: 22:01, 29 Mar 2005
 * 4th revert: 22:12, 29 Mar 2005 (current)
 * 4th revert: 22:12, 29 Mar 2005 (current)

Reported by: John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Although I think blanking like this is simple vandalism, it's certainly a 4RR. Note that the user was warned after the first vandalism for vandalism, and after the third for 3RR.  So he can't claim ignorance of the rules. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, and could someone revert him on L. Paul Bremer too. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 22:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24hrs for 3RR violation and vandalism. Jayjg (talk) 22:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a 3RR violation. one insert/deletion and 3 revertsGeni 23:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. You'll notice that the fourth one listed about is "current", i.e that it has a diff=0 entry.  As Jayjig reverted the vandal, the current changed.  Now that Jayjig has done this, the vandal's fouth edit has been assigned a permanent diff .  All four edits are identical: deltion of exactly the same content. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:11, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I know this. the problem is that what has been labled as the first revert isn't. It doesn't revert to any previous version that I can find (I admint I did not do a complete search though. In short you have creation of a new version of the article followed by three reverts to that versionGeni 23:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's still vandalism, and a 24 hour block for this kind of persistent vandalism is entirely warranted. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing this point.Geni 23:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Me neither. ;-) Jayjg (talk) 23:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It removed the same content as was removed the previous week by User:Paradigmbuff, except that he removed more than Paradigmbuff did. Rather than a "complex revert", one could argue this is a "super revert" :) -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 23:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)