Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive20

Contents: April 28, 2005 - May 4, 2005

User:Joshuaschroeder
4 reverts against two users on Theistic realism within last 24 hours.
 * one
 * two
 * three
 * four

left by Ungtss 00:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 01:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Ungtss
Three revert rule violation on.


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

Reported by: Vsmith 01:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Note 3rd revert has edit comment 128.192.124.90 (ungtss on an ip ... noting that schroeder has not justified his deletions with anything more than "his reasoning doesn't make sense," which is certainly no justification to delete the material.) The only other contribution from that IP is to the talk here and has Ungtss' style. If this was not Ungtss then we have a different serious problem needing investigating, and if so, my apologies to Ungtss. Vsmith 01:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * In what you have labled as the first revert what version was reverted to?Geni 01:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. appears that 1st one wasn't a simple revert after all - the edit summary and context in the edit war there misled me, I guess. My apologies. Vsmith 02:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * could someone do us a favor here and find the most simular recent version?Geni 04:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Three days and 6 edits prior. here is the diff between the last edit i made before today, and the first edit today.  Not a revert.  A good number of his edits were retained.  Ungtss 05:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Big Hurt
, reverted his spam 4 times at Abortion.


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

an admin previously protected the page, and only unprotected on the condition that big Hurt would not spam this link in. I cannot remove it because i have already reverted it 3 times. can someone pleasse do so? He appears to know about the 3RR rule from his edit summary where he falsely accuses me of vandalism, --SqueakBox 02:11, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Kelly Martin have reverted this link. I didnt check it myself, but any external links of that nature should go in the External Links section. Inter\Echo 10:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:50Stars
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 20:48, 27 Apr 2005
 * 2nd revert: 20:22, 27 Apr 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:13, 27 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 20:06, 27 Apr 2005
 * 5th revert: 19:42, 27 Apr 2005

Reported by: Xiaopo &#8465; 05:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * User refuses to follow naming conventions; believes them to have been unfairly created by Jiang. --Xiaopo &#8465; 05:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * can't find 4 striaght revisionsGeni 22:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Ratzinger Sr. Deletion Vote

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

I am writing to ask an administrator to close the vote as KEEP on the following page: Votes for deletion/Joseph Ratzinger, Sr.. Its been over 9 days and people have come out of the woodwork saying that this article should be kept on Wikipedia. Yet, the deletion notice is still present on the page. I am afraid this will draw sockpuppets and vandals if it stays up there. Its pretty clear a majority would like to keep this article and I ask that this vote be put to an end. -Husnock 07:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * A reasonable request. The result was a clear keep so I've closed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Having done this, it doesn't require administrator powers to close a VfD with a result that doesn't need deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Ghostintheshell and User:Researcher99

 * 1) 22:32, 28 Apr 2005
 * 2) 23:51, 28 Apr 2005
 * 3) 01:25, 29 Apr 2005
 * 4) 01:54, 29 Apr 2005
 * 5) 02:01, 29 Apr 2005
 * 6) 02:16, 29 Apr 2005
 * 7) 02:31, 29 Apr 2005
 * 8) 03:00, 29 Apr 2005
 * 9) after I, User:Trödel, commented Both of you are guilty of violating WP:3RR please leave article alone for a day, calm down and try again on talk first 03:26, 29 Apr 2005 with comment Rv - I am only guilty of attempting to NPOV Researcher99's original section
 * 10) 23:25, 28 Apr 2005
 * 11) 01:39, 29 Apr 2005
 * 12) 01:59, 29 Apr 2005
 * 13) 02:10, 29 Apr 2005
 * 14) 02:23, 29 Apr 2005
 * 15) 02:53, 29 Apr 2005
 * 1) 02:23, 29 Apr 2005
 * 2) 02:53, 29 Apr 2005

This may not be all - see the full history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polygamy&action=history. I have proposed that edits take place on talk and be agreed before further edits. - Thx User:Trödel 03:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Both Users blocked for 24 hours Geni 23:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Curps
Three revert rule violation on. reverted on four occasions within a 24 hour period:


 * 1st revert: 01:47, 25 Apr 2005
 * 2nd revert: 02:17, 25 Apr 2005
 * 3rd revert: 20:29, 25 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 23:11, 25 Apr 2005

Reported by: AndyL 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * why the 4 day delay in reporting this?Geni 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The final two "reverts" were necessary to undo AndyL's wrongful action: he reverted this article after he himself protected it. I had first tried the alternative (leaving his revert intact but merely unprotecting the article), but when he insisted on reprotecting it, the only other alternative was to restore HIS original version (the one he applied protection to).

I believe my actions were entirely justified: there are exceptions to 3RR when it is necessary to undo a wrongful action. Reverting vandalism is one such case, and I assert that undoing AndyL's violation of protection policy ("Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page", which is precisely what he did) was another such case.

AndyL's action was particularly egregious because page protection was not necessary, the revert was against interim consensus, and his subsequent talk page comments reveal a hotly partisan motivation. Thus, in combination, the revert-and-protect was a serious abuse of admin power. This is the subject of an RfC against him by User:Philwelch and User:TheGrza.

The RfC appears somewhat incomplete at the moment; I intend to add my comments to it this weekend to better document what happened. The case has also been discussed at Talk:The_Matrix. -- Curps 01:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Since there are two RFCs over this issue I feel it is not a matter for the three revert rule. As such I am not going to block and would recomend against other admins blocking.Geni 02:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) the claim that protection was not necessary is contradicted by the fact that there was a revert war earlier that day and by the fact that protection has remained in place in the five or six days since.
 * 2) If Curps felt protection was invalid or that the "The wrong version" had been protected there are other routes he could have taken other than violating the 3RR.
 * 3) " there are exceptions to 3RR when it is necessary to undo a wrongful action" yes but those are incidents such as blanking of pages or vandalism. To violate 3RR simply because one disagrees as to which version of the page was protected is an abuse, even if it is done by an admin.
 * 4) If 3RR is to be taken seriously it has to be enforced no matter who violated the rule, even if that person is an admin.
 * 5) "*why the 4 day delay in reporting this?" As I'm an admin with the ability to implement tembans for 3RRs I don't think I've ever listed a 3RR violation on this board before and was not very familiar with it. As I am a party to this dispute I thought it best not to tempban Curps myself so I decided to list it here instead. Also, I didn't realise there actually had been a 3RR violation until someone else mentioned it the other day.
 * 6) For Curps' hyberbole to be valid, administrators have to accept that it is justifiable for an admin to violate the 3RR when The Wrong Version of an article is protected. This would be an unfortunate precedent. AndyL 15:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 7) The claim tha the "revert was against interim consensus" is invalid as there had been no discussion whatsoever on the Talk page and thus no establishment, interim or otherwise, of consensus. AndyL 15:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Curps' 3RR violation was raised both on the admin incident page (by violet/riga) and on the Matrix talk page by myself. In both cases Curps' refused to respond to the criticism and it is only now that it's been raised here that he's given a rationalisation for it, one in which he refuses to acknowledge that he made a mistake either by reverting a fourth time or by editing a protected page in which he'd been invovolved in a revert war. What he should have done is contact another admin. Instead he acted unilaterally, broke the 3RR and refuses to say he made a mistake in so doing. AndyL 17:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The four-day delay was because AndyL knew perfectly well that reporting this would expose his own actions to unwelcome scrutiny. Anyone who merely clicks on the link for the "3rd revert" above (20:29, 25 Apr 2005) will see an edit summary that mentions AndyL's misconduct, which was certainly worse than some mere 3RR (and this is just the tip of the iceberg).


 * I have now contributed to Requests for comment/AndyL and replied to Requests for comment/Curps. I regret I was not able to do so sooner due to real life intruding.


 * I think this will now be settled at RfC or quite possibly RfA. You yourself filed an RfC over this; having both an RfC and 3RR are redundant.  I presume the RfC is the one you wish to pursue.  Take your pick, but pick one of the two.


 * As to your other 7 comments above, the 3RR page is not the place for this. Just to address your first point, I give reasons why the page protection was never justified in the first place at Requests for comment/AndyL. Take any further comments to the RfCs or to RfA.  This is not the place for them. -- Curps 19:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

"The four-day delay was because AndyL knew perfectly well that reporting this would expose his own actions to unwelcome scrutiny."

This is an absurd and offensive response. There is no reason why a four day delay would result in any less scrutiny. The reason for the delay was: a) I was not aware of the violation until violet/riga mentioned it. b) I brought up the problem both on the Matrix talk page and on Curps personal talk page several times hoping for an explanation c) Failing any response or explanation from him (save evasion) I then brought the matter here. AndyL 14:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 00:07, 29 Apr 2005
 * 2nd revert: 00:38, 29 Apr 2005
 * 3rd revert: 01:26, 29 Apr 2005
 * 4th revert: 03:31, 29 Apr 2005 <-- Here he uses an intentionally false check in comment "removing U.S. centric info" while committing a fourth revert

Reported by: zen master   T  05:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * number 4 isn't quite a revertGeni 00:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed the 4th revert link, was comparing with current. zen master   T  05:51, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No violation. Zen-master seems to think that I am part of an organized campaign in order to promote nuclear power in the US, so I removed a specific reference to how the US plans to solve the nuclear waste problem. That last edit was different from the others. (I am not in any way affiliated with the nuclear industry or nuclear power corporations) Ultramarine 15:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

 * User:Boothy443/archived
 * User talk:Boothy443/archived
 * NOTE: Boothy443 appears to have created a temporary sockpuppet, Cisum6cbb. This User is making changes to Boothy's User page, and their user page redirects to Boothy's. Master Thief Garrett 06:06, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Something has gone very wrong here, I don't know what. He has wiped his talk page and user page (by moving them to /archived), and reverted some of his Vfd votes. But now he has started to vandalize some pages he contributed to earlier. I have blocked him for 24 hours.

This is a very familiar name to anyone who has done janitorial work. Those of you who use e-mail or IRC may wish to try to contact him to figure out what's going on. -- Curps 04:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For example, with this edit, he reverted to a vandalized version of a page, in an instance where he had previously reverted the vandalism. He seems to be trying to undo his contributions to Wikipedia. I wish I knew what was going on. -- Curps 05:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed this as well on Zilwaukee Bridge. His user page contains now a somewhat vitriolic, though vague, diatribe. Looks like he's exiting and wants everyone to know it. Mackensen (talk) 05:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He now seems to be using. It seems this is actually a previous username of his. I hope he will not continue what he was doing before. -- Curps 05:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a shame. Unfortunately editing Wikipedia can be a very frustrating experience. Hopefully we can figure out a way to become a more hospitable place and keep people around. Everyking 05:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like you can attach some blame to User:Grace Note, whose high-handed revert-warring over the use of clean-up tags on school articles seems to have seriously pissed off User:Boothy443. See the discussion above, and here. --Calton | Talk 06:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely fair, Calton. Grace Note was editing, not revert warring, and has as much right to edit as Boothy443. These disagreements happen every day: if all editors were to leave Wikipedia after them, there would be no Wikipedia. Also, in the interests of disclosure, you may simply be annoyed with Grace Note because s/he defended me recently when you started spamming my talk page with a personal attack. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:03, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very sorry to hear this. I've crossed paths with Boothy often while doing RC patrol. He was very good at catching vandalism. I hope he returns. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 06:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I've seen him around too. It looks like he needs a wikiholiday to get rid of the stress. Hope he can get rid of that stress. Mgm|(talk) 08:03, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * yes WP can be frustrating. this is no excuse for this sort of childish behaviour, all that does is frustrate yet more people. he vandalizes, we block him, just like any other vandal. And I don't think User space is sacrosanct enough to host "fuck Wikipedia" rants. On top of his short temper, boothy seems to suffer from legasthenia, two ailings that in combination would seem to make him a less than ideal WP editor. dab (ᛏ) 08:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I kinda liked his heavyhanded approach to vandals, but now he has clearly gone over the limit. What a pity, he was a very good RC patroller. Hope he starts to feel better soon. jni 08:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I took it upon myself to block his other account for the remainder of Curps' block, and to clean the diatribe off his user page. Of course he emailed me calling me a vandal. If anyone thinks I was acting improperly, feel free to revert me. dab (ᛏ) 08:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you were acting improperly, but I'm not going to undo anything. Please don't ignore a person's history of good contributions over what could be a mere mood swing. Everyking 12:17, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're objecting to. He's not banned. A block has been imposed to put an end to a string of vandalism. I don't think anyone here wants anything other than for Boothy to come back better adjusted. But if you're asking us to twiddle our thumbs while we wait for him to stop vandalizing... ummm... no. Snowspinner 13:48, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Certainly I object to not letting him voice his anger on his user page. I don't know whether a block is appropriate or not. It could be. I haven't seen the extent of whatever he's done. Everyking 14:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * We don't have the technical means to block from all pages except for userpages. As for the general situation, I think your comments on this page would be more generally helpful if you did read the evidence that people presented before objecting. Snowspinner 14:13, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Generally I made statements based on the representations of situations I see here; I don't get into the evidence for the same reason that I don't involve myself with the actions of blocking or unblocking. If I was going to do those things, I would review the evidence more closely. Mostly I'm concerned with seeing what kind of logic is being used, and what kind of mentality is at work, when it comes to sysop treatment of marginalized users. Anyway, what I wrote doesn't have anything to do with technical abilities, the question is whether Boothy's comments should have been removed from his own page. Everyking 14:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * You may not get invovled in blocking or unblocking users yuorself, but you are extremely involved when others do. People present evidence on this page in the form of diffs and links, so teh whole story is not presented here. I fully agree iwth Snowspinner when he says that your comments would be more helpful if you did read the evidence people presented here. They reason they do present it is to justify and explain their actions. Thryduulf 15:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * right. User came back, and I'm now featured personally on his userpage, as a quote-admin-unquote vandal. I do not think he should be allowed to edit while he is blocked for vandalism. If he wants to put me to trial for blanking his embarassing rant, he can do so after sitting out his 21 hours' block, right? So I do suggest he is blocked for another 24h for evading the original block. And no, ek, there is no inalienable right to "vent your anger on user pages". WP is not a soapbox. Should we host "Fuck Wikipedia" statements? No. The web is wide, and if you have an issue with Wikipedia, you can curse it all you want using your own bandwidth. dab (ᛏ) 14:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, there we disagree; I think of course he should have the right to curse Wikipedia all he wants on his user page. We can only benefit from the criticism, as I see it. Why would a user become so alienated and angry? I think it benefits us to know the reasons for that. Everyking 14:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Constructive criticism does have a place on Wikipedia, although it is probably best presented elsewhere, where other editors are more likely to see it. You may wish to express your comments on at Userspace policy proposal, since you seem to have views on the use of userspace. Thryduulf 15:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * clarifying that I don't see "fuck wikipedia" statements as constructive criticism, and agree with Dab that these should be deleted. Thryduulf 16:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I couldn't care less whether he's polite about it or not. If he has a point to make, he should make it. That comes with respecting others' opinions. You don't just delete somebody's personal opinions from their user page. Everyking 18:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Everyking, the reason is that he is feeling utterly helpless while WP "goes to pot". There are all these different factions of people voting for things based on their "political party" rather than reasoning (e.g. Schoolwatch), and admins breaking the rules on Protected pages and whatnot, and so on. He sees things as getting worse and worse, and, to a large extent, I'm afraid I'm forced to agree. But the problem is both he and I are powerless. There is no way to change the current system. He was already angry when he'd finished telling me of his concerns, and I'm afraid Grace Note's last remark came at the worst *imaginable* time, inadvertently pushing him over the edge... sigh... I hope he comes back soon, but I do think that he will not be fully at peace here until his grievances are dealt with, either in part or in full... Master Thief Garrett 22:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MTG, I take your word his concerns are sincere. I know we have problems. I know some admins get away with breaking the rules. However, by going berserk he doesn't help us at all. We need a solid body of sane editors who patiently guard the Wikipedia. We have no use for sulking boys and foaming berserks. Everyking's opinion impresses me very little, since he has made a habit of defending the most blatant trolls. Show some good judgement, which means taking it upon yourself to draw a line somewhere, and your opinion will again mean something. I would like to have Boothy443 as an ally fighting the nonsense that is going on, but he doesn't seem to stand up very well under pressure, and when he vandalizes, he should be treated as a vandal, end of story. dab (ᛏ) 06:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * There is, you know, a difference between defending trolls and criticizing admin abuses. In past policy votes, I voted to empower admins to block trolls, so nobody should charge me with defending them. Everyking 22:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

66.194.40.3
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 02:16, Apr 29, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 03:39, Apr 29, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 04:42, Apr 29, 2005 <-- attempted revert, no realizing the previous editor had accidentally revert to his way instead of the other way
 * 4th revert: 04:55, Apr 29, 2005
 * 5th revert: 05:00, Apr 29, 2005
 * 6th revert: 05:04, Apr 29, 2005
 * 7th revert: 05:13, Apr 29, 2005

And will probably go on, because he is falsely claiming to be exempt from 3rr because he labels other people's changes as vandalism... when the "vandalism" is the default way the article has been for a long time as agreed upon by consensus of all other editors.

Reported by: DreamGuy 11:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Please also note that after my first revert today he left a message on my talk page claiming that my revert of his violated policy and that he would block me. When I did not trust him and left a reply there and his talk page pointing out that I wouldn't fall for that, he left a second message claiming that he had blocked me and that I would not be able to make edits. He started making same false claims on the next editor who was reverting them. DreamGuy 11:22, 29 Apr 2005


 * I've blocked him for 24h. I guess he'll be back after that, though... Note that anon has been reverted by many other editors over the last days. He is quite Wikipedia-savvy, knows of the 3RR and uses edit comments for communication. Definitely not a newbie. Lupo 11:19, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * blocked for 24 hours. dab (ᛏ) 11:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks like he just reset his internet connection and is immediately back as User:66.194.152.87. He is extremely savvy and tenacious. DreamGuy 11:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon
5 reverts in less than two hours in

1st: 2nd: 3rd: 4th: 5th: (current)

Reported by: 66.194.152.87 11:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like User:66.194.152.87 is the same as User:66.194.40.3 who got blocked on the same article. Gabriel was reverting to a concensus version which had been there for ages. Anon made no attempt at discussion even when asked. Mgm|(talk) 11:56, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nope. I am his brother, he called me after he was blocked to report Gabrielsimon.  Despite the fact that the POV term of ¨terrorist¨ has been there for ages, it does not mean it is not POV.  Also, Gabrielsimon made no attempt to take it to discussion page  as well.  66.194.152.87 12:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, those were not all reverts... one of them tried to change to "convicted of terrorism" instead of just "terrorist" exactly like the anon user requested, so to label it a revert is simply a lie. Also Gabrielsimon originally reverted to remove terrorist completely and then changed his mind and made it include terrorist (not "convicted of terrorist")... that doesn;t really count as a revert either if he was reverting himself. DreamGuy 12:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Timothy McVeigh
Please see Village_pump_(assistance). Mgm|(talk) 11:50, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy
4 reverts in 3 hours in

1st: 2nd: 3rd: 4th: (current)

Rules are rules. They also apply to DreamGuy and Gabrialsimon.

Reported by: 66.194.152.87 12:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Removing factual info from an article can be construed as vandalism. Reverts to remove vandalism don't fall under that rule. Mgm|(talk) 12:27, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not a fact that McVeigh is a terrorist. It is a fact that he was convinced of terrorism in the US court, however.  There is a difference.  Would you also allow Mandela to be called a terrorist even though he has been convicted of terrorist activities?? Please see Words_to_avoid which clearly says that words such as ¨terrorist¨ should not be used without it claiming whom is making the claim. My brother used to use the word matry to describe them but he stopped because it was POV.  You can not have it both ways.
 * The fact is that he violated the 3RR believing he was right, just as my brother did. It is unfair for you to be selective on when you apply wikipedia rules and when you do not. 66.194.152.87 12:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You should really read that page (Words_to_avoid), because it doesn't say what you think it says. DreamGuy 12:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Either way, the last one listed above was not a revert, it was new changes. And the person complaining is obviously a sockpuppet of the previously banned user. DreamGuy 12:33, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * It was a revert with a different edit summary. Compare your current version with the one that was reverted to by you earlier. If you want to play that game you can see that several of the ¨reverts¨ my brother did were also new changes, as other parts of the article further down were changed as well.  Again, you can not have it both ways. 66.194.152.87 12:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It was not a revert with a different edit summary, it made several distinct changes... the photo was moved so that the person looking to the right would be facig the article instead of off the page, correct comma usage was added to the date, and the improperly vague term "American" (which can mean anyone in the western hemisphere) was modified to specify the United States. You are either deliberately lying or not even bothering to look yourself. DreamGuy 12:42, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, you forgot something. You accidently re-added ¨domestic terrorist¨ which was the phrase that caused all of the reverts in the first place.  You can not do a revert, add a few other unrelated changes, and expect it not to count as a revert.  You are in the wrong and you know it.  But do not worry, the admins here do not really seem to care when people like you violate the rules, it seems.  Lupo sure can down hard and quick earlier on my brother but now it seems you can flout the rules as you feel fit.
 * The double standards by the admins here are totally unfair. The admins fail to apply the rules evenly and justly.  They will twist their views on the rules depending on to whom they are talking to.  One minute the use of martyr is POV and my brother caved in.  But the use of terrorism, as it is in the article, is definatly POV and is allowed to stay.  The admins further allow their users to violate the 3RR who brute force their POV. 66.194.152.87 12:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You are one to talk about the rules considering that you admit you showed up solely to do the dirty work of a banned user. Whether you are in fact the same person (which you obviously are, based upon your experience with the way things work here, a newbie with only one edit under his belt would not know to file a 3rr right away) or someone working at his bidding the result is the same: You are knowingly violating a 24 hour ban, and a ban that could probably be a lot longer than that because it was excessive violations of the 3rr AND impersonating an admin.
 * But, hey, I had an accidental screw up of the 3rr listed above that they were nice and gave me a warning on, and if this one here in some way counts as an accidental violation somehow (which I don't see, as I made substantial changes, but you want to believe it so whatever) then I already used up my one warning and should be blocked. What's the first offense of violating 3RR run someone (I saw wasn't it 3 minutes for the Cat revert war, some small number of hours for others)? Admins, feel free to hit me with it. I can go reflect on how bad it was accidentally revert a highly biased edit that a consensus of several editors previously agreed should not be there which was only there at that time because someone decided to weasel out of his 24 hour block. DreamGuy 13:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

since DreamGuy admits to breaking the 3RR accidentially, I will block him together with 66.194.152.87. I'm sorry DreamGuy, of course you were only reverting a pov pusher, but that doesn't exempt you from the 3RR. You might just have waited for five minutes for another editor to revert anon. Anon is up to 7 reverts now, including one revert he did evading his original block, so his block will be longer this time. Anon: sit out your block: you are blocked from editing, as a person, not as an IP number. If you come back under other IP's, we'll just deal out increasingly longer blocks dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * 66.194.152.87, it is improper for you to bait users into 3RR situations just so you can prove a point. Kingturtle 02:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From my experience with dreamguy, he reverts repeatedly, without explanation. I have asked him to explain his reverts on talk pages, and hopefully he will comment on this. Bensaccount 16:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Andries
Three revert rule violation on.


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

Reported by: Zappaz 21:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * that last one appears to be a self revert.Geni 00:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict XVI had disappeared, --SqueakBox 22:23, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Say what? I see it there as usual. The only way it could've disappeared would've been through admin deletion, which I can't imagine. Everyking 22:34, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was sent to Pope Benedict XVI - Wikipedia Is Communism from where it was retreived as an admin has now sorted it. How exactly what happened happened I don't know, but I wasn't imagining it, --SqueakBox 22:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * This article was one of the victims of the long-time vandal Wikipedia is Communism who used a new sock earlier today to rename a bunch of pages with "Wikipedia Is Communism" in the title. Zzyzx11 | Talk 23:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The database has been hiccuping again, so edits have been lagging all over the place. I don't consider it impossible for an article to "disappear" through a move, either. I'm betting a small (tiny, really :-) amount on the theory that MediaWiki created the new article, deleted the old one and put in a redirect at that place, in that order, and the last change didn't get propagated fast enough. JRM · Talk 23:34, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)

Move needed ASAP
A vandal renamed the page on Pope Benedict XVI as Pope Benedict XVI - Wikipedia Is Communism. I can't seem to fix it. This seemed more urgent than a requested move. --Fastfission 22:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's been fixed now. This is a form of vandalism.  In future, report it on Vandalism in progress. Here too if you want. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Bobber2
has become a royal pain. Until I deleted it, he claimed on his User page that he was an administrator. When I VfDed George Clooney (movie character), he moved it to Part of Team America, stripped off the VfD header and slapped a bogus header on it. I deleted the protected header and re-added the VfD header, went to his Talk page and told him that that was not acceptable, and he turned around and deleted the VfD header again. I have blocked him for 24 hours.

I realize that he's a newbie, and probably a more-clueless-than-usual one, but he never responds to anything on his Talk page, and his so-called contributions have become more trouble to fix than he's worth. RickK 23:36, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the right thing to do. Slamming protected templates on article which aren't protected and saying he's an admin when he's clearly not is abusive. 82.172.23.66 09:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: as of 30 April 2005, this user seems to have transmogrified to User:Bobber1. Compare user contributions.  Soundguy99 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Tallyman
User is a nearly new account (1st edit 21st April) that has edited almost exclusively schools, including some immediately off VfD. They've also done some more tidying up on user:GRider/Schoolwatch, which is what GRider was doing immediately before he was banned. Could somebody see if he is really GRider evading his block? They could be legitimate, but something feels GRiderish (I hope I'm wrong). Thryduulf 23:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * This is in arb com territory. I can't see a definite link between the two, although there is small linkage, but not enough to block as a sock. I'm wondering about some of the results on Tallyman, though. Will keep an eye on it - David Gerard 22:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help with moving Georgia
It seems to me that there has been an ongoing debate over Georgia for a very long time. According to Wikipedia, a country is supposed to come before a state, isn't it? I propose that the current Georgia be moved to Georgia (disambiguation), Georgia (country) to Georgia, and Georgia (U.S. state) left as is. I've been visiting Wikipedia for quite some time now (only recently using my account) and I fail to see why it's taken so long. Any help or assistance you could give would be greatly appreciated, I'm sure. --Nameneko 06:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Your proposal has been brought up before. You may want to have a look at Talk:Georgia and the poll there. I'm not sure what you are referring to with "According to Wikipedia". --- Docu 08:07, 30 Apr 2005


 * It has "taken so long" because dispite polls and discussion there is no consensus that the move you suggest is the best way to deal with this. -- Infrogmation 06:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Palmdale, California
has been vandalized several times within the last hour -- currently by two users: and. I suggest this page should be protected. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:4.229.96.65
is going through articles on Star Trek characters and adding racial terms under the information about species (human, vulcan, romulna, etc). Already has refered to one actor as a "Negro" and another as a "Mongoloid". Is also adding in the article on Mr. Spock that Spock was Christian which is not based on any information from Star Trek. I dont want to bite the newbie, but this bears watching. While technically not vandalism, since the user is not writing the "F Word" all over the place, adding racial terms is a close second. Opinins? -Husnock 07:05, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is also a high probability that is the same person. -Husnock 07:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Based on their change at Star Trek: The Next Generation, I'd say they are more likely a confused pseudo-pedant (the race is "Mongolian" - "Mongoloid" is a medical condition) with poor vocabulary (possible source for the "Christian"/"given" name issue), rather than a racial theory motivated thing. Noel (talk) 14:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Template
In the edit history of the Template:Infobox Pope, a user made several edits and called much of the article an "F-up". I am posting here to see if the edit history can be modified to omit profanity. An administrator might want to say something to the user who made those statements in the edit history, as well. -Husnock 07:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be possible through temporary deletion and partial restoration, but I'd rather leave it as evidence against the user in case of an RFC or RFAr being filed. Deleting it makes it final and can't be undone if it's needed as evidence. 82.172.23.66 09:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Link spam?
adds links to various subpages of www.jcsm.org to several religion-related articles. Looks like link spam to me. Lupo 07:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I usually think of link spam as something that's done primarily for monetary reasons. This doesn't apply here, I think - the jcsm.org/biblelessons/abortioniswrong.htm page I looked at was principally a listing of Bible quotations that someone assembled to back up their views. As long as it's kept in the appropriate links section, it's OK, I think. (Not my cup of tea, mind, but OK to link.) Noel (talk) 13:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, if it had been a clearly commercial site, the case would have been clear. However, for my taste, this is advertising and POV pushing, and thus I consider it link spam, too. One link somewhere would surely be enough? Heck, they don't even say which Bible version their quotes are from. Lupo 07:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it spam in the narrow sense, but if the link is of dubitable quality or relevance, it should be removed on these grounds. We should only link to competent and stable resources. dab (ᛏ) 08:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt a list of quotes is appropriate on all the articles it's linked to either. 82.172.23.66 09:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

81.153.206.223
Anon adding link spam to articles mostly on Galician subjects. I'm busy ridding the articles of spam and have left a message, but I'd appreciate admin attention and maybe a block if he/she keeps doing it. Grace Note 11:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I looked at a couple of the links they added and they seemed fairly harmless. Again, to me "link spam" has to be primarily motivated by money, and I don't see that here. Noel (talk) 14:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Still, links should be highly relevant and of good quality, otherwise it still qualifies for removal. 82.172.23.66 09:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

68.61.69.47
has been vandalising Talk:Economy of Egypt repeatedly. Also vandalised the article page and Egypt. I put them on my watch list but I thought I'd list it here as well, thanks. Rx StrangeLove 13:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocked this user for a while for clear vandalism on Egypt. Noel (talk) 14:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Rx Strangelove, the best place for this is WP:VIP. Maybe all the administrators' noticeboards should have a small blurb about alternative pages to report vandalism? --Deathphoenix 15:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Go for it! Noel (talk) 15:47, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Very basic, but then again, the header's big enough already. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John Gohde arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to John Gohde. He has been banned from Wikipedia for one year. Should he return after this time, other remedies will apply. Please see Requests for arbitration/John Gohde for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 16:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Another bizarrely harsh decision from the ArbCom, another of Snowspinner's enemies gotten rid of. Who's surprised? Everyking 17:16, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Drink! silsor 17:35, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * No. The ban is reasonable, and the discussion even notes Snowspinner's possible over-reaction. What's bizarre is the remedy 1.3.4 -- requiring him to write an essay. That's just nutso. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * "John Gode must write 200 words each on the implications of having custodians on Wikipedia and on the implications of allowing personal attacks on Wikipedia" this is really weird! Will the arbcom start dealing out real-life punitive measures soon? "if User:Footroll ever wants to edit Wikipedia again, he must submit proof that he did volunteer work with disabled children in his community, as well as submit photographs of him cleaning graffitti off his local school's walls" :o) dab (ᛏ) 17:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a year's ban for Gohde is even close to reasonable. Getting on Snowspinner's nerves isn't a crime, at least not officially. Everyking 17:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Although you have noted on WP:AN/I that you prefer to comment without looking at the evidence, I urge you to read the first two cases against John Gohde, when he was editing as Mr-Natural-Health. This is his third time around and I presume he got that long a ban because he hadn't mended his ways with regard to personal attacks - David Gerard 23:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting how Snowy placed the block himself. Does anyone else find that a wee bit inappropriate? Do the words "conflict of interest" run through anyone's head? Hmm. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ummm... WTF? Snowspinner 21:09, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I take that as a "no", then. Sad. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It was an arbcom decreed ban. Conflict of interest is generally a term applied to situations where some judgment is called for. There is no policy, written or implicit, that says that my block was inappropriate. To undo it with a snarky comment, complete with calling me "Snowy," is a needlessly petty step in your increasingly obvious crusade against me. Snowspinner 21:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * It may not actually be a conflict of interest, but it looks like one. It is usually best to completely avoid any perception of conflicts. It's not like it would have made a difference if you had waited for someone else to block. BrokenSegue 21:32, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No policy except the very strong general agreement that sysops should refrain from using their abilities when they're involved in a situation. You damn yourself so effectively that I don't even need to argue this one. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * And what "situation" was I involved in? It's not as though I blocked him for vandalism to my userpage or anything. I blocked to create a purely technical enforcement of a ban that was imposed. Snowspinner 21:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * You brought the arbitration case. How is that not involvement? &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Whenever there's someone to be banned or blocked (for 3RR violation or whatever), Snowspinner is the first one to do it. He just likes to do that kind of stuff, I guess. :-) (It should be given some thought whether that's a good thing or not, though..) --Conti|✉ 22:25, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I hardly ever do 3RR blocks... or, really, blocks in general, compared to a lot of other users. I just tend to actually post on AN/I when I block, which makes me more noticable. Snowspinner 22:41, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have given you both credit for the block, you don't have to remove someone else's name - David Gerard 23:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While Snowspinner should have let someone else make the block, I'm not much concerned about that. He was, after all, just following the decision. What concerns me much more is that Snowspinner was evidentally going after Gohde with considerable energy, tracking all his edits&mdash;I remember once on IRC he called him "psychotic"&mdash;and he has been rewarded for that by getting exactly what he wanted: harsh punishment of Gohde. I haven't seen much of Gohde's work, as far as I know he works on subjects related to alternative medicine, doubtless a lightning rod of controversy surrounding issues of scientific vs. traditional medicinal practices and such, but Snowspinner has pretty clearly been on a persecution campaign against the guy, and now he's banned for a year...and required to write some essays, too, like a misbehaving child in school? Everyking 23:21, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the cases and evidence
 * Comprehend
 * Post
 * silsor 00:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Where am I wrong here? Everyking 00:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You're making yourself look dumb by portraying MNH as a victim. Just stop, it's painful. silsor 00:42, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I looked over the case and saw Sannse saying that she acknowledged the year ban would appear overly harsh, and then she went on to make some sort of justification that basically hinged on the idea that, regardless of whether or not behavior can be attributed to malice, it is nevertheless punishable. I don't know about you, but to me, yeah, that kinda makes him look like a victim. Just because a person does some things that are inappropriate doesn't mean that personally can't still be terribly wronged. Everyking 00:56, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that Sannse, along with several other arbitrators, changed their minds following this edit: . At least, that was what Fred cited, and it was shortly after that edit that sannse wrote her summary opinion. Snowspinner 01:03, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't really blame him for that. Anybody would get fed up with that degree of stalking and harassment, especially when it comes from someone who obviously intends to use anything possible against you to get you banned. Everyking 01:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * SuckerPunch. &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 01:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That sounds familiar. -- Netoholic @ 01:27, 2005 May 1 (UTC)


 * I'm coming a bit late to this (I have no connection at home at the moment and so am very behind) but wanted to make two points. Firstly, what I said was that the year ban would seem overly harsh if you didn't look in detail at the whole complex case.  It wasn't possible to include all the edits I looked at in deciding on my votes, I looked through a vast amount of John's and other contributions.  With the evidence looked at as a whole, I don't believe it was too harsh.  Secondly, I didn't say that behaviour is punishable regardless of whether or not it was malicious – because our purpose on the arbitration committee is not to punish.  This ban is not punitive, it is intended to prevent disruption to Wikipedia.  I would say that the majority of cases that the arbitration committee look at have nothing to do with malice, but that doesn’t mean we should put up with problem behaviour just because a contributor means well.  If the behaviour is causing disruption, and the user can't or won't change, then we need to take action to stop them. -- sannse (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Rather than accuse Snowspinner of "stalking and harassment", perhaps a look at the numbers is more revealing:

Snowspinner's edits to article namespace, 1 January 2005 - 15 April 2005

Additional statistics can be found at Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29 (24.125.116.65 06:20, 1 May 2005)


 * Welcome back orthogonal. Snowspinner 06:29, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Beat me to it ;-) - David Gerard 15:33, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't orthogonal live in Ohio, not Virginia? (Actually I had the same thought when I started talking to this fellow in e-mail, but I'm now convinced that he's not ortho, though they might know each other.) The numbers are interesting, aren't they? &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe orthogonal temporarily moved to Ohio in November to help campaign for Kerry. As we're several months past that, he may well have moved on - my impression was certainly that the Ohio arrangement was temporary. Snowspinner 17:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Even if it is orthogonal, which I doubt, his statistics are very interesting, aren't they? &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should it matter to anyone? The facts are the same no matter who states them. (Does Wikipedia judge facts differently based on who states them? Are three reverts in twenty-four hours "trolling that hurts Wikipedia" when John Gohde does it, and "good police work" when Snowspinner does it?) -- rrcaballo AT yahoo.com (as 24.125.116.65 19:19, 1 May 2005)


 * There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I don't know why an anon should want to keep posting this nonsense all over Wikipedia unless they have an agenda.  You're trolling, knock it off.  RickK 23:56, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Haham hanuka
Please see and respond on this page, about the vandal who has been banned from Hebrew Wikipedia. -- brian0918   22:02, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guru - needs protection

 * moved to WP:RFPP BrokenSegue 23:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:60.240.178.196
Vandalised All-women band article more than once and then preceeded to threaten me by claiming: ''I'm watching you, yes you with the Red hair in Sydney stay right where you are in your lovely pink cap. What you don't realise is there is currently an Armalite AR-15 Assault rifle trained squarely at the head of the blonde to your left, and unless you do exactly as I say I am going to kill her.''. While people might think this is funny, at the time this was happening I did not. I have no idea who this person is, I've never met them before in my life. They only apologised(?) hours after I had already left. I would like the IP to be banned if possible. This type of childish behaviour from 60.240.178.196 shouldnt be condoned. HelenWatt 03:32, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've blocked the anon for 48 hours. 24 hours for vandalism of All-women band and Pope Benedict XVI and 24 hours for the death threats. Mgm|(talk) 09:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't wish to be pedantic but surely death threats are more serious than vandalising Wikipedia? Or is it only the number of offenses, not their type? Djbrianuk 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an anon. IP addresses can frequently change owners, so long-term blocks are often ineffective or counterproductive. --Carnildo 23:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was sort of shocked when I saw this. I don't mean to be critical, but I thought maybe a death threat might call for a firmer response. To be honest I don't know what options there would be considering the tranistory nature of IP addresses, maybe a longer block? Rx StrangeLove 03:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Big Hurt
on :


 * Earlier
 * 1st
 * 2nd
 * 3rd
 * 4th
 * 5th.

His spam remains. It appears that breaking the 3RR rule gets one what one wants with impunity. Why do we bother? --SqueakBox 15:38, May 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * The timestamps (in UTC) for actual reverts you give are:


 * 07:21, 30 Apr 2005
 * 06:00, 1 May 2005
 * 06:20, 1 May 2005
 * 07:09, 1 May 2005


 * Another one you give is an edit by User:BrokenSegue, so it was four and not five. Still since he's been a bit of a naughty boy with his report on WP:RFPP and got up my nose somewhat, I'll make an exception to my normal rule of not blocking for 3RR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh now I spotted the fifth revert, 06:54 UTC, 1 May 2005. Well he's blocked for twelve hours now, enough time to think it all over. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:08, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

The Bible saying nothing on abortion is a POV. I'm filing my own complaint on this page because SqueakBox has broken the 3RR many more times than I have and he's POV pushing. -- Big Hurt, 10:10am PST, May 2, 2005


 * Big Hurt is knowingly making false and unsubstantiated allegations. See Gospel for where he threatens someone else with 3RR; disagree with Big Hurt and get falsely reported, --SqueakBox 17:25, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Mr Tan and User:Zippie
I've a suspicion that is a sockpuppet of, based on similarity of English and of editing patterns. I can never remember where to go in order to find out; if it's not here, where should I ask please? Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 16:07, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That can only be done by developers (and they only do it in cases where someone is likely to be a reincarnation of a banned user, which doesn't seem to apply in this case) and arbitrators (and only within the scope of an ongoing arbitration, which again doesn't apply). -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 19:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Jguk
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 16:48, May 1, 2005
 * 2nd revert: 17:01, May 1, 2005
 * 3rd revert: 17:27, May 1, 2005
 * 4th revert: 19:07, May 1, 2005

Reported by: &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


 * Fourth revert was to remove any reference to Votes for deletion/Cricket (portal), just like the first three. Note the change of a proper  to a bare  to disguise the revert. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 19:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that there are now two slightly different VfDs on the same subject, after jguk took an off-hand suggestion of Korath a little too seriously: Votes for deletion/Cricket (portal) and the new Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Portal:Cricket. There's also been an attempted RfAr, and more revert warring over all of it than I can keep track of, but there's probably no point in blocking any specific individual. Let's do our best to keep this sane, preferably by talking. Exactly where we do that is probably less important, and I'm sure our readers are the least affected by this. JRM · Talk 10:53, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
 * The difference is that none of the other individuals have violated the 3RR. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:39, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The so-called "fourth revert" was to remove a duplication of a VfD message. For some reason Korath considers that edit as vandalism. All it was doing was trying to tidy up the page - and as the diff makes clear, it quite clearly isn't a revert. (Indeed, I checked carefully before making the edit to make sure that it was not a revert - and I'm somewhat annoyed about being called a vandal on a page I have spent many hours developing, and Korath a few minutes trying to destroy!) jguk 11:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is where you made them identical, immediately before you removed one. You seem desperate to remove all mention to Votes for deletion/Cricket (portal) (which is running heavily against you), having attempted to close it or declare it invalid no less than five times      and removing it from the vfd page twice (once by moving it to a title that wasn't linked from vfd, and once directly []).  Please cease vandalizing the vfd. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 15:39, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note what you're preserving has stopped existing under that title, and the votes are almost but not quite about the same thing. JRM · Talk 15:51, 2005 May 2 (UTC)


 * Do the VFDs link to each other? If they do, removing one tag shouldn't be a problem. 131.211.210.12 12:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They do now. I'm sure that won't make any difference whatsoever in this particular discussion, though. If either of these links are removed, I'm going to merge the new one under the old one, because this is getting really, really silly. JRM · Talk 15:51, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

User:Amerinese, User:DINGBAT et al.
is a sockpuppet of. I've come to suspect this on the basis of similar editing behavior and by observing edits such as this one:. The sockpuppet status was confirmed recently by David Gerard at Requests for arbitration/Developer help needed. The two accounts were used in a disruptive and deceptive manner in the Taiwan and China related debates connected to the Instantnood et al. abritration case. See for example the votes on the scope of the article on, now archived at Talk:Taiwan/Archive3: Amerinese and 160.39.195.88 both voted in the same poll. A second example tied even more closely to the Instantnood case concerns the voting on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC (a set of related polls started by Instantnood that forms the basis of one of the complaints brought against Instantnood): there is a subset of polls that Amerinese and 160.39.195.88 both voted and commented on. The accounts were also used for reverting, and possibly others in a manner that circumvents WP:3RR.

Another group of suspected sockpuppets involves, , , and. They participated in some of the same polls related to the Instantnood case in a similarly deceptive and disruptive manner. The first three were confirmed as sockpuppets by David Gerard in his response linked above. I suspect based on edit behavior, but without technical proof, that is part of this group.

For all I know, the Amerinese sockpuppets and the DINGBAT sockpuppets may even be linked into a larger circle of sockpuppets. They are certainly aware of each other: 160.39.195.88 contacts 50Stars, 160.39.195.88 points out similarities between Bond007 and DINGBAT. Technical evidence may shed more light on this issue.

If one wants to be paranoid, one might also look into,  (see history of ), , ,  (unlikely), and  (note the "q"; banned for impersonating User:Jiang).

Apologies if this is the wrong place for posting this. Please copy or move to Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al. if that's the more appropriate venue. --MarkSweep 21:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Other than editing the same articles, what do these have to do with the arbitration case? SchmuckyTheCat 21:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They participated in the polls that Instantnood started, and those polls form the basis of the second arbitration request brought against Instantnood. I have yet to tease out the full involvement of these and potentially other sockpuppets in this case, which may turn out to be peripheral to the case. We're literally talking about tens of thousands of edits that would have to be reviewed here, so this may take some time. --MarkSweep 22:20, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

X-fascism
Well, I thought I had to bring this up somewhere that some responsible admins would see. I'm not a party in this debate, but recently a firestorm of debate has risen about these articles. It started with Judeofascism's listing on vfd, then Islamofascism, then Islamic fascism, then Americofascism, then Christofascism. Many of the editors of these pages and those arguing on vfd and reverting like crazy are disrupting to make a point, throwing around personal attacks, reverting excessively for their own POV, and even downright vandalizing. I'm just hoping someone can take a look at the page histories and possibly protect the pages if need be. This needs to quieted down and resolved peacefully and respected, whatever the resolution. I'm especially concerned about Stancel who used personal attacks, "Assholes", and created Christofascism solely in response to Islamofascism's keep result and page blanked Islamofascism after it survived vfd. Also Klominus dishonestly tagged that page with a speedy delete tag for utterly POV reasons, not any criteria, and has also been the main reverter on Islamofascism. Another troubling occurence was when Islamic fascism was created during the Islamofascism debate presumably to get around the ruling. I've only started watching this unfold in the middle of it, but it is intensley disturbing, and no doubt turning numerous good editors off to Wikipedia and just generally deteriorating the environment. I know this page isn't for conflict resolution, per se, but could we get some more good, responsible eyes over there to perhaps protect these pages if need be, and enforce 3RR and NPOV and no personal attacks? Just had to get this out, sorry to disturb you. --Dmcdevit 23:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

User:131.111.230.82
Jdforrester blocked this anon (apparently a static IP at Cambridge University) for two months for four acts of vandalism, for which he was warned once with test. On "a friend of the person called me and told me that he intended to continually vandalise, and that he likely wouldn't stop," he assumed that this friend was sincere and that the anon wouldn't reform if warned of a ban (test doesn't even mention a ban). This was the first ban of this IP, and Blocking policy specifically states that "For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month." --SPUI (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Although in this case, extra information was avaliable. I know that the person in question has no intention of ever making sensible edits, and probably won't be much bothered by the ban. Note also the "friend of the person" (me) is also a friend of James, and so that he assumed sincerity is hardly surprising ;) If the person in question has a personality change (not likely), and decides to become an editor, I'll be more than happy to lift the ban. ed g2s  •  talk  00:24, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It would have been very nice if this had been stated (preferably on the anon's talk page, and in the block reason). Thanks for your response; it makes it a lot clearer. It still makes it seem to the outside world (i.e. not you and Jdforrester) that this was an under-the-table kind of thing. Simply document this on the anon's talk page and it would be a lot clearer, and we wouldn't have gotten into this. Looks like it's back to good faith. --SPUI (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * FYI, 131.111.xxx.xxx is always Cambridge, and if you reverse-DNS, you'll see it is indeed .cam.ac.uk. ed g2s  •  talk  00:27, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * [Posted via edit-conflict, discussion in IRC, so rather delayed]
 * Not "apparently a static IP at Cambridge University". See this reverse DNS. Anyone else familiar with Cambridge colleges' Internet connections would know that this is static, too.
 * This apparent assumption of bad faith on my part saddens me. The entire exercise was to remove a particular static IP that will be used for vandalism, as has been confirmed to my friend, despite warnings of being blocked, but only for the length of time that it will be active (until the end of term). The removal of this IP will reduce the sysop's workload in tracking and correcting vandalism - note that one of the pieces of vandalism went unnoticed for 9 days.
 * James F. (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube
Some of you may be aware that an anonymous user in the range 211.28.xxx.xxx has been adding content regarding Time Cube to various articles. I became involved after coming across an edit war on Greenwich Mean Time, Universal Coordinated Time, and Time zone, and protected all three. I've been discussing with the anonymous user, making a good faith effort to understand cubic time and if it was appropriate to include a mention of it (User:KayEss has been doing a good job as well). After an extensive discussion at Talk:Greenwich Mean Time, I have come to the conclusion that the inclusion of the material is not warranted. I also am unprotecting Greenwich Mean Time as it obviously can't stay protected forever. The anonymous user, however, has been quite persistent for quite a long time (see the current revert war over a cleaned-up version of Time Cube). I would appreciate if some of you could stop by GMT and let us know what you think, or perhaps add the articles to your watchlists (regardless of whether you feel including Time Cube references or excluding them is the way to go). If problems remain, any advice on what to do would be appreciated as well. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 06:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see any way that the Time Cube is notable enough to warrant inclusion in any of those articles. I don't even know how notable it is in the first place. How widespread is this theory? As far as I can tell it's just one old guy with a website who gives himself inflated titles like "the wisest human". I don't know, maybe you could compromise with this editor through the creation of some article like "alternative theories of time", thereby letting him write without giving undue prominence to such a fringe theory. Everyking 07:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

********************************************************************************************
 * Time Cube pretty much counters all established science and regular timezones. It's not productive to list hwo they feel about them in every single one of those entries. Can't it just all be merged into Time Cube? Everyking's assesment of the guy's website doesn't bode much good for it's notability either, but I seem to remember it surviving VFD too. Mgm|(talk) 07:21, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Time Cube itself is currently up for VfD; it survived two previous attempts, I believe. It will survive this one as well, although a significant number of votes calling for cleanup. I agree, Everyking Mgm, with merging it all to Time Cube; however, the anonymous user is quite persistent, as you will see if you examine the histories. We'll see what happens with my test unprotect of GMT, but I would not be surprised if he reinserts the Time Cube text. User:Uncle G made the following comment in response to someone who observed that the anonymous user had started edit warring over the cleaned-up Time Cube: [&mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC), continued below] [updated &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ]
 * "started"? It has been going on for over a year.  Speaking as one of the editors who has from time to time over the past months neutralized or fixed 211.28.*.* modifications to Time Cube and to Gene Ray, I think that it is highly probable that 211.28.*.* will not lose interest.  Xe has, after all, been doing this (adding text which has to be neutralized, reverting other editors' changes to xyr own version with edit comments claiming it to be the "NPOV" one, accusing a wide range of other editors of "POV" and "ad hominem attacks" on talk pages) since at least January 2004 (where 211.28.*.* was even then commented upon in the VFD discussion).  In fact, xe has outlasted at least one editor (Talk:Gene Ray).  Xe is the reason that Coordinated Universal Time, Greenwich Mean Time, and Time zone are all currently protected (WP:AN/I). Talk:Gene Ray and Talk:Time Cube are still listed at Requests for comment, by the way. Uncle G 10:37, 2005 Apr 28 (UTC)  [ copied from Articles for deletion/Time Cube (3rd nomination) ] 
 * Mgm, you may wish to visit Mr. Ray's web site yourself: Time Cube. If not, I will post the first paragraph below (I don't know why the lines are bunched together here): &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 07:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
 *  Warning!!!  
 * CREATION IS CUBIC, but
 * you are educated  singularity 
 *  stupid  by academic bastards.
 * I possess data, with proof,
 * that will absolutely blow the
 * lid off the present civilization.


 * And the stuff that follows isn't pretty either. Lots of claims, no proof. How did the article on Time Cube even survive VFD? Mgm|(talk) 12:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

As a theory, Time Cube isn't notable at all. As an Internet phenomenon, on the other hand, it's quite notable. I mean, the guy has been invited to give talks at MIT and GIT more or less purely because people are in awe of how stark raving CRAZY he is. Time Cube is a bunch of incoherent nonsense - but it has a special place in Internet history. Snowspinner 14:08, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your comments. After I unprotected Greenwich Mean Time, the anonymous user, surprisingly, agreed to respect the consensus there (also, as he said, to focus on Time Cube). I also have unprotected Coordinated Universal Time and Time zone. So far the user has left these articles alone. He is still active at Time Cube, restoring the deleted text a couple times a day; however, I am less certain how to proceed there. If anyone has some extra time and energy, consider dropping by and leaving some comments for what form the article should take. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd also add that unlike the tone on Mr. Ray's web site, the anonymous user has been quite calm and polite in our discussions. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker দ 23:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox
SqueakBox has an agenda to remove a pro-life link from the external section of the Abortion entry. He has broken the 3RR. He continues to try and push his POV as he says "abortion is not in the Bible," while the pro-life, external link is very pertinent and offers information about abortion directly from the scriptures, encouragement for those that have had abortions, exhortation regarding forgiveness, etc. There is no good reason to remove the link from the pro-life, external links.

See the following link for all of Squeakbox's 3RR abuse: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=history

-- Big Hurt, 10:16am PST, May 2, 2005


 * This is a false and unsubstantiated allegation. It is who has broken 3RR twice, and continues to maske false allegations against me. he was blocked yesterday, but hasn't learnt to stop breaking 3RR or to stop making false allegations against me. Please can this false allegation be withdrawn, --SqueakBox 17:19, May 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * post the diffs, please.... dab (ᛏ) 17:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, so nobody broke the 3RR. "Big Hurt" is just reverting once every 8.5 hours. this is pointless, you should give it up. dab (ᛏ) 17:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Big Hurt did break 3RR and was blocked (see above). I resent these false allegations which big Hurt has now twice made against me. I have explained to him that he needs diffs to make a substantiasl allegation. i think he wants to let off steam, and at my expense --SqueakBox 17:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

No idea how the signatures got crossed, poss due to an edit conflict, definitely not intentioned, --SqueakBox 17:38, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked user
I have been blocked because I was repeatedly clicking on the red color link-s.

I did not know what the red color meant. I just clicked repeatedly because the page would not take me to the text, (I didn´t know the color meant - work-in-progress.

Please, unblock me, thank you!

-- 80.58.35.107.(posted as 80.58.35.42) 11:16, 2 May 2005


 * I couldn't find any record of either the IP you've given, or the one you used to post this being blocked. Also, unless you've actually edited a page and not just merely watched it, it's nearly impossible to be blocked. Can you tell me what you saw on your screen when it happened? Mgm|(talk) 12:14, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas/ User:85.206.193.250
He was already warned by User:BrokenSegue.




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




 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * 5
 * 6
 * 7




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

Also on.

--Witkacy 15:56, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

This has continued. I've reverted him twice myself, so as I understand it, I can't be the one to block. He is way over 4 reverts in 24 hours, and he is accusing those who revert him of vandalism, and making mildly abusive remarks on the talk page. Witkacy also did (exactly) four reverts in under 24 hours. Frankly, if it were me, I could not bring myself to block Witkacy who, as far as I can tell is, like me, trying to fend off an uncooperative and borderline vandalistic editor whose edits show no regard for truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * The reverts continued, I blocked Zivinbudas for 24 hours--nixie 06:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Is also reverting from user:85.206.195.170--nixie 06:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm about to call it a night, but since this person clearly has no intent of respcting even a block, and will continue his (or her? naah, not likely) minority-of-one edit war from an IP address, I would suggest that we might consider protecting the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * They seem to have stopped, but I'll protect the target articles anyway--nixie 07:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Zvinbudas, acting most of the time as an anon, have been vandalising the above articles (and several others) for over a month. Vilnus has been protected once already - it made him go away for two weeks (see relevant pages history and/or talk). Now he is back. Perhaps a range block can be used to stop him? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Zvinbudas vandalising Partitions of Poland (anon IP - 9 reverts)--Witkacy 12:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If someone can work out the IP in binary for me should cover 85.206.193.X to 85.206.196.0 I will gladly do it.--nixie 02:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Rovoam and his anon IPs
Some of you probably remember User:Rovoam with whom I was engaged in an edit and revert war in various Azerbaijan- and Nagorno-Karabakh-related pages, who then descended from POV edits to banal vandalism and eventually, was blocked several times by admins and also placed under revert limitation and personal attack parole by the ArbCom following ArbCom decision on Baku Ibne et al. His actions have been previously reported in WP:AN/I too by User:Jwrosenzweig (see, )

After ArbCom final decision Rovoam disappeared for a short period of time, appeared briefly again, then disappeared and now, since April 24, he has waged a full-scale revert war in various Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh-related pages once again. These pages include Nagorno-Karabakh (his “traditional” target), Caucasian Albania, Artsakh, Azerbaijan, and since yesterday, Arran (Azerbaijan).

This person acts under various anon IPs, introduces POV edits, vandalizes the pages (including sneaky vandalism), puts irrelevant tags, simply for the sake of trolling (esp. in Azerbaijan and now, in Arran (Azerbaijan)) and and as a result, disrupts normal functioning of Wikipedia.

This person is very wily and smart which makes him rather dangerous. His edits sometimes are misleading and not obvious. Moreover, initially, he reverted pages more than once a day, but then, after being blocked by admins, he realized that he could more safely revert the pages just once a day. So, "legally" he's reverting once a day (although he may violate this rule whenever he deems appropriate and convenient for himself), but nevertheless, his actions disrupt normal functioning of Wikipedia. The history logs of the pages I mentioned above looks like an active volcano crater just because of one person uses Wikipedia for taking revenge from me...

Given the wide range of IPs I also suspect that he’s possibly using some program (e.g. anonimizer or smth like this).

Some list of his anon IPs is available in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Baku_Ibne%2C_et_al./Evidence#Whois ArbCom Evidences Baku Ibne et. al].

Others (the recent ones) not covered there are:

213.18.248.25,

72.25.94.186,

67.150.42.147

and also possibly, 80.78.64.69

The list may not be complete and additional IPs may appear in the future.

I ask for your help to deal effectively with this person. I personally believe that this person should be banned from Wikipedia, his real WP account (User:Rovoam, should be closed down indefinitely, or at least, he should be banned (indefinitely or for a quite long period of time) from editing Azerbaijan-related pages. Hope for your help.--Tabib 05:41, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I have filed a report on his vabndalisms in WP:VIP. However, Rovoam went beyond mere vandalism by making personal insulting remarks, such as "rv vandalism and spurious edit by Tabib. I like to play this game with stupid Turkich people! It's fun!", "I like stuffed Turkey too!" , "rv changes made by User:Tabib, who has been BANNED from all articles in Wikipedia by me" . This is in clear violation of personal attack parole to which he has been placed by ArbCom. Therefore, I ask admins to block this person for a week and also start discussion on banning the real account of this person forever. Any person who descends to such low-level vandalisms should be banned from Wikipedia forever. Rovoam should not be an exception either.--Tabib 07:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the following eight articles from Rovoam's nonsense: Arran (Azerbaijan), Artsakh,  Azerbaijan, Caucasian Albania, Nagorno-Karabakh, Safavids, Turkey, Urartu.

He has announced his intentions. "I simply reverting ALL edits by Turkish User:Tabib, because I try to give him a lesson of tolerance". No, I don't understand how that's supposed to teach tolerance, either.

Because Rovoam is virtually unblockable, somewhat obsessive, rather irrational, and clearly more concerned with proving some kind of point than with good faith edits, I am treating his activities as a kind of vandalism. See WP:PP. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Socks, Socks, Everywhere, But Not A Pair To Wear - Another chapter in the never ending Iasson/Faethon epic Grecian saga
Please could somebody block user for being yet another sockpuppet of user:Iasson. See their contribs, particularly this edit. Please also do the same to, obviously created as part of the same series and whose only contribution is to the only article 99.54 edited. Also, when banning please reset Iasson's ban timer for 15 months from today. Thryduulf 21:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous!  99.54's contributions date since 2002 ! how can you call him Iasson's sock? (you may ban my sock now, I hate socks!) Iasson's sock 10:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm, I don't get it either. This is Iasson? Why? Because he objected to you calling him a sockpuppet for one (!) edit he made to Ra? Has Iasson been using numerical socks for a while and did I miss it? JRM · Talk 10:32, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who this is, something odd is happening here. The edit linked above is from 2002. However looking at the contribution history for 99.54, even when clicking the link at the top of that edit, no contributions prior to 15:07, 24 Apr 2005 appear (this is unlikely to be a problem at my end as the same happens on this Windows 2k PC at work as happened on my Linux PC at home). This apparent short editing history, first edit being a revert and accusion of Iasson being my sockpuppet led me to make the accusation above. The Faethon series escallated numerically, and a very recent sockpuppet was named for the first string of digits of Pi. Thryduulf 12:32, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * If this is a series, then user: may be part of it, but despite being registered (see user list) they have no contributions to date. Thryduulf 12:49, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Same name, different User ID, I'd guess. Ask the gods developers, what's going on.-Pjacobi 13:57, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
 * I think 99.54 is a Faethonian and not an Iassonian, for two reasons. D'abord he is related with Ra the sun-god, then his password is the same as his username (try it). I wonder how Faethonians managed to delete all previous contributions of 99.54 account. This is either a bug, or a miracle, or there is a Faethonian developer that has access to wikipedia database. Lets pray all together to Jimbo god, hoping he is going to do something and help poor wikipedia community to get rid of the Faethonian public accounts disease. In Jimbo, we trust. Yaft 14:53, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that is Iasson/Faethon for the following reasons:
 * Their only contribution is to this section of this page (the comment and a minor edit to remove line inserted between Pjacobi's comment and signature, presumably accidentally).
 * The style of English used is very similar to that used by Iasson/Faethon
 * argues that Faethon and Iasson are not the same person - nobody else has done this since before the ArbCom case
 * Knew it to be or to look for it being a public account (there is no mention of this elsewhere on this page currently, and the previous discussions about it were archived several days ago.
 * "Yaft" nicely expands to "Yet Another Faethon Troll" (I know this isn't a reason in itself, but taken with the other things this immediately sprang to mind).
 * Thryduulf 17:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you try to log in and change the password? I'm unwilling to try right now because I'm on a static IP. Even if Yaft isn't a public account, it can still be blocked if it's an Iasson/Faethon sockpuppet. --Deathphoenix 20:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I did try earlier and the password wasn't Yaft. I'm not an admin and so can't do any blocking (although I did get caught by David's block of 99.54 earlier when I tested that password!). I present my thoughts here so that if any admins feel condfident enough to block they can do so. Thryduulf 22:07, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas, his anon ids and his false POV edits
Zininbudas has been engaged in an edit war on Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Confederation, Vilnius, and Lithuania, (see the entry on Administrators' noticeboard/3RR) and is making other dubious edits on some other realted articles, I say dubious as I have been informed by other editors that his edits are blatantly false. I have protected all the pages, and he was blocked for editing for 24 hours due to his violation of the 3RRR, howver he then proceeds to edit as an anon. He has left abusive messages on talk and user pages. Someone has suggested a range block, I don't know how to do that, and I'm not sure how wise it is to apply a range block for an extened period, since this editor is persistant (he's been at it for at least a month). Comments on how to proceed would be appreciated --nixie 01:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Range blocks are easy - e.g. 10.10.0.0/16 to block everything from 10.0.0.0 to 10.10.255.255, 10.10.10.0/24 to block everything from 10.10.10.0 to 10.10.10.255. Try escalating range blocks if that's what it takes. Make sure your Wikipedia email is set up so you can unblock quickly in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 12:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm dealing with this guy on Vilnius. The tricky part to me is that occasionally he seems to say things that make sense, and then suddenly spouts off on a POV tirade. This makes him a bit tricky to deal with... -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy)  23:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

GRider sockpuppet theatre
Thryduulf requested (on WP:AN/I) a check into GRider and Tallyman's correlating behaviour. They have similarities, but there wasn't enough for me to be reasonably confident they were the same person. There does appear to be sockpuppet theatre going on here, though. A combination of reviewing edits, IP checks and a check with Tim Starling for further technical info lets me state with reasonable confidence that GRider, HERMiT cRAB, Tallyman, ..-. ..- -.-. -.- ..- and almost certainly Jonahhh are the same person. Furthermore, they have also set up accounts G Rider, HERMiT CRAB, HERMiT cRAB and TallyMan (note subtle variation). I've blocked the lot as sockpuppets. There's another bunch on associated IPs I'm still checking further.

I'd always thought GRider behaved oddly differently from a regular single-account editor, and this would explain it a bit - the sockpuppeteer, whoever it is, was treating it as a role account for particular types of edit and not bothering to humanise it much.

I eagerly await the no doubt perfectly innocent explanation in my email.

This particularly pisses me off because I actually completely agree with their view on school articles - I see no reason we shouldn't have an article on every high school in the world ever, if we have verifiable sources. But the way they've gone about it is completely unacceptable. With friends like these ... - David Gerard 12:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Another possible sockpuppet: has edited User:GRider/Schoolwatch to add three schools to the "On VfD" list with the edit summary "don't accomodate deletionists!!".  Those edits are the user's only edits. --Carnildo 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This user is creating sockpuppet accounts to stack VfD votes? Everyking 22:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Requests for arbitration/GRider - presumably, he's creating the sockpuppets to evade his ban from editing deletion-related pages. &mdash; Dan | Talk 22:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And to stack votes and synthesise apparent consensus, i.e. precisely why sockpuppets are so ill-regarded in general. AC restrictions are per person, not per username, so apply to the sockpuppeteer - David Gerard 23:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:198.208.160.27
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 11:39 May 3
 * 2nd revert: 16:16 May 3
 * 3rd revert: 6:06 May 4
 * 4th revert: 9:02 May 4
 * 5th revert: 10:19 May 4
 * 6th revert: 10:53 May 4

Reported by: · Katefan0(scribble) 16:36, May 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * There were also earlier reverts beyond this 24 hour window and have been more since I originally reported this. Now another anon user from a different IP has apparently begun doing the same thing. (Katefan0 21:10, 4 May 2005)
 * (Update: there have been more reverts since I originally posted this, and now a new anon has started removing the same information.) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:32, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:User 198.2808.160.27, clearly a Clay Aiken fan, has been repeatedly removing information in the article referencing speculation that Clay Aiken might be gay, despite a consensus to include that information on the article's talk page (which has been listed on RfC, that's how I got involved). I haven't seen any indication that this person has visited the talk page though -- they certainly haven't participated; I suspect they may be somewhat new given the last revert, where they added "Line removed by scanning utility". (?) Between the most recent two reverts, I left two messages on the person's talk page asking them to come to the article's discussion page to try to come to some consensus instead of just continually reverting information. My second message included a warning that they could end up having their editing privileges temporarily revoked. No response except to delete the information and again replace it with the "scanning utility" line. I am not sure that a temp block would do much good, given that it's a dynamic IP, but I thought this step should be taken before requesting the page be protected.


 * Blocked. Re-report if it continues or if a new IP is used. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:39, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 66.82.9.49 has now deleted the same info once: and added nonsense a second time . · Katefan0(scribble) 22:52, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, the first IP is registered to General Motors... this one is a Direcway IP. Anyone think we should just block this one too? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Six reverts and he's blocked for four hours? In any case, he's back and reverting again (12:14, 5 May 2005 - current edit), so he's immediately in violation of the 3RR. --Calton | Talk 12:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I figured it was a dynamic IP and a once-off vandal, so I erred on the side of caution. He's gone for 48 hours this time. I'll also leave a mention on the talk page of the IP. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:36, May 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * New anons have joined the fracas. One revert so far by 24.190.195.114  and two by 64.136.26.227 . And, as Calton noted above, the original blocked anon editor has now begun reverting again.  Hermione1980 has requested the page be protected at WP:RFPP. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:01, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

User:Wikipedia
I thought this user couldn't exist? The account has been editing today. What's going on here? Isomorphic 18:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll block with the usual invitation to participate using a more suitable name. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:12, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I thought that there was actually code in place to prevent that account from existing, though. I was wondering if it's a bug or something. Isomorphic 19:30, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Where's the invitation? I see no invitation. Everyking 22:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I always use Template:UsernameBlock which invites the user to open a new account and explains about having user edit history moved by a developer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * EK, The invitation is at the bottom of the user page, not on the talk page where you may be looking for it (it would be where I'd probably put it). Thryduulf 23:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Jguk
Three revert rule violation on.


 * 1st revert: 08:23, 2005 May 4
 * 2nd revert: 14:44, 2005 May 4
 * 3rd revert: 16:33, 2005 May 4

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:05, 2005 May 4 (UTC)

Comments: Jguk has been selectively modifying Wikipedia pages to try to influence an ongoing vote on use of style prefixes. (sorry, I'm not sure how to locate the diff links other than the datetime in the history)'''


 * Hardly. I've been reverting inappropriate modifications by Whig that have attempted the effect Lulu describes. Anyway - as Lulu reports, I have reverted three times, not more than three times. Kind regards, jguk 21:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic arbitration case - final decision
A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Netoholic. Please see Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2 for further details and the full decision. In particular, please could all admins note the following request from the arbitration committee: " During the mentorship, editors are asked to make the mentors aware of problems, and administrators are asked to check with the mentors before blocks that would otherwise be according to policy. " Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You ever notice how ArbCom decisions always turn out really badly for the accused? It's just a question of more bad or less bad. This one, well, he can still edit and he doesn't have to write any essays, so I guess he got off easy. But nobody ever goes through the ArbCom and gets a decision like "We can't really see that this person did anything particularly wrong." If there is such a case, point me to it. Everyking 08:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If they can't see that the accused did anything particularly wrong, then the case is normally rejected. See the archive of rejected cases for statements like "no case to answer" and "no evidence of wrongdoing presented". Thryduulf 09:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am aware. However, it concerns me that anybody who has a case against them accepted seems to be automatically doomed. It suggests a lack of fairness. At least to me. Everyking 10:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As I already noted below, and you notably responded to only half of, this statement is simply factually incorrect. In both the noted cases, the accuser turned out to be the one penalised, mainly or entirely. There are other examples, but you appear not to be interested in doing your homework before making such statements. Perhaps you could check the archives? - David Gerard 01:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons, Snowspinner doesn't count. He's the prosecutor. Everyking 03:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * John Gohde vs Snowspinner (brought by John Gohde). Lir vs Snowspinner (brought by Lir).
 * (Either Snowspinner is the secret master of the arb com, or he might actually be more right than wrong with a tendency to attract the ire of the socially maladjusted. WHO KNOWS?!) - David Gerard 09:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's right. If you don't like Snowspinner, you're socially maladjusted. There has to be an explanation beyond the possibility that he himself is a problem. Everyking 10:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised that Everyking would immediately come here to complain about an arbcom decision? Have you ever met an arbcom decision you liked?  RickK 23:58, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I can't think of any I liked; I can think of some that seemed somewhat reasonable, although I think the ArbCom has a disastrously high error rate. Everyking 03:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You ever notice how Everyking's statements always come out critical of others? It's just a question of more or less critical.  This one, well, he's not directly impugning anyone's good intentions, so I guess we got off easy.  But no tough decision ever gets made where Everyking says "Yes, this was exactly the right decision, and I'm glad Wikipedia has dedicated volunteers like you."  If such a case exists, point me to it. Isomorphic 01:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As a community we must do more right than wrong, or I don't think we'd still exist, let alone be thriving. It seems to me that others can be critical of certain users all day long, provided those users have been marginalized to some extent or another, but if instead of joining in the beatings you speak up and say, "Hey, I think you've broken enough bones already", that's just an intolerable form of criticism. Everyking 03:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Tagteam213 and User:Spastika
Three revert rule violation on. and :


 * 1st revert: 21:05 May 3, by Spastika
 * 2nd revert: 15:34 May 4, by Spastika
 * 3rd revert: 15:46 May 4, by Spastika
 * 4th revert: 15:51 May 4, by Tagteam213
 * 5th revert:15:57 May 4, by Tagteam213
 * 6th revert: 16:17 May 4, by Tagteam213

Reported by: Carnildo 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Tagteam213 and Spastika are clearly the same user attempting to avoid the 3RR, as both are making the same edits, and the timing is so close. Note especially the edit summary on the sixth revert: "rv tagteam gang". Both are inserting Palestine into the list, against consensus on the talk page. --Carnildo 23:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've blocked Spastika for 24 hours as s/he was the first to appear, and Tagteam213 indefinitely for being a sockpuppet created to violate policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've permanently blocked Spastika for writing that he/she plans on continuing to post his/her own POV and doesn't care about anybody else's. An inappropriate ID anyway.  RickK 23:49, May 5, 2005 (UTC)