Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive22

Contents: May 11, 2005 - May 15, 2005

Un pene de goma

FlaBot

User:FlaBot seems to have mistakenly removed interwiki links from various pages. I have already blocked this bot. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel that this bot is more trouble than it is worth.Geni 08:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Who knows... anyway, that bot's contributions needs to be checked over. -- AllyUnion (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Theforums.ws

Might want to keep an eye on this http://theforums.ws/viewtopic.php?t=49082 (Geni 04:40, 11 May 2005)

The mind reels. Inter\^Echo 22:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Nice post to that particular forum by User:Tony Sidaway. Sometimes, people are well-intentioned without realising what "vanity" is, and frustration can lead to some retaliatory vandalism. Sometimes, all it takes is a little education to gain a few useful contributors. --Deathphoenix 13:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes. No replies to his post so far, we'll have to see if this convinces them to back off. Hopefully, we can prevent another flood of juvenile vandalism. (Can anyone find the bogus articles that early poster referred to?) Noel (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I looked, but the articles in question aren't under the IP number he posted the initial article to. One of the contributors, 203.26.206.130 (talk · contribs), has initiated a tidy little collection of troll articles centered around the Port Arthur Massacre, which are all under VfD at present: Bronwyn Edmunds, Leigh Thompson, Training for Rob's murder spree, Cymbaline. He has also created an article Ljdrama that seems to have some real life correspondence but, I regret, I have not had time to verify. He's been engaged in extensive trolling/vandalism on other articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User:PIek

User:PIek blanks a user talk page and leaves an accusatory template:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CSTAR&diff=next&oldid=13553490 - Pjacobi 12:24, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Just another incarnation of The DoppeIganger vandal. I blocked him indefinitely as an impostor of Plek. – ClockworkSoul 15:35, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbo Wales`

Note final apostrophe. Doubt this is good news. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2005

I think it's bad news. I'm growing tired of people creating new accounts solely for harassment, impersonation or disruption, and have put together a proposal (open for amendment, discussion etc) that would allow us to hold the original user responsible... see Wikipedia:Sock puppet/Proposal. Radiant_* 13:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

There have been 4 varitants in the last 40 minutes :/ --nixie 13:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's tiring, but hey, it happens every so often, and the standard procedure for such obvious and childish impersonation attempts works relatively well: block on sight (indefinitely), and if they, like this guy, copy even the impersonated user's user and talk page, delete the copied pages. They're the Dodos of Wikipedia: easy to spot and easy to shoot. Unfortunately I doubt they'll become extinct anytime soon. Lupo 13:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not just redirect to the real thing to avoid re-creation? Fewer pages to watch. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally considered a bad thing, as some of these socks make a redirect to the official page themselves. Better mark it as a blocked troll, so people don't look up the troll's edits, see the redirect and think the edits really were by the person being impersonated - David Gerard 23:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I've found that the simplest expedient is to block on sight. Use the {{UsernameBlock}} template on the user page and either put it on your watchlist or protect it (or both). Some users do come back and try to mess with the user page again. Not protecting has the advantage that it may help you to spot a possible reincarnation by the interest it shows in the userpage of its blocked earlier incarnation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User:N0gar

Three revert rule violation on New England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User:N0gar

See the Talk:New England page and the User talk:N0gar page.

Reported by: Atlant 18:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

the only way that you can get 4 revisions is if you treat the 10th of may as being equiverlent to the 07:02, 7 May 2005 version and it isn't quite. Geni 22:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

No, he's reverted in the same text four times today; here's the partial history:

• (cur) (last) 17:58, 11 May 2005 N0gar
• (cur) (last) 17:48, 11 May 2005 Atlant (Revert N0gar yet again; is that three in this 24-hour period yet?)
• (cur) (last) 17:39, 11 May 2005 N0gar
• (cur) (last) 06:53, 11 May 2005 Sahasrahla m (rvt, see talk)
• (cur) (last) 05:03, 11 May 2005 N0gar
• (cur) (last) 00:45, 11 May 2005 Atlant (Revert N0gar again)
• (cur) (last) 00:04, 11 May 2005 N0gar

Atlant 23:38, 11 May 2005

User:69.177.204.123 has also reverted-in the same text since then; perhaps N0gar logged-out? Atlant 00:12, 12 May 2005

Yeah, undoubtedly. That's a SBC/SNET address, i.e. CT. He's previously edited the same pages under User:64.252.121.69, another SBC address, apparently. He's doing the same thing on the CT article too. His discussion of his edits from Talk:Connecticut#Not a part of New England? "In the meantime, I will continue to edit the pages. I can keep it up for 20 years if I have to. You clearly DO NOT want to put in or allow both points of view, just your own." Gzuckier 02:00, 12 May 2005

69.177.204.123 (talk · contribs) is obviously N0gar editing anonymously.. he has now broken the 3RR on both Connecticut and New England. See diffs [1] [2]. Please block. Rhobite 02:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Still at it: [3]. Can someone please block him already? Rhobite 05:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked the user and the IP for 24 hours--nixie 05:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User:172.188.34.185

Three revert rule violation on LiveJournal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 172.188.34.185 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]
• 4th revert: [7]

Reported by: SchmuckyTheCat 20:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• please to be the blocking of this AOL anon user who is the wishing of the revert of article LiveJournal. Contrib list [8] shows this AOL anon user is the fixated on the removing of one link. perhaps.
  • As far as I can see, the first "revert" wasn't a revert... Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Walk the history from here: [9] This user has been removing a single line from the article since the 8th. The first time they removed the line, I re-factored the external links section into two, one dedicated to the media. All four of the reverts are above are since the re-factor, all remove that one line, and all have been reverted by myself or other users. SchmuckyTheCat 20:48, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
      • 3RR is only in 24hrs. There have only been 3 reverts in that time. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
    • What? In the 24 hour time period from 12:57 May 10, to 12:57 May 11, there are four edits removing the same line they also changed on May 8. SchmuckyTheCat 22:28, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

AOL IP Address Attacks

Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality and Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 205.188.117.137 (talk · contribs) 152.163.101.13 (talk · contribs) 24.88.77.202 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [10]
• 2nd revert: [11]
• 3rd revert: [12]
• 4th revert: [13]
• 5th revert: [14]
• 6th revert: [15]
• 7th revert: [16]
• 8th revert: [17]

Reported by: Globeism 22:14, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Users: Cobalty, Apollomelos, Globeism, Haiduc and Angr have all been reverting this person for several days now and more than the 8 times mentioned above. The I.P. addresses admit they are the same person to the article's talk page. They are adding false statements and refusing to cite their sources. Many users feel this I.P. address person qualifies as simple vandalism. Can you revert the article back to the last version by an actual Wikipedian and protect the page for awhile?

Are there any active Administrators today? Globeism 22:52, 11 May 2005

Protected. Head on over to the panty-unknotting station. silsor 23:28, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

That remark does not seem very helpful. Jonathunder 06:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

For future reference, we have a page just for protection requests: WP:RFPP. Noel (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

When you protected the page you forgot to revert to the last edition from an actual Wikipedian, instead you protected the version of the I.P. vandal. Can you please correct this? Users Globeism, Apollomelos, Angr, Cobalty, Haiduc and Jonathunder all agree the I.P. address person is engaging in nothing more than vandalism. This is why:

You need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I'm sick and tired of antagonists in content disputes charging each other with "vandalism" - it's the most over-used word on Wikipedia. I'm really tempted to start consider false charges of vandalism to be "disrupting Wikipedia". Noel (talk) 14:26, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Your new introduction is not based on reality - it contains many lies. "concept of a homosexual orientation per se." - not per se - they did NOT at all. "modern studies implying a "sexual continuum" rather than a bipolar situation in which people are either entirely heterosexual or entirely homosexual." - these studies do not say this, the majority are bisexual and minorities are INDEED exclusive. I would appreciate if you actually researched before editing. Globeism 00:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC) (to IP address)

Another lie: "hinges upon the idea that God would make a distinction between promiscuous versus monogamous homosexual sex, which is contradicted by the fact that no such distinction is made either in Leviticus nor in other revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's writings" It is not that there was not a distinction it is that it NEVER mentions monogamous homosexuality. To make a distinction you would actually have to mention both forms. (to IP address) Globeism 00:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not make a note of whose revision was on top when I protected it. Had I chosen I could have followed the guideline that allows admins to protect on the opposite revision than the one that the person who has reverted the most times, but I didn't. I also reviewed the edits in this case and decided that it was a content dispute. The anonymous AOL reverter may be wrong, but he or she is not wrong in a way that is simple vandalism. I personally decline the request to revert the page now that it has been protected. silsor 00:29, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cantus

Cantus, who is limited to one revert per 24 hours (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus vs. Guanaco#Remedies), has violated that parole a number of times today. Please note the lack of edit summaries, also. He is eligible to be banned for up to a week.

Cantus (talk · contributions):

Template:Infobox Biography

• 1st revert: 23:31, 2005 May 11
• 2nd revert: 05:35, 2005 May 12

Template:Otheruses

• 1st revert: 23:29, 2005 May 11
• 2nd revert: 05:38, 2005 May 12

Developed country

• 1st revert: 23:27, 2005 May 11 result
• 2nd revert: 05:33, 2005 May 12 result

Terri Schiavo (re-insertion the Infobox Biography template and other text)

• 1st revert: 23:39, 2005 May 11 (Cantus previously inserted this on 2005 May 9, but it was removed later that same day
• 2nd revert: 05:29, 2005 May 12

Reported by: Netoholic @ 06:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Comments:

• Since this templates impact articles, excess reverts have been interpretted previously as violations of his parole. -- Netoholic @ 06:38, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours. If feel that a longer block would be a good idea ask and arbcom member.Geni 12:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

When ArbCom member create Remedies, they have specifically said they do not want to be involved with making the actual block. 24 hours is a gift to him, so I hope you said "Happy birthday". -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

User:KaintheScion and User:ElKabong

I wonder if some people would like to look at these two new chaps. They showed up 6th/7th May, less than a week ago, but both have the air of long-time Wikipedia editors and both seem to be pretty aggressive and interested in pushing a particular extremist point of view.

• They're not the ones who are extreme. YOU are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005

User:KaintheScion's first action on Wikipedia was to upload a picture of a rather angry-looking young lady, surrounded by children, apparently burning some pieces of paper with an extremely puzzling edit summary (Rachel Corrie, at her "Best" and "Most Caring"). He then seems to have gotten himself into a fight with another editor called Yuber resuting in mutual 3RR reports [18].

Getting into a revert war with Yuber is very easy. Just make any changes to an article which he would consider defamitory to Islam or Islamic countries, and like a Djinn Yuber will show up and start reverting. Klonimus 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:ElKabong seems to share similar extremist points of view and frequents much the same articles. He along with User:Klonimus, signed support for User:KaintheScion in his response to a RFC by Yuber. I think this is a display of remarkable nous for someone who was a new user only six days ago!

• Or maybe he saw the notice that Firebug left on KaintheScion's talkpage, hmm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005

It all seems like quite a coincidence that these chaps showed up so recently and found one another and demonstrated such belligerence, both individually and together, not to mention such intimate knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and Wikipedia picture uploading. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Ever bothered to do a little reading? Figuring out Wikipedia procedure isn't that hard. I love the standard "well he knows too much to be a new user" bullshit that you are throwing around, given that it's all well documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005

If it's what I think it is, that's a photograph of Rachel Corrie ripping and burning an Israeli flag in half, whilst some Palestinian children look on in puzzlement/amusement. It's often used by the Little Green Footballs crowd to paint her as an anti-semite.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it was a mock American flag she burned. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:47, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Here's the chap [19] - I am now baffled as to what flag it's supposed to be. There's only one stripe, and it's upside-down, and are those Jewish stars, or just... stars? In any case, I'm not sure where this could be placed on Wikipedia; it's apparently a real photograph of an actual event, but it would only really fit in an article called 'Criticisms of Rachel Corrie', which doesn't exist. As for Klonimus, who is mentioned above, note the text here [20], where he supports an RfC on a presumably left-wing user with the text "Klonimus 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) Way too many Islamic sympathisers are disrupting WP these days".-Ashley Pomeroy 21:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a hand-drawn, upside-down American flag. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No point in putting too much effort into your American flag drawing if you plan to burn it. Klonimus 06:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well what struck me about that as the first act of a new user was its sophistication. The edit comment suggested either ignorance of NPOV or a determination to run roughshod over it. I'm a little concerned by the belligerence of these two new users and suspicious of their evident twinning. Could they be sock puppets? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I blocked them as socks. Someone claiming to be KaintheScion emailed me saying they weren't socks and to remove the block. The interesting thing is, the mail was sent after 00:44, 13 May 2005, when ElKabong tried and failed to edit, and before 01:03, 13 May 2005, when KaintheScion tried and failed to edit. Whoops, email sent claiming to be wrong ID! I'll unblock whichever is the real account if the user will ever admit which that one was - David Gerard 01:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, KaintheScion has just e-mailed me to say that he's not Elkabong, and that now he can't edit his RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:36, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Running two accounts is not blockable. Running two accounts and pretending they're different people (as has happened here) means the sockpuppet account can be blocked. So if ElKabong/KaintheScion gets back to me and says which is the real account, I'll unblock it promptly - David Gerard 01:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Special:Log only shows manual blocks, not autoblocks, and as far as I know, Special:ipblocklist only shows one autoblock per IP address: the most recent. If the timeline went

1. 00:44: ElKabong edits
2. 00:45: KaintheScion edits
3. 00:??: KaintheScion sends the email
4. 01:03: KaintheScion edits to see if he's been unblocked

you'd see the same thing in the logs. --Carnildo 03:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

KaintheScion continues to e-mail me insisting he's not ElKabong, but I've just taken a look at their contribs, and two things jumped out. First, they don't seem to have edited at the same time: sometimes they used alternate days, and when they did post on the same days, when one stopped editing, the other would start. The second thing that jumped out was this. [21] Someone got a little mixed up, it seems. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:00, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Well spotted. From looking at some his edits, it seems to me that this guy has been very, very naughty. See User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox. Although both socks are new, his editing habits suggest someone who is well acquainted with editing on Wikipedia and sometimes is courteous enough to explain why he puts a POV template up, sophisticated enough to list articles on Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute, and so on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Klonimus immediately lept to their support, as he was also (a couple months ago) a 'new' user who immediately jumped to VfD and RfAr and displayed intimate knowledge of Wikicedures. The phenomenon seems far from new. Radiant_* 09:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

I had been lurking for a while, before I started editing. As anyone who looks at my list of contributions can see that I have made many positive edits. Klonimus 07:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

• Intimate knowledge? Heaven forbid that users should bother reading anything that's posted publicly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005

Klonimus is almost certainly not the same person - completely different editing habits - David Gerard 10:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• I didn't think he was the same person. I just object to the apparent tendency of creating a new account to become anonymously opinionated. Radiant_* 11:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I love this setup. It's so brilliant. Since you blocked them both, they can't speak in their own defense. If they're innocent, and both keep saying so, then Tony Sidaway and whoever else he's a sock puppet for get away with what they're trying to do - both of them stay blocked forever. If they're both innocent, but one of them lies and says the other is a sockpuppet, then you've got a legitimate user blocked out. No matter what happens, you've been used as pawns by a vandal.

Meanwhile, Sidaway's back to his usual tactics over at George W Bush, happily inserting misinformation. You admins are just a bunch of tools. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 13 May 2005

Strangely enough, we seem to have achieved a working consensus since you were blocked. The incidence of personal attacks has plummeted. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong/KaintheScion was already busted emailing claiming to be the wrong account. Both emails I got from ElKabong/KaintheScion were from the same IP as well. Oddly enough, I don't believe any claim they aren't linked - David Gerard 14:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Funny, you've edited that three times, and now: first it was "a matching" IP, now you're claiming it's the exact same. I find myself not believing YOU. And you make accusations about emails claiming to be the wrong account, too. I have to wonder about your own personal involvement in this. You're playing a very cruel joke on someone, here. Like I said earlier, if you are wrong, you have TWO editors permablocked. And the vandals that these editors were holding at bay are now cheering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 May 2005

As someone on IRC just said: "I think some of these people are dense enough that they can't conceive of someone smarter than they are on the other end reading their mail. If you were as stupid as it was, after all, you'd be fooled!" - David Gerard 15:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yawn, no, you're just a zealot. The moment anyone screams "waah sockpuppet", you go after the target. I have no doubt that your throwing this block around was protection for Sidaway and nothing more, because there's no substance to your argument, and it's clear that you are using it as an excuse to block two editors that you or power-drunk admin friends of yours disagree with for an infinite time frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 May 2005

Yes, dear. It couldn't possibly be that anyone knows more than you about how to check up on you, how IP numbers work or what sort of editing patterns match or don't match on Wikipedia, or that you already gave yourself away at least twice before this as listed above - David Gerard 17:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're obviously just trying your level best to avoid doing your duty, on behalf of your friends. "So if ElKabong/KaintheScion gets back to me and says which is the real account, I'll unblock it promptly" - Obviously they've both emailed you, and neither is going to give you that pleasure, so you're enforcing a de facto block on both parties on YOUR assumption of guilt. Given the disputes they've been in the only thing that comes to mind is that you're doing this on behalf of the power-drunk Admins who got tired of having to deal with editors trying to stop them from pushing POV nonsense into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 May 2005

I see you're trying to repeat your track record from elsewhere [22] [23] [24]. The value of your contributions is indisputable - David Gerard 10:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I've got an idea. Why don't the two of you just demonstrate that the suspicions of sock puppetry are misplaced? Clearly you can make Wikipedia edits when your both blocked, so blocking you is pointless. We're human, we make mistakes. And why not, in the meantime, stop making these poisonous, eerily KaintheScion-like accusations? Please be nice. We like nice people. Be nice and you may find that others are nice. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. You catch more flies with honey than with boiling vitriol - David Gerard 10:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The catch is that David Gerard refuses to believe any demonstration that sock puppetry didn't happen; or perhaps DOES believe them but doesn't care as long as it protects his friendly Admin vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course! My lack of knowledge in the area has been famous for years. Why didn't I think of that. - David Gerard 14:53, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Alert! Proverb public accounts!

Dear admins, I have just caught a proverb public account, that uses the Albanian list of proverbs. I am an albanian, and it is easy for me to guess that the password of the account "ARrohetMeZemer" is "TeLepurit?" ! This was a public account that targets all Albanian people that are public account lovers. I will revert the password immediatly! I hope the admins will manage to find all proverb public accounts, in all languages, and revert their passwords. All private accounts, together with the anonymous IP users (I am one of them), we are going to help the admins in their fight against proverb public account barbarians. ARrohetMeZemer 18:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Given the proximity of Albania to Greece (Geographically at least, I know nothing of Albanian culture), and the love of public accounts, my first thought is this could be the Iasson/Faethon troll. Thryduulf 21:01, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hell, given the distinctively fractured prose style of the above "warning", I'm convinced that ARrohetMeZemer is Iasson himself, trolling. In any case, an eye should be kept on him, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 00:15, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

WP:POINT

Today Radiant! put up the policy tag with all bells and whistles on WP:POINT. There was never a proper vote conducted on the thing and it was never ratified, so I removed the tag. In the rolling straw poll that's been going on for a year, the current support is 36/49 (73%). However, I was twice reverted by two administrators, who used the roll-back feature without explaining their actions and also marked their edits as minor [25]. Currently it's classified as semi-policy, which is neither here not there. I suggest that people who want to have WP:POINT become policy organize a proper vote on the thing, so that we can finally know what its status is.

BTW, the mere idea that you can have a rolling vote and once that hits 75% support, a proposal becomes policy, is hilarious. When another person votes against and it goes below 75%, does it stop being policy? Ridiculous. Zocky 19:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Slightly less ridiculous than the idea that policy is determined by voting. Snowspinner 19:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was you that first suggested that this policy be determined by number of votes [26]. Zocky 21:17, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Isn't voting the most fair and democratic method? We can't get dozens or potentially hundreds of people to reach an absolute consensus on hardly anything. Everyking 23:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

m:Don't vote on everything. Voting is the enemy of consensus. Wikipedia is not in fact a democracy - David Gerard 23:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

David, I just said why consensus alone is not feasible for deciding important policies. Everyking 23:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

With regards to voting being the most "fair", see Arrow's impossibility theorem and consensus decision-making. "Absolute consensus" is a contradiction in terms, and more akin to unanimity. JRM · Talk 23:55, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I didn't say voting was more fair than consensus. I said it was more fair than any other reasonable, feasible method I could think of for reaching these kinds of decisions (as opposed to, say, rule by fiat, or letting sysops make up the rules as they go along). Everyking 00:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Aha. Apologies for not seeing through the ellipsis immediately. I didn't know you were trying to focus the discussion on how admins can (or do) make unreasonable decisions. Contrary to some, I am not easily annoyed by recurring themes, but I do prefer them to be out in the open. JRM · Talk 00:49, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Heh, you knew. ;) El_C 11:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Semi-policy sounds like an acceptable alternative. The reason I slapped on the tag, was that it was in Category:Wikipedia official policy. Therefore I was under the impression that it was policy. Radiant_* 19:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point trying to determine whether this is policy or semi-policy. Radiant_* 20:22, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I beleive that all rollback edits are marked as minor by default (I'm not an admin myself, so I don't know whether this is overridable or not). Thryduulf 21:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Correct, all rollback edits are automatically marked as minor. There is not an option in the current version of the MediaWiki software to override this. 10qwerty 21:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Then it probably should be used only for edits that are not minor. Zocky 21:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • There was some discussion (at Wikipedia talk:Administrators#Reverting) that it should only be use for reverting vandalism, but it didn't gain wide acceptance (sigh). Noel (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, I think even if the edit is only borderline vandalism one should do a standard revert and not a rollback. Certainly one should not use it on good faith edits that one happens to disagree with. Everyking 23:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's semi-policy. Don't disrupt Wikipedia at all is the policy. This is a special case that advises people thinking they have a good excuse to break policy to think again. It's more than just a guideline, because arbcom repeatedly affirm it and use it in their judgements in cases. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means to disrupt; is it disruption to disagree with some decision, or to vote against the majority? We shouldn't throw the word "disruption" around liberally. Everyking 23:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I would think that complaining about every arbcom decision could certainly be perceived as disruption. RickK 23:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think you've made my case quite nicely for me. Everyking 00:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, touché. [chuckles] Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 16:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• If, as Tony says, "don't disrupt Wikipedia" is policy, it then follows logically that "don't disrupt Wikipedia for reason:foo" is also policy. Unless the former has any exceptions, which to my knowledge it does not. Anyway, in a (likely vain) attempt to decide this, I've archived the old poll at WP:POINT and put up a new one that lasts for two weeks. Please vote. (Or don't, frankly I don't see how it makes much of a difference, but I would like the bickering and reverting to end) Radiant_* 08:03, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, the question was whether it's disruption in the first place. My point was that dissent should not be confused with disruption, and that's the tendency I see. Everyking 09:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, yes. My remark was in response to Tony's "it's semi-policy", not to your debate with RickK. Radiant_* 11:10, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant is completely right. Even Wikipedia policy is not exempt from term logic :) dab (ᛏ) 14:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Radiant is right - having this be called policy changes nothing. It' s redundant. It's instruction creep. It's just a thing people use to throw at each other. Zocky 14:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• In response to the above - it seems that nobody is actually clear on what 'semi-policy' actually is. Is it something that can be 'semi-enforced' and for which violators can be 'semi-blocked'? Whatever. Would there be any objections if I were to reclassify all 'semi-policies' as guidelines? Radiant_* 00:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

As long as they're not in fact failed proposals, i.e. things that somebody wanted to make policy, but never got consensus for it. Those should be filed away in the userspace of the editors that proposed them. If there's any useful information to be salvaged (i.e. good advice, descriptions of how things work), it would be great if they were rewritten as guidelines, we just need to make sure that they don't sound like instructions. I don't know if they need special tags, but the text should make clear what they are. Zocky 04:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone (I)

Three revert rule violation on Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 03:07, 12 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 10:20, 12 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:26, 12 May 2005
• 4th revert: 20:58, 12 May 2005

Reported by: Viajero 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Here are clearer diffs: [27] [28] [29] [30]

NB: User:Trey Stone has initiated a Request for Arbitration (against me) that appears likely to be accepted — Davenbelle 20:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:219.93.72.38

Three revert rule violation on Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 219.93.72.38 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:18, 12 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:32, 12 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:36, 12 May 2005
• 4th revert: 22:05, 12 May 2005

Reported by: Stereotek 20:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• 219.93.72.38 has reverted this article 7 times now. I warned the user against breaking the 3RR rule: [31] but he reverted the article again anyway: [32] Stereotek 20:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for twenty-four hours. -- Viajero 23:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

User:210.253.40.114

Three revert rule violation on Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 210.253.40.114 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 23:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 23:23, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 23:28, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 23:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
• 5th revert: 23:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC) —  Davenbelle 23:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Reported by: Davenbelle 23:53, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• other IPs used for the same reverts (<= 3x): 83.219.159.8 (talk · contribs), 200.181.111.106 (talk · contribs), 61.131.63.210 (talk · contribs), 219.93.72.38 (talk · contribs) (reported above w/4x);

• see also: 85.99.245.252 (talk · contribs).

— Davenbelle 23:53, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Move of Current events

I've reported this on ViP as well but seeing as it is a high profile page, I'm posting it here Shade1 (talk · contribs) has moved Current events to Weird events. I'm not sure whether as a normal user I can just use the move function to move it back without screwing stuff up. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can. The only problem is that it leaves a redirect behind, but that's harmless. Tag the redirect for speedy deletion afterwards.-gadfium 01:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it protected against page moves? Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, but it is now. — Dan | Talk 23:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone (II)

Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:57, 13 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:44, 13 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:13, 13 May 2005
• 4th revert: 14:19, 13 May 2005
• 5th revert: 14:26, 13 May 2005

Reported by: Mark¹ 07:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

I can only find 4 reverts. no matter blocked for 24 hoursGeni 08:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Alyeska

Three revert rule violation on Peregrine class starship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Alyeska (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 02:11, 13 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:05, 13 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:15, 13 May 2005
• 4th revert: 16:31, 13 May 2005

Reported by: AlistairMcMillan 16:39, 13 May 2005

Comments:

• 4 revert is a complex revert but a bit of wiki markup is pretty minor comapeerd to the other changes being made so blocked for 12 hours. Geni 13:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

User: 158.123.252.2

158.123.252.2 (talk · contribs) has been vandalising articles - when I warned him he replied by vandalising my User page. Assistance would be appreciated. Guettarda 16:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

• Please use WP:VP for vandalism reports. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mr Tan (I)

Three revert rule violation on Goh Chok Tong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr Tan (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [DiffLink Time]
• 2nd revert: [DiffLink Time]
• 3rd revert: [DiffLink Time]
• 4th revert: [DiffLink Time]

Because of problems with the Wikipedia servers, all my attempts to get diffs have failed (I'll try again later). The page history is at [33].

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

blocked for 12 hours BrokenSegue 01:44, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

User:The Number and User:Sollogfan alleged sockpuppetry

Both are problem users, whose contributions to Wikipedia consist mainly in the airing of grievances. Both have shown similar edit behavior in the past, especially in connection with the Sollog article. They have been accused of being a sockpuppet pair, and User:The Number has been the subject of an RFC, which had seemingly fizzled out when The Number announced they were leaving the project for good. The Number has since returned and become quite active over the past couple of days, trying to defend himself against accusations of sockpuppetry. Sollogfan has pursued the same agenda more aggressively, engaging in vandalism and personal attacks repeatedly, which he/she perceives to be "retaliation" for having the {{sockpuppet}} template stuck on his/her user page.

One possible way to resolve this dispute would be to conclusively prove or disprove that The Number (talk · contribs) and Sollogfan (talk · contribs) are indeed sockpuppets. This may turn out to be difficult, because of the vast number of sockpuppets and open proxies that have been involved in the Sollog case. I'm posting here not to report the ongoing vandalism, but to request assistance in resolving the sockpuppet issue. If this requires filing for arbitration, please let me know. --MarkSweep 21:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a tricky one if The Number hasn't edited in the past week - it's difficult to check before that - David Gerard 23:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

They've both edited in the past couple of days: Special:Contributions/The Number, Special:Contributions/Sollogfan. --MarkSweep 03:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Note fairly nasty personal attack here. [34] -Ashley Pomeroy 09:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of the recent activity from these two accounts, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. --MarkSweep 09:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

They're both in the UK, but that's about all that can be said. However, both appear to be pure trolling and personal attack accounts, and those generally get blocked without much controversy - David Gerard 14:05, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Hamidifar

Three revert rule violation on Iranian physics news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Hamidifar (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 18:55, May 13, 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:07, May 13, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:18, May 13, 2005
• 4th revert: 19:37, May 13, 2005

Reported by: android↔talk 01:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iranian physics news, which started all this; WP:VIP, various sections, where Hamidifar accuses other editors of vandalism simply for adding a VfD tag, restoring the VfD tag, and voting to delete his article; User talk:Hamidifar, where I attempted to explain applicable Wikipedia policies and conventions to Hamidifar, and was apparently ignored (I also warned him about the 3RR prior to his 4th revert). User is convinced there is a vast conspiracy afoot to delete his article; he has made numerous accusations of collusion and sockpuppetry. I believe there is a language barrier issue here, but attempts to communicate calmly have failed, and Hamidifar is very belligerent. He may be a newbie, but I attempted to explain policies to him and warned him of the 3RR.
  • Some vandals that i have reported their names in the Valdalism have attacked to my scientific article because they do not like it. I think the validity of a scietific article is based on its scientific background and in the history of science there are always people who tried to cencor a scietific paper or thought, but they couldn't. I requested immediate vprotected command to protect this scientific paper from these vandals and until that day I never let them place the suspecious vote in front of it. If you are there to work for science and a history of science, please have it in mind that there are some who are not scientists but they decide about scientific pages and remove them. They gather some negative votes from different accounts and frinds to do whatever they want in the name of law. I will continue to delete the VDF until I get the protection/or you officially remove the page. In this case I will write the entire story to IPN. There are a lot of Scientists who read it and understand this HIDDEN networking in wikipedia!!!! User:Hamidifar 02:09, 14 May 2005
    • (copied across from WP:VIP) I've had a good, detailed look at the history of the vfd for this page. There has been vandalism, but it has been in the opposite direction to that stated, in that most of it was done by User:216.16.237.110 - including attempts to alter votes to make it look like the original nominator for deletion was supporting keeping the site (see [35]) (Roozbeh's original nomination was finally removed completely, as was a later one, but he same anon [36] (later reverted)). The same anon also amended comments "Signed" (i.e., by name but not username) by at least two other contributors to the debate. One or two of the moves by others were a little heavy-handed, such as the automatic assumption that anonymous votes are not counted - the rule states : Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. However, given the machinations of 216.16.237.110, it would be fair to assume a certain amount of bad faith. (It is suggested in the page history that this is User:Mansari, although the anon's editing is so all-over-the-place that anything is possible.). Accusations are flying thick and fast, and this probably requires arbitration, but the listed users are clearly not vandals. Grutness...wha? 02:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • (Additional comment by TenOfAllTrades) I just reverted Hamidifar's latest change to Iranian physics news; he removed the VfD template again and added {{vprotected}} in its place. ([37], 21:52) I have added a note asking him not to do this on his Talk page. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and he's done it again. ([38], 21:57) --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Urchid

Three revert rule violation on Dhimmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Urchid (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [39]
• 2nd revert: [40]
• 3rd revert: [41]
• 4th revert: [42]

Reported by: Yuber^(talk) 03:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

I think this guy may be a sockpuppet, but I'm going to assume good faith and say he just doesn't know the 3RR. Yuber^(talk) 03:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I chose to block that user (24 hrs) rather than issuing a warning due to his/her nonexistent participation on the respective talk page. El_C 08:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC) – As User:Urchid correctly pointed out to me, this is a bogus 3RR notice. I seem to have mistaken him with User:ElKabong in the article's history and misread the above. My apologies to him/her, I will read more closely next time. El_C 12:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag

Three revert rule violation on Mordechai Vanunu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]
• 5th revert: [47] (stands as current revision, so as soon as article is edited, this diff link will no go to the edit in question)

Reported by: BLANKFAZE | (что??) 03:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User being blocked for 12h, as it is his first offence. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

User:SummerFR

OK, I know this is technically a 3RR, but the main issues are other, especially that the ArbCom seem quite keen to deal with the civility issues of this user. Compare SummerFR'S rejected and somewhat notorious Request For Arbitration and also Tony Sidaway's comment here. 205.161.226.189 is obviously User:SummerFR editing anonymously. I blocked her for 24 hours for manifold reverts within a few hours at Jeb Bush, with a message to her talk page. It turns out that she's editing from a dynamic IP, and she now continues energetically to revert from 205.161.226.71. If everything she has access to can be blocked for a while, that would be nice; if not, I suppose we'll manage, I don't think the ArbCom will leave her at large for very long. She has turned Jeb Bush into hagiography, and please note the aggressiveness of her edit summaries. FreplySpang has e-mailed Sannse that SummerFR is baaaaack. --Bishonen | talk 04:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

$ whois 205.161.226.189

Sprint SPRINT-BLKE (NET-205-160-0-0-1)

205.160.0.0 - 205.163.255.255

Sprint-United Telephone of Florida SPRINT-CDA1E0-6 (NET-205-161-224-0-1)

205.161.224.0 - 205.161.239.255

Naples Free Net 205-161-226NAFRENET (NET-205-161-226-0-1)

205.161.226.0 - 205.161.226.255

That's dynamic, but it's a total of 254 IP addresses. Block the /24 as appropriate, being sure to stay around in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 13:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Coming in now from 205.245.14.162, see [48] FreplySpang (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a technical suggestion for a mechanism to help deal with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools - see WP:AN#POV-pushers with DHCP pools. Noel (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Zivinbudas

Three revert rule violation on Indo-European Languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [49]
• 2nd revert: [50]
• 3rd revert: [51]
• 4th revert: [52]

Reported by: AJD 15:39, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• blocked for 12 hours the final revert is lsightly complex but since it is olny move the postion of something in a list i've decided to blockGeni 10:31, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Legion of Trolls

I've blocked this user indefinitely as a sock or attempted imitation of Entmoot of Trolls/142/whatever we're calling him. I say this mostly so that the usual suspects can call me a petty tyrant. Snowspinner 03:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to call you anything, but I do wish you'd explain exactly what makes you think this is a reincarnation. Other people with "troll" in their user names have edited for a long time (although I think usually they don't end up well), and I think also the ArbCom (it may have been Jimbo) has said having "troll" in one's user name is not in itself grounds for being blocked or banned. Everyking 03:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Drink! --Calton | Talk 03:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

"X of Trolls" is a bit more flagrant - or, at least, a closer mirror of Entmoots. Furthermore, he arrived and began posting Entmoots-like claims about the creativity of trolls, and went straight for policy pages. So an obvious sock posting Entmoots-like claims with a name in the same pattern as Entmoots - hence the ban. Snowspinner 03:46, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

You think it's obvious, but I don't. So is it still obvious? I mean, it may be obvious from your perspective, but that doesn't make it so obvious as to be uncontroversial. Everyking 03:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh! Yase, here we go! I may have had one too many of these Drinks!, but I would have been more than satisfied with troll as an explanation. That you're able to tie it to one specific person only serves to impress me, but is otherwise, impertinent. El_C 04:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

If I expected it to be uncontroversial, I wouldn't have posted it here. Snowspinner 04:05, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Then that raises another question, to me. If something is likely to be controversial, shouldn't it be discussed first? Everyking 04:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It dosen't raise that question to me. It isn't just having troll in the name, as you seem to be suggesting, it's the name in combination with the contributions which are clearly indicative of disruption in the making. El_C 04:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm seeing one edit that made a legit point, and two edits that were somewhat questionable but still made intelligent points and could have been incorporated somewhere. Definitely not what I would call serious disruption. Anyway, the user will probably still come back, so why not be welcoming and considerate instead of doing things that will likely lead to further alienation? Everyking 04:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Crunch, crunch. Maybe, if and/or when that user wishes to discuss his/her grievences in a mature fashion, without the troll name/contributions melodramatics, I could see that POINT. Otherwise, as I said, it's disruption in the making. El_C 04:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure that is in fact an immature way of expressing one's grievances, and even if it was, that doesn't mean the grievances shouldn't be heard. If you ask me, throwing down a block like that just confirms much of what trolls complain about. And anyway, I'm not so unconditionally opposed to disruption as you; I think a little disruption (more accurately defined as dissent here) isn't necessarily a bad thing. So I don't see the sense in opposing something purely on the grounds of disruption. Everyking 06:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The grievences were heard —I, at least, was duely enlightned— though since the new user had troll in their name, somehow took them less seriously as I would otherwise. El_C 06:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose they were very briefly heard, but the guy got banned for expressing them. Come on, now. That's a problem. Everyking 07:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a problem. They were heard briefly because and s/he got banned for being a troll. El_C 07:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That is not in itself a valid reason to be banned. Policy votes were held over this last year, and the votes went against allowing sysops to ban trolls (by the way, I actually voted in favor of the proposals). Everyking 07:13, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No, obviously not, we're still having this conversation, I should have been blocked long ago. But let's not play with semantics. El_C 08:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

C'mon, the User's first edit was The ArbCom Cabal and the rogue admins will behave how they like regardless of how the 'community' votes. Clearly a returning sock puppet with an axe to grind, clear trolling. RickK 05:16, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Everyking is disputing that, rather, suggesting that we should try to be its friend first. :) El_C 05:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this a few times. There was a vote on this a while back, the community clearly voted not to make 'trolling' a blockable offense, or to endorse a definition. Nevertheless, people freqently get blocked for it. Yes, the name is provocative, but perhaps not undully, given the behavior of some admins. Intrigue 07:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

And as he said: "the rogue admins will behave how they like regardless of how the 'community' votes"...oh, my head hurts. Everyking 07:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is probably superfluous, but I'd still like to say it: YHBT. YHL. HAND. The only question open now is who is on the trolling, and who is on the losing side. JRM · Talk 08:12, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Mixedfolks

Somebody seems to have MOVEd the Wikipedia:Sandbox to Mixedfolks. Do we care about the edit history of the sandbox, or can we let this go? RickK 05:52, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Sandbox has been moved a million times. Of all pages to move, the Sandbox is the least of my worries. Let the newbies/vandals have a ball with moving this; it's easy enough to move back and delete the redirect. If it keeps them from moving the rest, I'll be happy. JRM · Talk 08:15, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Oh, all this is not to say the user doing the move shouldn't be slapped on the wrist and blocked if they persist in doing it, of course. Testing is one thing, being a dick is another. JRM · Talk 08:26, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

But the problem is not that we have lost the edit history of the Sandbox so much, as that the edit history of Mixedfolks is hundreds of Sandbox edits. RickK 08:48, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Urrrk. What the hell happened here? Did someone just recreate the sandbox instead of moving the Mixedfolks article back? What a mess. I say delete all the sandbox revisions from the Mixedfolks history. This is not a GFDL violation since neither the current Sandbox nor the current Mixedfolks article have any content in common with those revisions; they are not derived works by any stretch of the imagination. (And even if I'm wrong, nobody's gonna sue.) JRM · Talk 10:14, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

User:Vviki

Three revert rule violation on Pope Benedict XVI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st revert: [53]
• 2nd revert: [54]
• 3rd revert: [55]

At this point, I warned her/him of the 3 revert rule, but then came the fourth revert (it is notable that this occurred right after my posting on his Talk page, so they probably hadn't read my comments at this point.

• 4th revert: [56]

He/she then blanked the 3 revert warning from his/her Talk page without comment or reply. RickK 08:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Statistics

A troll whose sole purpose seems to be to stir up trouble. RickK 09:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, what the hell? That was totally uncalled for. El_C 09:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, what are you referring to? RickK 20:51, 15 May 2005

User:Statistics' personal attack. El_C 22:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

RickK, you deleted my comment which gave a user's factual edit history, taken from Wikipedia's own records, because you called that a "personal attack". My listing of facts taken from Wikipedia's own records were in answer to the blocking of another user based on his edit history.

You don't call blocking based on edit history a personal attack, but you call my noting that others have a similar edit history to the user blocked a "personal attack". Then you label me a troll, without listing any factual basis, but you don't consider that a personal attack.

Is your contention that some editors are above any criticism, even objectively pointing out their numbers of edits?

You're not hurting me when you delete my comments, but you are depriving anyone who reads this of an alternate view. By what right do you decide what Wikipedia gets to read, and what gets censored? Statistics 09:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to delete personal attacks. Your entire raison d'etre is to make personal attacks on other users, in particular, Snowspinner. RickK 20:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think you have to go way out on a limb to say that posting some factual statistics is personally attacking someone. No personal attacks isn't a policy meant to stifle meaningful discussion about users; it's only meant to curb excessive and counterproductive hostility. I remember once User:Calton compiled a whole bunch of statistics on me regarding my edit history on a certain article, which supposedly illustrated that I was somehow dominating the article (never mind that I was the only one with an interest in the subject matter—you might expect me to have made the most edits, huh?), and not only was that considered OK, several other users made a point of repeating those statistics frequently as if they were some kind of evidence against me. So what is the difference? Everyking 20:57, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

[For the record: my comment, deleted by RickK, was in response to the blocking of a editor based on the fact that that editor's first edits were to Wikipedia policy pages: Deleted Personal Attack El_C 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)]

If I deleted a comment of yours, El C, it was entirely unintentional, and I apologize for that. I was trying to delete the personal attacks that Statistics insists on making all over the place. RickK 20:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

You didn't Rick, someone separated the comments (the above small print is a notice for my deletion of User:Statistics' personal attack which you reverted twice — anything in normal text is, in fact, his/her words), so no need for an apology. And I fully agree with you that the notice board is not the place for personal attacks masquerading as a Statistical Abstract. El_C 22:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of sockputtetry or trolling?

comments below censored by both RickK and El C. Tsk tsk. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner tells us that User:Legion of Trolls "went straight for policy pages" suggesting that that is indicative of either trolling or reincarnation. RickK says "Clearly a returning sock puppet with an axe to grind, clear trolling."

It should be noted that on Snowspinner's very first day at Wikipedia, on 18 April 2004, Snowspinner himself made 16 edits to the Wikipedia namespace: 10 of those to Votes_for_Deletion, and two each to Wikipedia:Cleanup, Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship. (Ironically, one of Snowspinner's votes was to argue against a deleting a page RickK had listed for deletion.)

Do most new users know about Votes for Deletion, much less the much more obscure Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship? Ask yourself how soon into your Wikipedia career it was when you first learned about those pages. Statistics 08:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)]

My first edits happened to be to the VFD as well. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 23:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It took me probably two weeks to find Vfd, and I only found Requests for adminship when someone else happened to mention it. Of course you could go through all the mumbo-jumbo pages and eventually find links to them, but they're not on any of the "things new people can help with!" pages to my knowledge. Suspicious this is, yes... Master Thief Garrett 07:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Your insinuations under the guise of 'facts' are intentionally inflamatory. I deleted them, too. You incorrectly cite a reason for the block ("edit history" per se.) as grounds for directing them against Snowspinner. I dispute that. Let me spell it out for you: Username = Legion of trolls. Edits: 1. Wikipedia talk:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; 2. Wikipedia:What is a troll; Wikipedia:What is a troll. El_C 09:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

IMO, you and RickK are either i) falling for a troll, or ii) dancing on the line (if not over it) in deleting a comment that basically does nothing but cite the same kind of data others are using against LoT. Yes, it's intended to be critical, but so what? Criticism NotEQ personal attack. In deleting this stuff, you all are at best just making more trouble, and at worst falling for a troll. Just let it be. Noel (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Hear hear. On this side: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. On that side: don't feed the trolls. You can walk either way, but censoring comments is neither here nor there. JRM · Talk 14:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

El C, I have no problem with your disputing the reasons for the block. You have every right to state your opinions on the matter.

But one of the reasons given for the block was that the user, and I quote, "went straight for policy pages".

Why is it that you are allowed to state your opinions, but you delete my statements of facts? Is calling my statement of facts "insinuations... intentionally inflammatory" not a personal attack by you against me? And why do you put "facts" in scare-quotes, when the data is taken directly from Wikipedia's own records?

According to your user page, you are "an historian specializing in British, African, Chinese, and Middle-Eastern history." Don't historians believe in free and open discussions without censorship? Statistics 10:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find the statistics interesting and I doubt that I'm alone. Please don't try to silence those who raise legitimate (if perhaps unpleasant for some of us) questions with accusations of trolling. I hope no one has already gone and banned this user. Everyking 13:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Rick, I'm going to slip in ahead of you (wau, again today) and note in response to Everyking, that on 17:40, 15 May 2005 Tony Sidaway blocked "User:Statistics" with an expiry time of indefinite (Created for the purpose of trolling Wikipedia) — Good call, Tony! El_C 23:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That is absolutely outrageous. I won't get into a blocking war, but I do register the strongest possible protest. We must learn to tolerate those who disagree with us, and those we do not like. Everyking 23:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Too bad you weren't willing to extend the same courtesy to anyone having the temerity to edit your (and I mean that possessive explicitly) Ashlee Simpson articles or you wouldn't have gotten spanked for your behavior. And to save you the time, I'll note no one believes your denials -- no one -- and no one will believe the blustery denial that, as sure as the sun rises in the East, will follow this posting. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I would say that, in the course of this discussion, that is the closest thing to an actual personal attack that I've seen yet. Everyking 00:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact mixed with criticisms of personal behavior and predictions of behavior based upon long-observed precedent. I would say that being unable to distinguish between statements of fact and criticism inconvenient to your worldview and of personal attacks is part of your problem. I would say that finding it acceptable to offer up unsolicted whines and complaints and not have them considered personal attacks is part of your problem. I would say that believing you are somehow immune to personal criticism of your behavior but is something you feel perfectly entitled to indulge in yourself or have done by others against your perceived enemies is part of your problem. I would say that thinking that disguising personal attacks by phrasing them passive-aggressively would pass muster is part of your problem. I would say that you seem to believe that gaming the system and "gaming the refs" are acceptable ways to defy consensus and policy is part of your problem. --Calton | Talk 00:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Gee, why am I not surprised that you are happy to see personal attacks against other people with whom you disagree? What do these so-called statistics serve, other than to try to stir up resentment against Snowspinner? Who is this person who comes in with the ID of Statistics and starts creating these statistics? Why was he/she posting as an anon on the Village Pump with the same sort of nonsense statistics and has now created an account? What is gained by this information? RickK 20:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The block log is available to anyone. You'll be pleased to know the sky hasn't come down. While the only statistics I care about are these, I don't mind if someone gathers other ones. I would ask that they not be posted here, however. A link to a user page will do just fine. Reserve this page for specific comments on specific conduct, not for suggestive data dumps. JRM · Talk 14:01, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I'd respond to all of this, but I did it before, on my first RFA. So here's the text with which I responded to HCheney when he asked why I edited RFA my first day:

The edit was a non-voting edit in the process of discussing UninvitedCompany's nomination. There was some discussion over the fact that UninvitedCompany had previously used a different account. Someone mentioned a "reason for concern that they didn't feel comfortable going into." Another person asked what this reason was. I speculated that it was the use of a different account that had been mentioned elsewhere in the discussion. As for why I was on the page so early in my Wikilife, it's linked to off of Community Portal, and I was on Community Portal because it seemed like a very sensible page for a user to hit on his first day. I saw the link to RfA, I followed it out of curiosity, I saw the discussion, I attempted to clarify. There's really nothing sinister at all about it. (In fact, it's possible that the edit in question wasn't even originally made under my name - my April 18th edits were, I believe, all IP edits that I had assigned to my username later on.) Snowspinner 03:09, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

I also need not point out that the criticism is a straw man of my argument - immediate gravitation to policy pages is one thing. Immediate gravitation to obscure policy pages while ranting about an arbcom cabal is another. VfD and RFA are pages regularly linked to - VfD off of RC, RFA off of Community Portal, both sensible places for a newbie to go. Furthermore, one of my first edits was [57]. from an IP, because I was hesitant about the whole idea of editing the page, so I looked for somewhere to warn the people in charge that I had removed some content in case I wasn't actually allowed, and found RC patrol. Presumably I found the other pages while stumbling around as well.

As for the rest, I point out that User:Statistics resembles User:orthogonal in most regards, that he has clearly arrived to disruptively make a point instead of enter a discussion (Which would be better achieved under his own username), and that his status as a not-banned user can probably be ascribed to his departing Wikipedia when an arbcom case was raised against him and coming back as sockpuppets, not on any good conduct.

If y'all wanna listen to this crap, I can't stop you, but I can't help but notice that most of the people who are seem to have already made up their minds about me. Snowspinner 14:49, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

You're being too sensitive (or something). Just because I think it's OK to post discussion of LoT's history doesn't mean I listen much to it - or to the posting of yours. So you don't need to either contrast your record (or justify it, not quite sure what you had in mind); you've accumulated a long one since then anyway (this last observation is not to be read as pro or con). (FWIW: I was far more taken by the contents of their first post - anyone who starts out with The ArbCom Cabal and the rogue admins, you know they are not a new user.) Again, don't feel the trolls! Noel (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I've assessed the situation and here's my conclusion. Any conflict involving RickK will likely be resolved by removing RickK's opponent(s) from the equation. Why? A simple cost-benefit analysis suggests that RicK's extensive track record is more valuable; at least, that's how I think the decision-makers will view such conflicts. Fairness? Justice? Wikipedia is governed by popularity. So, I impersonally advise RickK's opponents: step off. Adraeus 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? Please, tell me this is a joke. If you disagree with RickK you will be 'removed from the equation'? Intrigue 16:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course it's a joke. He meant Snowspinner. JRM · Talk 16:16, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Adraeus's "simple cost-benefit analysis" consists in, but if it's number of edits to actual articles, that is building the encyclopedia, then perhaps Adraeus would likewise argue that RickK shouldn't argue with Everyking. But then, both of them are trumped by a couple of anons, one whose edits are mainly about rock stars, and one whose edits are exclusively about airports:

		Percentage of Edits to:					Average Edits per Day to:					Number of Edits to:					Total:				Editing Period:
Editor		Articles	Talk	User	Other		Articles	Talk	User	Other		Articles	Talk	User	Other		Edits	Days	per Day		From	To
RickK		42%	35%	14%	9%		33.82	28.24	11.25	7.61		418	349	139	94		1000	12.36	80.91		00:43, 3 May 2005	09:20, 15 May 2005
Everyking		90%	2%	2%	6%		154.63	3.77	3.26	9.77		902	22	19	57		1000	5.83	171.43		18:29, 9 May 2005	14:29, 15 May 2005
68.197.107.71		96%	4%	0%	0%		8.49	0.37	0.00	0.00		913	40	0	0		953	107.49	8.87		02:40, 28 Jan 2005	15:24, 15 May 2005
131.204.194.154		100%	0%	0%	0%		14.81	0.00	0.00	0.00		1000	0	0	0		1000	67.52	14.81		02:34, 3 Mar 2005	15:59, 9 May 2005

Statistics 16:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Image:Wau.gif El_C 21:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, here we go. Statistics gets his nose tweaked, and he decides to lash back. Again, these "statistics" are a propos of nothing. RickK 20:51, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wading in where I shouldn't, but 33.8 and 154.6 edits per day to "actual articles" (which you suggest might be the most important) are hardly trumped by 8.49 or 14.81. The fact that their percentages are lower simply means that RickK and Everyking are more involved in the community than these two anons - as you'd expect, since anons usually haven't joined the community. As to what the above statistics mean, they're an intersting exercise in seeing who is involved in the community and who does lots of edits. Nothing more. (PS - I have 1000 edits in the last 10.76 days; 65% to articles, 6% to talk, 7% to user and 22% to "other"; that's an average of 60.2, 5.9, 6.7, and 20.0 edits per day respectively. Fascinating.) Grutness...wha? 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone (III)

Three revert rule violation on Contras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Trey Stone (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 00:48, 15 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:51, 15 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:40, 15 May 2005
• 4th revert: 11:34, 15 May 2005

Also a partial revert at: 05:41, 15 May 2005

Reported by: Viajero 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is the sixth 3RR violation by this user this week. (c.f. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Trey_Stone#24-hour_3RR_blocks)
  • blocked for 24 BrokenSegue 12:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mirv

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:What is a troll (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:What is a troll|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mirv (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [58]
• 2nd revert: [59]
• 3rd revert: [60]
• 4th revert: [61]
• 5th revert: [62]

Reported by: Snowspinner 14:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Four removals of the semi-policy tag, no attempt at discussion or at joining the previous discussion between Zocky and me on how to phrase this. The last one replaces it with "rejected" instead of simply deleting it - still a removal of the tag, however. The first is a revert reopening an edit war of which [63] was the last edit. Snowspinner 14:22, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, what was the reason for trying to remove it? Is it contested that the page is in fact "semi-policy" (whatever that is)? Everyking 14:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That seems beside the point for a 3RR listing. Snowspinner 14:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Two of those are indeed reverts, clearly marked with the sysop rollback summary. Two are edits; the first edit might be considered a revert to the version Snowspinner cites in his commentary if one doesn't examine the diff too closely. The last edit is by no stretch of the imagination a revert. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that some other people came along on the page since that edit war stopped does not mean that reopening it four days later is somehow not a revert. Similarly, removing a tag and replacing it with something new that communicates the same point is a revert in intent. So if you remove the tag and replace it with a new wording of "I don't like this tag" every time, you can edit war indefinitely? Somehow, I think not. Snowspinner 14:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • So? Even if you count the first one as a revert, that's still only three. I'll note that replacing disagreeable text with something more acceptable is about the only way to stop edit wars, and I'll further note that I'm the only one doing that—you and your cronies are just blindly reverting. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes. And adding the rejected tag was a very, very helpful move towards a mutually agreeable solution. Also, you might have tried the talk page - there's already a very nice discussion there. Finally, I would ask that you not accuse people of being my cronies - it might be taken as a personal attack. Snowspinner 15:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
        • Ooh, is this why you insisted that Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks was "semi-policy"? So you could block people for saying that someone is your longtime close friend or companion? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:04, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
          • No, and I have to say, I think it's rather bad faith to suggest I did. That said, I apologize for my own bad faith in thinking that you were implying partiality to cronies especially as evidenced in the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications - it seemed clear in context, but apparently was not your intent. Snowspinner 15:07, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
• From the outside, this doesn't quite seem a 3RR. It seems irresponsible of two such established members of the WP community to behave in this way, but I can't quite make it 3RR. It is close to being so, but I think Mirv's intent was to find a mutually acceptable phrasing. I don't think he handled it well, but I think he was acting in good faith. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I should probably note that [64] exists on the talk page and pretty clearly sums up my points on the issue, and that Mirv has yet to contribute to the talk page. I say this mostly as defense that I did discuss the issue, and that, seeing no new contributions to the discussion from Mirv, I held my view. Snowspinner 15:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't make myself quite clear. In your case, Snowspinner, and as part of Mirv's, I think the use of the admin revert tool was unjustified. In addition, I suggest that, next time, you encourage talk by initiating it. Assume good faith, right? Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 15:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

User:85.206.194.120, User:85.206.193.46

Three revert rule violation on Indo-European languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 85.206.194.120 (talk · contribs) and similar IPs ( http://takas.lt/ range):

• 1st revert: 11:23, 15 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:48, 15 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:30, 15 May 2005
• 4th revert: 14:43, 15 May 2005
• did his 5th revert now, and counting

Reported by: dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I find myself edit-warring a little bit, this lovely May Sunday: After two blocks for 3RRvios, User:Zivinbudas decided to go back into anonymity and is now re-dialling after every third revert. Rather too obvious to evade the 3RR, I'd say, so a little reminder that we're not entirely stupid may be in order. dab (ᛏ) 14:58, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  I've put a few hours' block on the /16 - David Gerard 15:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

  I guess the block has expired, since he's back and reverting yet again [65]. AJD 06:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  Short blocks as needed then. Note that a /16 is a significant address space and the blocking admin should make sure they're available to unblock in case of collateral damage - David Gerard 08:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  he's still at it, and seems most unwilling to learn. As he appears to be restricted to 85.206.193 and .194, a 10 bit block should suffice, i.e. 85.206.192.0/10. That way, collateral damage will be minimized, and longer blocks should be possible. For now, I take it upon myself to block Zivinbudas for 24h, and the /10 range for 8 hours. dab (ᛏ) 10:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  I'm getting "invalid IP range" for 85.206.192.0/10. Should that be 85.206.192.0/22? please advise, I don't want to block half the internet by mistake :) dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  He's at it again from a new IP address.--Wiglaf 11:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  I gave the /16 range another 4 hours for now. He'll get tired of this. dab (ᛏ) 13:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  Back again, this time at 85.206.194.13 and possibly 85.206.208.64. AJD 19:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  EEK, YES!! /10 is a 22-bit range! /22 is a 10-bit range. Use range blocks with great care! - David Gerard 00:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  thanks :) luckily, some smart developer seems to have built in a safeguard. I'll try the /22 on him if he persists. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• The user is back!--Wiglaf 09:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes he is. I can't help but wonder whether he's User:Zivinbudas having logged out, but I can't prove it. (Apparently that's common knowledge.) Anyway:

• 1st revert: 11:19 16 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:34 16 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:38 16 May 2005
• 4th revert: 06:42 17 May 2005
• 5th revert: 08:03 17 May 2005
• 6th revert: 08:10 17 May 2005
• 7th revert: 08:43 17 May 2005
• 8th revert: 10:47 17 May 2005 (added by Angr/_comhrá 11:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

New 24 hour period begins:

• 1st revert: 11:37 17 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:43 17 May 2005 (last two added by Angr/_comhrá 11:51, 17 May 2005 (UTC))

Is there any way we can have his reversions considered vandalism so that we can keep undoing them without violating the 3RR ourselves? --Angr/_comhrá 10:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I suppose any user that should be blocked becaus of 3RR, but cannot because of considerations of collateral damage (IP ranges) can be rolled back with impunity. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

anyway, I tried the /22 10-bit range block on him now, for 24 hours. I also recommended he open an rfc against me and others who keep reverting him. I suppose even the dimmest of editors realize at some point that stubborn reverting gets them nowhere. dab (ᛏ) 12:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

New set of reverts:

• 1st revert: 12:52 18 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 05:26 19 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 05:56 19 May 2005
• 4th revert: 10:34 19 May 2005

Is there any point in tracking him anymore?--Wiglaf 10:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Logged in again as User:Zivinbudas, he's violated it at Vilnius University too:

• 1st revert: 14:56 18 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:32 18 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:40 19 May 2005
• 4th revert: 11:02 19 May 2005

There is an RfC about him going on. --Angr/_comhrá 11:35, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Warned by dab and myself on the 19th of May. If he doesn't get the hint, I suppose that this will mean that he needs some time to cool down imposed on him. Rama 12:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's block of Pioneer-12, who isn't doing anything wrong.

I also mailed a copy of this to Wikien-L.

Pioneer-12 disputes the application of the GFDL to his signed contributions on talk namespace, a fact that only became apparent to me a few minutes ago, but he has continued to contribute disputed material to talk space.

To avoid further disputed material being contributed I have blocked him--I know this is going to be controversial because he hasn't really done anything "wrong", it's just a legal dispute between him and Wikipedia, so I'm not going to engage in arguments over this, but it seems to me like the best way to limit the potential damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this block. If a user refuses to accept WP licencing policy, he has no business editing anyway. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

He can pretend that it isn't so, but all his contributions - including to talk pages - are GFDL licensed. Since he has made legal threats, he should be reprimanded or blocked. Rhobite 17:13, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. By submitting comments he's already agreed to license them under the GFDL, but if there's an implied legal threat, block away. --W(t) 17:17, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

User:Mr Tan (II)

Three revert rule violation on Tsushima Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr Tan (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 03:58, 15 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 06:09, 15 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:12, 15 May 2005
• 4th revert: 15:59, 15 May 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: user was warned 15:54, 15 May 2005. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:33, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

blocking him for 24h. dab (ᛏ) 15:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I know that he's been blocked, but I'll add this anyway:

Three revert rule violation on Zanskar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr Tan (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 06:01, 15 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:57, 15 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:44, 15 May 2005
• 4th revert: 16:29, 15 May 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: user was warned 16:27, 15 May 2005. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if 3RR blocks can be cumulated, but 24h for each violation is the maximal (and, at the same time, customary) penalty. This additional violation just means that he'll get even shorter warnings in future cases of his violating the 3RR. dab (ᛏ) 16:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Convention is to make them concurrent, not consecutive. But yeah, smaller or no warnings or apologies would be in order if there's a next time - David Gerard 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)