Contents: June 21, 2005 - June 24, 2005

User:70.180.50.167[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 70.180.50.167 (talk · contribs):

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

Reported by: John Kenneth Fisher 00:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Non-encylopediac, POV, and repeatedly reverted when multiple users change it back. Also, 70.180.50.167 ignored attempt to discuss it on Talk page. --John Kenneth Fisher 00:36, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find what you are claiming the anon reverted to in the first listed revert.Geni 01:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, anon is reverting to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marriage&oldid=15436348 --John Kenneth Fisher 01:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

not identical. I have warned anon.Geni 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:CltFn and User:Diglewop[edit]

A new account CltFn (talk · contribs) is creating pages about book titles, and writing them in a way that appears to be purely commercial. See How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) as an example. S/he has also inserted a list of Daniel Pipes' books right into the middle of Daniel Pipes, and after it was deleted, and s/he was asked not to do it again, promptly reverted. What is the policy on pages that appear to advertise books, rather than describe them neutrally? I'm thinking of blanking/merging the contents, and redirecting the pages to the authors' articles, then protecting so s/he can't recreate them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:41, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also posting as Diglewop (talk · contribs) [5] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:07, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

And this is allowed per Wikipedia:Sock_puppet#Multiple accounts --CltFn 03:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Diglewop has caused some problems at Council on American-Islamic Relations, where he regularly inserts text such as "CAIR has instigated a vicious defamation campaign...", "CAIR launched a smear campaign against...", "CAIR has had some of its programs financed by the Wahhaby lobby", "CAIR has subscribed to a policy of wildly inflating the Muslim population count in the United States", section titles such as "CAIR's stifling of freedom of speech", etc. Now that he's accidentally exposed himself as a sockpuppet user, I think people need to keep an eye on him for more deceptiveness. Rhobite 05:21, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've checked through most of the contribs now, and both accounts are inserting a rightwing and/or anti-Islam POV with almost every edit. I've blanked the book pages and directed them to the authors' pages, and protected the redirects, and I'm in touch with CltFn about how to make them NPOV. I'm going to unprotect one so s/he can work on it. As they stand, they're basically just commercials for the publisher. Here are some examples, in case anyone wants to check whether I'm right to be concerned. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance: This dispute above could easily be resolved if SlimVirgin or perhaps a knowledgable admin can point to a wikipedia policy reference that states that

• list of Chapters in books are not permissible in pages about books?
• list of books in the authors page can only be at the end of the page of the author.
• Quotes by the author from the book are not permissible.

If there is no wikipedia policy that address these 3 points above then there is no issue and the pages should not be locked.--CltFn 03:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not that finely-grained. Contributions here are subject to common sense. It would be incorrect to assume that every contribution which doesn't explicitly break a rule is beneficial to the encyclopedia. I agree with SlimVirgin about the chapter lists - there is no reason for Wikipedia articles to list a book's table of contents. The information is meaningless without the actual book.

I think the books should have their own articles, if someone is going to go to the effort to actually write their own words. A copy of the TOC and a single quote doesn't make an article. Until someone bothers to write the actual article, it should be redirected. As you're a POV pusher with a history of using multiple accounts, I don't have much faith that you're the right person to write the articles, but feel free to prove me wrong. Rhobite 03:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite - that is your opinion, and I have my opinion too, and the two do not coincide that is why I am asking for WIKIPEDIA POLICY on the matter. That is the only thing that can break this dispute. You call me a POV pusher , as if you yourself are not pushing your own POV, but irregardless, what you think or I think is irrelevant, show me the wikipedia policy and let that be the standard. --CltFn 03:43, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy which states "thou shalt not include the entire table of contents of a book." That's the kind of issue we discuss and form a consensus. So let's discuss. I think the TOC conveys zero information - it's just a list of catchy chapter names. How do you feel that it benefits the reader to see the TOC? Rhobite 03:47, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Its a glimpse into the book but what does my opinion matter. If there is no policy against it then of what basis can an admin lock the page? Discuss it , change it, challenge it YES, but lock the page or blank it out??????--CltFn 03:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other issue about the pages containing only publisher's blurb and TOCs is that the chapter titles are sometimes themselves POV as in " Muslim by Any Other Name Blows Up Just the Same" from an Ann Coulter book. A list of such chapter titles on a page with no balancing criticism is inherently POV, and the policy that covers that is the NPOV policy, as well as Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and also the fact that we're not here to give free advertising. CltFn, I think if you want to show your good faith in this matter, you should choose one of the titles to work on, I'll unlock it, and then we can discuss this again in a few days once you've made it less POV. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here: I see no reason why a list of chapter titles should be automatically off-limits, and I think we're seeing an abuse of the "common sense" principle here (which is a stupid principle anyway, because no two people agree on what is common sense). Everyking 12:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlock all of them: No violation of Wikipedia policy =you have no right to lock them.

• The bottom line is there is no policy against chapter titles and you have no basis for blocking the page.
• Now if you want to discuss POV that is fine , take up specific points in the talk page of each article but you have not done so in any of the pages you have locked, you just went ahead and unilateraly locked them, not even a discussion.
• if there is no policy against chapter titles then you can't tell me that you will only unlock a page if I abide by your ARBITRARY personal rules
• if the politics of the pages rubs you the wrong way you certainly should not use your admin rights to impose your own views.

.--CltFn 04:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's right to keep the pages protected. If someone wants to write an article about one of these books, they should be allowed to do that. I think they should be unlocked, with the understanding that mere collections of quotes and TOCs will be removed and redirected. In this instance I agree with you CltFn. Rhobite 04:58, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I do agree with you, Rhobite, but I didn't trust CltFn not to revert the redirects, as she's reverted other editors efforts to reduce POV. My hope is that this will be very temporary. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:20, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'll add that I think you should take SlimVirgin up on her offer, pick a book and actually write an article about it using your own words. Rhobite 05:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

As admins, we're allowed to exercise our own judgment in certain areas, and I'm exercising mine here for the following reasons: You're a new user. You're editing under multiple accounts, which was only discovered by accident. You're inserting rightwing and anti-Islam material into WP. You're deleting material from articles to make them suit your POV. You're deleting introductions from pages about rightwing authors, and replacing them with a list of books written by that author, as though you're their agent, and Wikipedia is a data dump or free-advertising host. You're creating pages about controversial books that contain no criticism, and only publishers' blurbs and tables of contents, which raises copyright and POV concerns. When your changes are deleted, you revert. When notes are left on your talk page, and the article's talk page, querying the reversion, you ignore them. When other editors put the NPOV tag on your book pages, you remove it. You've engaged in very little, or no, discussion with your fellow editors, but have continued on your merry way as though no one else exists. For all these reasons, I see you as a problem editor, and for that reason, I have redirected your book titles to the authors' pages, and locked the redirects so you can't revert them.

We can do one of three things, your choice: either (a) I'll unlock one of the articles so you can work to make it less POV, and if that works, I'll unlock the rest; (b) I can nominate the articles on Votes for deletion (VfD), which might mean they're deleted entirely, and if you try to recreate them, they'll be protected against you doing that; or (c) I can move the pages to your user subspace, as Guettarda suggested, and you can work on them there until they're ready for the main namespace. Take your pick. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:12, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

You are just listing a bunch of generalizations . What are the specifics?????? Most of the book pages have no discussion in them , they are RED TABS. So why are you LYING about this? Why are you presenting these accusations out of context to make it seem like you are right and I am wrong. --CltFn 13:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just Unlock all the pages and follow the standard wikipedia edit process. If you see something you want to challenge discuss it on the relevant talk page or make changes to it. Just follow the wikipedia process.Its that simple . --CltFn 12:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Might I point out that Wikipedia is neither a democracy, nor a bureaucracy? SlimVirgin makes a reasonable case about what might be going wrong here, and offers you a viable solution. The only argument I've seen from your side so far is roughly akin to "this is not covered by policy and therefore I can do whatever I want", which is fallacious. I do agree that SlimVirgin's arguments make it seem like she is right and you are wrong. But I am more than willing to consider the alternative. Please provide a couple of reasonable arguments for that alternative. Radiant_>|< 13:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion, it appears to me that lists of chapter titles are not useful information, and rather simply a vehicle for promoting an anti-Muslim viewpoint. NPOV summaries of the book contents would be of much more value, and if a reasonable amount of information on each book (e.g. at least two paragraphs) cannot be provided, it would make more sense to merge the information into the article about the author. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Request for admin assistance:[edit]

Can any Admin provide the wikipedia policy that supporst the assertion that:

• list of Chapters in books are not permissible in pages about books?
• list of books in the authors page can only be at the end of the page of the author.
• Fair use quotes by the author from the book are not permissible.

--CltFn 12:18, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope. Your move.Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 13:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RickK's talk page[edit]

RickK has deleted his own talk page - this means that anything you have ever written to Rick is unavailable. I brought this up on the mailing list and received some rude responses - fine, so I'll bring it up here. Rick isn't special. I wish he hadn't left, but he did. Along with his departure, he decided to erase a good chunk of his history here. I just don't think administrators should have the prerogative to delete the contents of their talk pages, while ordinary users have no such right. I am suggesting that Rick's talk page should be undeleted. I'm also suggesting that he be de-sysop'd, because (a) he left, so he doesn't need to be a sysop and (b) unfortunately, we don't know if he's going to delete something else.
So hey everyone, be rude to me, just shoot the messenger. Rhobite 05:45, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

His talk page is an important community resource, not his own property. Like you said on the mailing list, "notes, chat, evidence and information". silsor 05:52, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I won't be the one to undelete it though, because I don't want to put RickK through the hassle of quitting again when he comes back to revert my undeletion. silsor 05:54, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I think our normal practice is to delete user talk (and personal) pages on request when they leave. The user needs to put a speedy tag on their page(s). Admins should do the same, rather than deleting them themselves, but I'd be surprised if RickK is the first admin to delete his own pages. User:Fvw deleted his user page (but not his talk page) before leaving, and I'm not aware that anyone objected. I think RickK's decision to delete his talk page should be respected. I was thinking of posting a farewell message to him, but I was unable to because he had deleted that page and to recreate it would have been rude.

He should also be de-sysoped, not because he might run amok, but because we don't want permanently inactive sysop accounts sitting around, with the possibility that they might fall into the wrong hands. RickK has said he doesn't intend to ever return; I think it would be appropriate if he had to reapply for adminship if he changes his mind.-gadfium 06:04, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The policy I was looking for is at Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_delete_my_user_and_user_talk_pages.3F.-gadfium 06:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't really follow the argument that RickK will go mad and delete stuff and abuse his admin powers, and he certainly hasn't done anything to warrant desysoping, his admin privileges should be deactivated after the normal peroid of inactivity, which I believe is the process for inactive admins.--nixie 06:09, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's wrong to delete talk pages with non-trivial content. User pages, fine, but talk pages often contain valuable discussions about article content that shouldn't be just wiped from the wp-history like this. In the case of Rick his talk page had 11074 edits that now has dissapeared from the contribution history of everyone who wrote them. And, as is common on wp, many of those edits constitute half of many user-to-user discussions. They should be kept. To blank the page is of course fine, but not to delete it with history and all. Shanes 06:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The idea of removing inactive admins was proposed before and unfortunately not supported for the English Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 23#Requests for De-adminship due to inactivity). However, the policy on Meta is to remove admins after a certain period of inactivity, and to reconfirm their status every year (see meta:Admin#Policy for de-adminship) which seems to be working well there. A user announcing they are leaving the project should not be a reason to immediately de-admin them though. People do this all the time and then change their mind when they calm down. Hopefully Rick will too. Angela. 07:09, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is virtually certain that Rick will be back within a few days. Actions such as de-adminship in his absence would just be stirring up the pot by those who were rubbed up the wrong way by Rick. I am also fine with waiting a while before undeleting the talk page if that will also pour oil on troubled waters. Pcb21| Pete 07:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Given the amount of people who are still admins after being absent for over a year, I'd say it highly inappropriate to deadmin RickK when he's just been gone for a day. Also, I do believe consensus holds that a user can basically do whatever he wants within his own userspace (barring using it as a webhost, or copyvios), so I'd say RickK is well within his rights to delete something in his userspace. Including his talk page. Radiant_>|< 07:48, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• No, you are not allowed to delete them. If you read WP:SD: "Unless you are a sysop, it is not possible to delete your own user pages and subpages, so they must be listed here. If you are a sysop, it is recommended that you also list your pages here so they can be deleted by another sysop. For your main user or talk pages, you must list them here, not delete them yourself, to avoid the appearance that sysops can delete to hide negative comments, while others can't.". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So you're saying that he shouldn't have deleted his own talk page, but he should have asked someone else and that person should have deleted it. I do agree that that's a better way to go about it, but the end result is the same. Radiant_>|< 08:25, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, he should have asked. And the administrator making the decision would be allowed to overrule him and say that the userpage and/or talkpage contains important information and should stay. This is especially true for talkpages, which are not really your "own". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • The administrator making the decision would also be allowed to agree with his request and delete the page. If he had listed it, and if I had seen his request, I would have honoured it (as, I suspect, would many other admins). Any editor making such a request would normally have it honoured, and someone who has contributed that much doubly deserves to have such a request honoured. Noel (talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • In fact, if the decision of whether or not to delete the talkpage had been up to me, I would not have deleted it. At least not like it stands now. There is currently an ongoing RFC about RickK. I have no real opinion of whether an RFC at this time is appropriate or just plain spiteful, but under no circumstances would I delete the talkpage of a user who has an RFC filed against him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If RickK is serious about leaving, he should ask for de-admining, and for deletion of his user/talk page. I agree people should be allowed to delete their user pages, but their talk pages should stay. After all, these contain messages by other users, which are gfdl and all. So yes, I support undeletion of his talk page (but it can be blanked and protected). dab (ᛏ) 08:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The GFDL stuff is a red herring. We delete material every day that was contributed under the GFDL. As to the page, again, if he had listed it, and if I had seen his request, I would have deleted it (on the grounds that people who leave can ask for their pages to be deleted). So he short-circuited the process a bit. Big deal. People can do what they want on their talk pages, including deleting comments without archiving them (and let's be serious, nobody's going to look through that long a history to find things). It's not needed for evidence; there are no grounds to treat him differently and force him to keep a page in his user: space he wanted to see deleted. Noel (talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with Shanes and dab. Unprotect and blank with an away notice of some sort. His talk page contains text by other users, so I don't think it's okay to remove it. Also, they make up a fair chunk of several discussions which now miss a part of them. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • The point is now moot, as User:Geni undeleted the talk page history. Radiant_>|< 18:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Which was completely inappropriate, in my view: i) The request shouldn't have been acted on instantly, but after a wait, to give people time to express their opinion; ii) There is no rough consensus there to undelete. Noel (talk) 08:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • It was deleted out of process. There was no consensus to delete the page to begin with. Rhobite 08:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's true that it was deleted out of process, but there's no rquirement for consensus to delete a page in someone's User: space - all that's needed is a request by that user. Noel (talk) 08:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• there is no requirement for a consensus to undelete it either. If one admin can unilaterly delete it another can restor it. There is nothing in policy say that the undeletion of User:talk pages has to go through VFU.Geni 12:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:214.13.4.151[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Abortion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 214.13.4.151 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [16]
• 2nd revert: [17]
• 3rd revert: [18]
• 4th revert: [19]
• 5th revert: [20]

Reported by: Tznkai 06:50, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is not the first time. These links are for the whole series of links, usually without edit summaries. Not sure if I got it exactly right, but a quick count shows atleast 4 reversions.--Tznkai 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note. Added 5th revert. This may not be instantly familiar with people who do not follow this article, but these are slow and partial reversions of various kinds.--Tznkai 07:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you would be streaching the defintion of complex revert a little far to claim a 3RR violation.Geni 00:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Technically this anon never reverts, but just changes content to fit their POV, making similar changes repeatedly, definately frustrating for the editors of this article, I would have blocked but the situation is not clear cut.--nixie 00:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• so perhaphs it's time to try the wikipedia disspute resolution processs.Geni 01:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is already a RfC on this users conduct, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/214.13.4.151, maybe users involved should be encouraged to take steps to mediation or arbitration.--nixie 01:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) It appears that mediation has been requested.--nixie 01:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Immediate block requested[edit]

Could an Admin please block anonymous User:220.240.188.180, who is repeatedly vandalising the Schapelle Corby article. The user has been warned four times about vandalising articles.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 07:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 24 hours, although it looks like they've knocked off for the night anyway.-gadfium 08:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User name, also contributions[edit]

User:CrackMonster McFuckDemon, five minutes ago someone removed a pornographic item from the New Pages (within 30 seconds, and without leaving a trace in the refreshed New Pages!). Anyhoo, his other stuff ain't great, either. Bill 12:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I listed the username at RfC just before this post and they appear to have stopped (or been blocked). -- Longhair | Talk 12:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His username is in violation of the username policy, anyway. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 12:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• "13:19, Jun 21, 2005, Morwen blocked CrackMonster McFuckDemon (expires indefinite) (contribs) (unblock) (image vandal)". Radiant_>|< 12:55, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT's RFAr[edit]

Take a look at these edits by User:62.253.96.42. This same anon also proceeded to blank much of MARMOT's talkpage [21]. I also see that this anon has been making a number of disruptive and(or vandalistic edits. Am I the only one thinking that this anon is the same one as MARMOT? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:37, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm very sure it's MARMOT, but because of the addition of the IRC conversation, I doubt that MARMOT is trying to hide his identity under this IP. --Deathphoenix 15:14, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He's done that before [22]. Radiant_>|< 15:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Okay; seeing MARMOT has been blocked indefinetely by a developer, can we move all of this to the archives? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:42, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

I left this old subsection on WP:AN/I because there were newer subsections for the same user, so it's more or less all part of the same incident. They will all go away when the newest subsection ages out (late this evening, provided no new posts have been made in it by then). Noel (talk) 20:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

69.177.94.86[edit]

(contribs)

At Replicator (Star Trek) (Talk page) (history).

The anon changed a paragraph introducing fan speculation (trekkie?) in lieu of factual discription of the fictional timeline. I reverted it and engaged him in the talk page. He rewrote the exact same thing in different words (maybe a "revert in disguise"). I reverted it again with a long edit summary refering him to discuss in the talk page and again explaining the reason why his version of the paragraph wasn't encyclopedic. He responded to my post with the same circular argument that he had used before (in essence, talking about fan speculation as if it were fact). I posted again, explaining again, and even suggested, as a compromise, that he opened a new subheader to discuss fan interpretation of that fictional world in light of retcons, etc. He did not unswear and reverted back to his previous version with an edit summary stating "revert". That one counts as a fourth revert in my book. In respect to the 3RR I will not revert his edit again right now. This doesn't look like a vandal to me, just a misguided Star Trek fan. That will make it somewhat harder to convince him that fandom speculation and inference is not encyclopedic, and if it is to be noted, it has to be done with care, and not in the early paragraphs, where fact (even about a fictional universe) has to prevail. He then placed a misguided request for protection, citing as reason that I'm [allegedly] "dismissing canon events as fan speculation" (exactly what I was trying to explain to him in the talk page) and accusing me of trying to incite a revert war. He is clearly all over the place. Doesn't undertand what a protection request is, didn't sign his request, and in his hastiness, slandered me while violating the 3RR. All the while trying to get his way by attempting to get the page protected, instead of talking it out (probably didn't like what I was saying). My posts in the article's talk page were a little long, so I'm sorry that some poor Admin might have to read them. Regards, Redux 20:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redux and I did have a disagreement that got out of hand, but I did not attempt to slander him. More to the point, I most definitely did not violate the revert rule; you will notice that I reverted only once (as opposed to the number of reverts Redux has done, if you will check the logs). My rewriting of the edits were sincere attempts at compromise that did not satisfy Redux, but they were not, and were not intended as, reverts in disguise. Redux is letting his frustration get the better of his judgment with making this official objection, although in all honesty, he does have a point about my requesting page protection when it was not appropriate. I did so out of a misunderstanding of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.141.161 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 Jun 2005

RexJudicata threats[edit]

I received this threat today from User:RexJudicata (who is blocked) in my blog here:

As you know, my business involves export/import, primarily dealing with Brazil and Nicaragua. I will be traveling soon, and I have discussed our friendship with my associates in Nicaragua. I was pleased to discover how much they know about Honduras and its culture. It is with great distress that I read of your machete attack, but Richard, you are right. It probably was "animosity towards you as a white guy" as you wrote in your blog, since there are so few in Honduras -- perhaps less than 1% of the population! You should be more careful! You know you cannot trust the local police. Honduras is one of the poorest countries and the police will do almost anything for a few lempiras or American dollars. They say you can buy justice here in the US - just look at OJ or MJ. At least in La Ceiba, the price of justice is a bargain! I will be seeing you soon.

I feel very threatened. This guy seems highly disturbed and dangerous. I feel intimated, SqueakBox 20:57, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suspect he's just a rather sad fantasist, who's watched too many B-movies, and who's hoping to get revenge on you in a rather unpleasant and cowardly way — by making you feel threatened.

I was under the impression that we knew who he is and where he works; am I misremembering? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:42, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I not only know who he is and where he lives and works but I have given this info to various people in and outside Honduras, along with details of the case, as a precautionary measured in case anything happens to me. Rex has left a trail a mile behind him, with all his acts here recorded, including his impersonation of me. If he is reading this I would urge him not to try to pervert the course of the law in Honduras, as it could all go horribly wrong. The idea of a gringo thinking he can buy justice against someone here by spending a few dollars (even if his intended target were poor) doesn't go down very well, and there are serious laws against such a thing. If he had been serious about such an action he should have kept his mouth shut not threatened me, thus allowing me to actively prepare against such a misfortune. His insults towards the Honduran police may not go down quite the way he intended, SqueakBox 00:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only person seing a parallel here? I'm not saying I think it's the same guy, but it's a familiar type of troll. Nickptar 00:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nicaragua[edit]

Is now Republic of Nicaragua and I am unable to change it back, SqueakBox 21:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber[edit]

Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - began almost immediately after unprotect of article from his LAST bout of revert warring.

• 1st revert: [23]
• 2nd revert: [24]
• 3rd revert: [25]
• 4th revert: [26]

• 5th revert: I am not sure if this is Yuber or not but it fits his pattern [27]

Reported by:Enviroknot 00:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Exactly what version I am reverting to here?Yuber^(talk) 00:23, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

None of these show a violation. The second diff is to the history page, and the others don't show clear reverts. Can you single out a sentence or passage that he has reverted to more than three times, and supply the diffs (and/or the times) so we can find them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to grab diff. Second link fixed.

3RR is not the "same edit over and over" as you so blithely emailed me once, it is the "sum total" of reverts. But just to humor you, here's some of his removals/changes:

1. "However, there are no liberal Muslim movements that have significant power in any Muslim states, nor is it clear that such liberal Muslim movements have significant followings in any Muslim states"
2. "In the Western media and among Islamic fundamentalist movements, the word Jihad has gained connotations and meanings that in some cases are narrower and and in some cases different from its original meaning. Many non-Muslims initial, and in some cases only, exposure to the word Jihad has come from the activities of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, Abu Sayyaf,Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other similar organizations that used the word Jihad in the context of attacks on and murders of non-combatant civilians as well as support for groups engaging in such activities." - A section he keeps moving.
3. "For around 1,400 years Jihad was an organized military activity carried out by the armies of Muslim empires, under the command of the prophet himself and later under the command of the Caliphs (successors of the prophet)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Enviroknot (talk • contribs) 00:32, 22 Jun 2005

I don't see him reverting to the same sentence or passage more than twice. If he reverts to entirely different previous versions more than three times in 24 hours, I'm not sure whether that counts as a violation. With the passage immediately above, the third diff shows him deleting it, and the fourth one shows him adding it. The upshot of all the reverting, however, is that the page is protected again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I see a pattern in which Yuber is reverting and others like User:Mustafaa are reverting to his version again in order to evade the 3RR rule. See e.g. the history of Ma malakat aymanukum. Yuber never motivates his reversions and does not contribute original content. I see this as a clear abuse and circumvention of Wikipedia policy. Germen 10:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabrichidze[edit]

It was brought to my attention by other editors (user:172, user:Irpen; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nick Gabrichidze, search for "Plato") that Gabrichidze (talk · contribs) spams various articles with his paintings. These paintings are neither of historic nor informative value. I deleted them from articles and deleted the images, since they were under non-free licenses. He uploads now under the "fair use" tag and reinserts.

Please explain him that this is an improper behavior. I cannot do this, since I suggested his self-promoting article Nick Gabrichidze for deletion, and thus got myself a mortal enemy. Also, I am not quite sure whether "fair use" works here, since the paintings, like I said, are inserned neither for informative nor for historical purpose, i.e., in their primary, aesthetical function, which is not what is covered by "fair use" mikka (t) 06:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed a similar talk at Talk:Mermaid. mikka (t) 06:35, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I just noticed that Gabrichidze is an account used by multiple people [28]. Wasn't there some policy against that? Radiant_>|< 08:11, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway I've given him fair warning that he shouldn't keep inserting images if consensus opposes, and that he shouldn't self-promote here. Radiant_>|< 08:22, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Imahes have been added again, see [29]. -- Chris 73 Talk 10:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • All images now listed on WP:CP. Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
    • And user listed on WP:VIP for removing copyvio notices, and repeatedly inserting the images in irrelevant places against the community consensus. Radiant_>|< 11:40, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Regarding accounts used by multiple individuals, this was at least partially addressed in the Iasson/Faethon RFA: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iasson#Ban_of_public_accounts. Although it is not strictly on point–that case dealt with completely public accounts, rather than accounts shared among a few people–it is certainly suggestive. The blocking policy also specifically addresses public accounts, but again perhaps does not cover this sort of semi-private case. The multiple personalities of Gabrichidze should certainly be strongly encouraged to acquire separate accounts. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Hm, good point. However, good luck getting through to him, I've been trying all day to explain to him that images are covered by copyright unless explicitly declared otherwise (as opposed to the other way around). Anyway. Is there ever a good reason why multiple persons should have a single acount? If not, maybe we should create policy against it? Radiant_>|< 13:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

There's no good reason, but there are non-malicious explanations. If a computer is in a family home or shared apartment/flat, then one editor might inadvertently or deliberately remain logged in while other residents edit. As long as all the editors realize that they can be held responsible for the actions of any then it's not too severe a problem—but it still should be discouraged.

On the other hand, I can't think of any reason for different people who live in different places and use different computers to share the same account. I don't know which scenario applies here. If anyone can think of a good reason for a shared account I'm all ears. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrichidze[edit]

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

• 4th revert: 13:01, Jun 22, 2005
• 3rd revert: 12:44, Jun 22, 2005
• 2nd revert: 12:18, Jun 22, 2005
• 1st revert: 00:42, Jun 22, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< 11:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User persists in adding images that are irrelevant, opposed by consensus and copyvio to this and a number of other locations. Is already at three reverts in three other articles. Radiant_>|< 11:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I just informed the user of the 3RR, since it is a new user he may not necessarily be familiar with the rule. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:10, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen[edit]

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

• 1st revert: 14:42, 22 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:10, 22 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:49, 22 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 17:45, 22 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (misleading edit comment)

Reported by: Axon 17:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Though not marked as a reversion, Germen's first edit above is a revert of my original edit here[30]. Axon 17:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• It actually looks to me like he has done more than 5 reverts, having reverted two editors constantly.Yuber^(talk) 17:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours, based on reversion of this paragraph: "Other authors, such as Robert Spencer, Bat Yeor and Ibn Warraq dismiss this point of view as one-sided, as the issue whether Islamic source materials such as Qur'an and Hadith promote religious fanaticism, violent tendencies towards non-Muslims, terrorism and rejects concepts such as equality, tolerance, democracy and human rights or not, is not settled, even not between Muslims themselves." Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I'm not sure which user got blocked here: Germen or Yuber? No-one posted a comment on either users' talk page. Axon 17:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

18:26, 22 Jun 2005 Jayjg blocked "User:Germen" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Islamophobia)

(From the block log.) Proteus (Talk) 18:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I thought I was clear. I blocked him, and have added a note to his Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User appears to be reverting anonymously [31] and vandalising talk page [32] via IP 130.89.6.66. Can anything be done about this? Axon 18:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have protected the page. Noel (talk) 18:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the user contributions you will see IP is reverting other pages: surely blocking the IP would be more productive? Axon 18:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For one, I was guessing they'd have access to more than one IP, and I have no interest in playing whack-an-IP. For another, they had only one revert on Islamophobia, and since I didn't (at the time) know for sure (see below) that it was Germen, I didn't have any valid reason to block them. Now that I know it's an attempt to avoid a 3RR block, I'll block that address.Noel (talk) 18:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems the address that SV reports below has not edited the article since the 20th. So no block for them. FWIW, the 130.89 address is UTwente in the Netherlands, so it's probably not the anon below, at UPenn in the USA. Also, their edit was not a "revert" (it was not Germen's content), and leaving an unsigned comment (no matter if inflammatory) is not "vandalising talk page". Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism so you'll know real vandalism when you see it. Noel (talk) 18:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand: the anon IP address revert above was a reversion to Germen's last version: see this edit here[33]. The edit history also matches Germen's content on other pages (Ma malakat aymanukum ). Apologies for the mis-marking of vandalism. It was not an attempt to mislead (I would not have provided the diff if this was so) but seemed like a genuine abuse of a talk page to me. Axon 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This happened the last time I blocked Germen for 3RR. The article was reverted (to Germen's version) by User:130.203.202.156, which resolves to Penn State University, and which has a history of making anti-Islam edits. Germen has a similar history on other websites, where he posts comments under his name, but according to those websites, he's not posting from within the United States. For that reason, I wasn't able to block Germen for block evasion, though I wanted to, as I'm fairly certain it's him, and that the IP address may be an open proxy. User:130.203.202.156 also posted a note on my talk page shortly after I blocked Germen asking why he (the IP address) was blocked. [34] but Germen was the only user I had just blocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I assume the note refers to Germen's block - they would have had to have left it as an anon, because they couldn't have logged in as Germen, neh? Noel (talk) 18:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, though Germen was also in touch with me by e-mail, and said he hadn't left me a note. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:07, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, there are so many people editing/reverting this article it's impossible to sort them all out (see my confusion above). Let's let it sit, protected (the current version is not complete gubble), for a good long while. Noel (talk) 19:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, without wanting to sound too whiny, I can't help feeling that I'm being punished for somehow reporting this issue: I'd like to contribute content to the article and making it more NPOV. I've tried discuss issues with Germen and moderate his/her edits through compromise. That you have protected the page in "her/(his?)" version just seems to be rewarding Germen for her/his nefarious behaviour. Axon 08:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked at the history, locked the current version of the article, and then discovered that someone had slipped in an edit after I looked at the history, and just before I locked it. Since the whole revert situation was so confusing, with multiple players, I didn't feel 100% comfortable reverting to the "non-3RR version", since I wasn't sure what that was; I looked at the locked text and it seemed OK, if not great, so I left it as I had locked it (which is the "safe harbour" option - admins who lock some version other than the most recent version can catch flak about it). Noel (talk) 19:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If there was a 3RR violation (and it seems there was, with Jayjg blocking for it), the article is allowed to be protected on the version before the violation occurred. Yuber is now under a temporary arbcom injunction, so that should reduce the reverting. I'm also going to leave a note on Germen's page saying that if any of these IP addresses help Germen to violate 3RR again, I'm going to block him for longer than 24 hours. Perhaps that together with Yuber's absence will solve the problems this article has been experiencing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. I've put the page up for a RfC and created a draft version so hopefully we can work through our issues here. Axon 09:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure I understand: the version protected was simply the latest version of the document, not the last version before Germen started reverting above, the "version before the violation occurred" - at least, this violation. Axon 11:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's up to the admin who locks the page, Axon: they may protect on the version prior to the 3RR violation, but they don't have to. I don't like to undo other admins' protections, so your best bet is to drop Noel a note, or wait for a few days and request unprotection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. See my comments above. Noel (talk) 19:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, thanks, SV, you've been very helpful and informative. Axon 14:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Windupremisonwheels[edit]

Judging from his user page, worth keeping an eye on. Dan100 (Talk) 22:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

PS guys, do some archiving on this page! It's massive! Dan100 (Talk) 22:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply block him? I mean, can't it be more obvious that he's waiting so he can move pages around again? --Conti|✉ 23:01, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's Willy: I suspect it's the same user as User:Largeremis (and 131.111.8.103 et al). Don't be surprised if the usual "rv vandalism" vandalism to Pope Benedict XVI starts showing up shortly, along with a spate of userpage vandalism. Antandrus (talk) 23:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoever it is, either block him for being Willy of for impersonating him. He can choose a more neutral username if he wishes to contribute to this project. --Conti|✉ 23:17, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't Willy on Wheels; Willy isn't interested in any sort of editing beyond bot-assisted page moves. It's rather someone who is under the impression Wikipedia is desperately in need of people who crack jokes in the article namespace. JRM · Talk 23:20, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

MARMOT[edit]

I am requesting the immediate blocking of User:MARMOT. It turns out that MARMOT has disrupted an RFA process by using a sockpuppet. This is a serious, serious violation, and while I am fully willing to block him myself, I am going to recuse for now (I created an RFC and an RFAr against him.) If no one steps forward, I will do it myself. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Erm... That's rather useless if you don't tell us which RFA and what sockpuppet. At the very least give us a source of the info. Otherwise you will have to do it yourself, since nobody else will have a clue about the context. JRM · Talk 23:47, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

This RFA and the sockpuppet was Master Shredder. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it was a signature or the listing of a name, I agree a block is in order now following his latest personal attack on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship and the responses of the arbitrators in his arbitration case. --W(t) 23:55, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Weyes: He claims to know you. I'm assuming he's lying out of his ass again, correct? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:57, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, that's just his usual MO, like here. --W(t) 00:17, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I'm not sure that simply voting Oppose on an RfA counts as "disrupting" a process - it's done a lot, and since it's easily detectable, it's hardly disruptive. (I would consider disrupting to be fanning a flame war, or deleting votes, etc.) While I agree that MARMOT needs to be dealt with at some point, this isn't the last straw by any means. --khaosworks 23:52, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Well, see, he's got an RFAr open right now, and the ArbCom seems to be leaning towards rejecting the case and just banning him. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 23:53, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the edit was made six days ago; if it warranted a block, it should have been imposed by now. A long-period block (or ban) based on the whole picture is another matter. JRM · Talk 23:56, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

JRM: He's been posting anonymously under this, this, and this. He's avoided using MARMOT for a few days now. I am asking that his user account is banned and his IPs are blocked. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked 62.253.96.42 for 48 hours, according to my best judgment of the situation as a whole. I'm going to bed now, so feel free to review for yourself. Bishonen | talk 00:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying MARMOT is a unique snowflake we should preserve to enrich our community. I was just pointing out that a fake vote made six days ago wasn't that much of an incident. The rest of his sockpuppetrous shenanigans is another matter. JRM · Talk 00:21, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Just a quick note about how much I love snowflakes. Thank you. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright. The vibes I'm getting from the Administrators' noticeboard, the ArbCom, and IRC regulars are all pointing towards a ban. If no one objects within the next couple of days, or if someone does it before me, I will block his account for a month and renew the block monthly. Speak now or forever hold your peace :P Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[Rm personal attack by Marmot]

I've had to unblock 62.253.96.42, which I shouldn't have blocked at all (being in the 62.252.0.0 - 62.255.255.255 range). Live and learn. Marmot is free to roam. :-( Bishonen | talk 17:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC).

User:Gabrielsimon[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Book of Mormon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gabrielsimon (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 13:35, 22 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:56, 22 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:15, 22 Jun 2005

Reported by: Wikibofh 23:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Seems to be part of on on-going edit war. Appears to ignore any discussion going on on Talk:Book_of_Mormon. Appears to have violated 8RR on the 20th. Diffs left as an exercise to the Admin. I don't have a horse in this race, but still have done my 2 reverts and no need for me to visit these hallowed halls. :) This is my first 3RR report, so apologies for any misformating. Wikibofh 23:47, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Apparently banned once before for 3RR. Wikibofh 01:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3 revrtes in 24 hours is allowed. 4 is not.Geni 02:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai[edit]

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

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

User Mikkalai has reverted the Feces article at least 4 times today to remove the image of feces, which has reached a consensus on the talk page. This user has also not participated in any of the talk pages.

Reported by: ThePope 23:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Well, Your Holiness, if you weren't using a sockpuppet account to report this, maybe it would be more reasonable. Maybe it's my limited imagination, but the only reason I can imagine using a sockpuppet account to revert is because you would have been found in violation as well had you not used sockpuppets. Since the latest history now shows two admins using their rollback buttons to revert, implying that they are of the opinion that simple vandalism is being dealt with, it might be more prudent to verify that the "consensus on the talk page" really exists. The number of editors involved, looking at the history, does not seem to warrant invoking "consensus" as if something has been engraved in stone somewhere, especially considering the reverts by non-admin users as well. JRM · Talk 00:13, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
  • Regarding the consensus on the talk page, the same user, almost certainly User:Eyeon, has voted in the poll several times using sockpuppet accounts and anon IP addresses, so any consensus that seems to exist shouldn't be trusted anyway. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• False. I did not remove any image; nor did I remove a single word. I reformatted the article into a much more sensible sectioning, and a flock of vandals kept reverting my work. BTW, the fourth revert was actually increasing the size of the image these vandals love so much and which was decreased by an anon to a nearly invisible size, which I legitimately considered as vandalism as well. mikka (t) 00:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  Ah, I got suckered in by the oldest trick in the book: a simple list of revisions, instead of diffs. But needless to say I wasn't investigating very closely, considering the source of the report. JRM · Talk 00:45, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

User:Flowerofchivalry[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Iris Chang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flowerofchivalry (talk · contribs), alias 68.27.42.126 (talk · contribs) and 70.6.253.74 (talk · contribs), 70.6.177.52 (talk · contribs) and 68.27.173.157 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 14:57, 22 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 7:23, 22 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:08, 23 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 11:26, 23 Jun 2005 as User:70.6.253.7
• 5th revert: 11:31, 23 Jun 2005 as User:68.27.42.126
• 6th revert: 11:34, 23 Jun 2005 as User:68.27.42.126
• 7th revert: 15:28, 23 Jun 2005 as User:70.6.177.52
• 8th revert: 17:33, 23 Jun 2005 as User:68.27.173.157 - added by User:Hmib
• 9th revert: 23:33, 23 Jun 2005 as User:70.6.235.102 - added by User:Hmib
• 10th revert: 01:19, 24 Jun 2005 - added by User:Hmib

Reported by: Mark¹ 04:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that: Flower logged out and continued reverting as an anon immediately after reaching his 3RR limit; the two anon IPs are both Sprint IPs, as was the IP previously used on this page here; the IPs have made no other edits; Flower was warned after his previous breach of the 3RR. Mark¹ 04:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm Flowerofchivalry and I don't user other usernames or IP addresses. You just wanted those IPs are mine. Rediculous. -- Flowerofchivalry 05:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering those addresses have no other edits on Wikipedia except the identical edits to Iris Chang, including the same grammatical errors, I'd say the chance of it being someone else is pretty small. Noel (talk) 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think those anon users reverted to my edition. I declare again, these are not mine.--Flowerofchivalry 21:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The seventh revert, not in the initial 24 hour period, is Flower's fourth anonymous rv today. Mark¹ 08:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop insulting me. That anon reverts could be you, according to your opinion. You need to ashame yourself and it is Wikipedia's shame that you are here. --Flowerofchivalry 08:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article has been protected, which is really the only solution to this kind of egregious POV-warrior with many addresses at their disposal.

Hey, Flower, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that Japan did lots of really evil things in Asia in the 1930's and 1940's. I don't blame most contemporary Japanese for what their ancestors did - but those like you, who aren't strong enought to face the truth and admit it, well, those I consider to be voluntarily taking a share of that. Noel (talk) 21:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MARMOT sockpuppeting on Weyes' RFA again[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Weyes2a#Comment - the socks (Zzyzx11, JackRabbitSlim101, Argon443, Raul655) are all one IP, and the IP and behaviour add up to MARMOT. Note that he socked on the previous RFA as well, as Master Shredder. Blocked for 24 hours, keep a close eye out for this rubbish - David Gerard 19:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, someone else had already indefinited him. I've restored the indefinite with a suggestion he come back with better behaviour - David Gerard 19:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And that first sockpuppet should very probably be Zzyxz11, not Zzyzx11 the admin. --Michael Snow 22:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what to think when the impersonator successfully fools other admins. Does anybody know? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the other admin (that's me) should go "oops shite" and apologise to you :-) I shot a bit fast there - David Gerard 10:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Zzyzx11, that's what you get for having such an unpronouncable (expletive removed) username! :-) Noel (talk) 22:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Caster Troy and aliases[edit]

I've been having some difficulty with a user for a few days and Gwalla suggested RFC but I don't think it's reached that stage yet.

Caster Troy (talk · contribs), Jc57 (talk · contribs), 163.1.227.76 (talk · contribs) and 129.67.97.115 (talk · contribs), if you look at their contributions and compare them, are all the same person. They uploaded two pages that have been through vfd, Masud Rahman and James Dodd. See this page and this page for the discussions. Since this user has arrived and I first warned them about posting vanity articles here they have been disruptive and rude to a lot of people, however whenever I have brought it up with them I have been accused of every antisocial misgiving going. They have vandalised my user talk page, vandalised the James Dodd vfd page, used sockpuppets to push their pov and have been generally rude and condescending to a lot of people [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45].

My view (now) is that this user should have been permanently blocked at some point, however they showed some modicum of intelligence in their earlier discussion points and I have tried to reason with them. This afternoon, I admit, I lost my temper:

I shouldn't have to do that. That's quite an extreme length to go to in order to prove the validity of an article. If there is no other material available anywhere else that validates this article then what Wikipedia would be doing by keeping the material is aggrandising an otherwise non-notable individual, which is not what this project is about. Wikipedia is about providing factual information, not about making anyone more famous than they need to be.

I also shouldn't have to criticise the supporters of any article on Wikipedia. However your actions have left me little choice. You have tried every underhanded trick in the book in order to get your non-notable pages kept: you have vandalised my talk page [46], you have created multiple accounts (as pointed out above), you have vandalised the discussion pages for the articles being deleted [47] and you have insulted and generally spoken down to a lot of people [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. Why should other users on Wikipedia show you any respect whatsoever when you have thus far not shown any to our community yourself? -- Francs2000 | Talk 16:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(taken from the james Dodd vfd discussion) and their response was, to be frank, predictable:

Un-be-bloody-leviable. I was merely wanting to participate in a non-sexual orgy of intellectual virtue and learning, but this has been denied to me by self-serving, narrow-minded, superannuated, and above all, nasty people. If I do not receive apologies from all those that have targeted me as a young, innocent schoolboy in a world of old, haggard men, then I shall be left with no option, but to leave the Wikipedia community, and, I do feel, deprive it of one of its most incisive, inimtable, and innovative members; the choice, as Bruce Forsyth often says during the gameshow 'Bruce's Price is Right', which, incidentally, has a more famous catchphrase - 'come on down!', is yours.Caster Troy 23:45, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I now think it's time I step back from this and let someone else take over because I'm obviously not handling it very well. Any comments or suggestions welcome. RFC also recommends someone else try and sort things out, which I would like someone to do please.

I am of course more than willing to hand in admin priveleges if it is thought I haven't handled this well. -- Francs2000 | Talk 03:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I read that I didn't see anything particularly wrong with what you said, given the circumstances...my only real impression was that Caster's response was way over the top. Everyking 04:35, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I hope I'm not offending him, but Everyking is usually the first in line to say something if an admin made a controversial or poor judgement call. The fact he's not questioning you, tells me a lot. You handled it pretty civil, so there shouldn't be any need to hand in your admin abilities. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:08, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I think your first encounter with a troll went very well. No rescinding of adminship needed here. JRM · Talk 14:31, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Well it's good to hear that I'm not at fault here, still could someone else please try and reason with this user? He has now created Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nick Colgan about someone who is notable and is voting for deletion using sockpuppets while dropping in subtle references to the two previously mentioned debates. I tried asking for help on IRC though no-one stepped forward and volunteered. -- Francs2000 | Talk 20:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're handling it fine. I think you showed great restraint in not directing the incisive and inimitable user to the nearest sexual orgy. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lordy. I shudder to think how I would have handled this user, but I'm pretty sure I would have blown my top long ago. I agree with Bish's comments. You're doing fine. Grutness...wha? 11:17, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of NPOV tags[edit]

User:Peter Grey persists in removing an NPOV tag from Monarchist League of Canada. AndyL 03:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443 & User:Spotteddogsdotorg[edit]

Three revert rule violation on WCAU-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Please see the page history for June 24th, it's fairly straight-forward.

Reported by: Netoholic @ 07:33, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Comments:

• Your basic sterile edit war, with at least 7 reverts each by the two combatants, over whether or not to link to a deleted/re-created article on the station's weatherman. --Calton | Talk 08:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (edit conflict, Rhobite slipped in)
• I protected the page, I think that is a better approach than blocking in this case. Rhobite 08:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent call, Rhobite. Filiocht | Talk 08:20, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Punish all editors for the actions of two edit warriors? I can't think of a clearer example of exactly why the 3RR should be enforced. -- Netoholic @ 13:50, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
    • Some of us get tired of acting as a hall monitors for pseudo-5-year-old vandals and POV-warriors, and just protecting the page is simpler, more effective, gives a longer spell of peace and quiet, and is less likely to lead to big pissing matches in which the admins get screamed at. Noel (talk) 20:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So is disallowing anonymous users from editing. No wait — that's indeed what happens when you protect a page.
        Admins have a rotten job. They can make it easier for themselves by just making all editors go away, but they usually shouldn't. JRM · Talk 20:11, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)
        • "a rotten job" - that last word there is the problem. All admins are volunteers, and human nature being what it is, people have less tolerance for grief when they are just helping out for no compensation. Tell you what, you think it's unfair, fine, you unprotect the page - but only if you watch it closely, and keep the virtual-5-year-olds under control. Noel (talk) 20:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Done. JRM · Talk 22:14, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

            Oh, and for the record, I'm not blaming anyone. As you say, we're all volunteers here. JRM · Talk 22:15, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

User:Hmib[edit]

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

• 1st revert: 19:27, 23 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:04, 23 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 01:34, 24 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 08:21, 24 Jun 2005

Reported by: User:Flowerofchivalry 08:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

This user, Hmib, violated 3RR policy as stated above. Hmib has been instigated here by User:Markalexander100. User:Markalexander100 has been abusing the system above at my username, by reporting the false violation. --Flowerofchivalry 08:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No warning was given, and I'm not aware of Hmib having form for 3RR vios (unlike Flower). Mark¹ 08:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notice of 3RR given on his talkpage. Article in question has been protected to allow dispute resolution on article's talkpage. - Mailer Diablo 09:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I accept full responsibilty and make no pretense to my intention. I was merely reverting vandalism from anon IPs which were logically sockpuppets of Flowerofchivalry. I was unaware that in this kind of situation the 3RR rule applies to me as well. I apologize and will excercise more caution in the future. Thank you. -Hmib 22:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what counts as "vandalism" here. Hint: "stuff I don't agree with" doesn't count, and neither does "POV rantings". (I am so tired of the charges of "vandalism" that both sides in a POV edit war screech at each other almost invariably.) Noel (talk) 21:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Possible open proxies[edit]

The IP addresses 66.31.78.27 and 82.100.24.235 have been spamming the same message from different countries. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• In semi-related issue, but both have been blocked for 24 hours for vandalism. Radiant_>|< 13:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
• The same person seems to have used 131.175.189.134 as well. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The last one is an open proxy, so I've blocked it indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • As are the first two, also blocked indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:46, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  Now 217.79.181.118. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 13:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Blocked (24h) for vandalism. Radiant_>|< 14:02, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

How does one test for an open proxy? Just so I can help... smoddy 13:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try this list of tools. JRM · Talk 14:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Isn't the official proxy checker for wikipedia SORBS? It tends to have fewer false positives. This link is Broken 22:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It could very well be. I couldn't locate any information on this topic. Wikipedia:Blocking policy gives general information; Wikipedia:Administration FAQ is for morons; Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide is silent on proxies; Wikipedia:Open proxies doesn't exist; in short, we have zero, zilch, bupkis on technical documentation, at least some that's accessible. I had to look quite hard to find m:range blocks. JRM · Talk 22:50, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

All I know of is Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Anonymous and open proxies - and that refers to the mailing list archives! We definitely could do with having this all documented better - autoblocking is not documented at all, AFAIK. Noel (talk) 23:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I generally try to actually access wikipedia through them before claiming they are, but a very decent heuristic is just plugging the IP into google: If it gets no hits, chances are it's not an open proxy. If it gets a few hits on bulletin boards and such, it's probably a shared but not open proxy. If it gets lots of "get rich quick/buy viagra online" hits and lists of open proxies, it's very likely to be an open proxy. --W(t) 22:53, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

Trying this heuristic on the IPs listed below, I get nothing. In fact, two random addresses I tried were not listed in SORBS either. I'd really like to know how Susvolans is doing it now... Portscanning? JRM · Talk 23:03, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

I don't think he's searching for them, he's just reporting addresses that do the spam he mentioned at the top of this report. Noel (talk) 23:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also 24.164.242.113, 62.131.8.120 and 168.150.251.36 Susvolans (pigs can fly) 14:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also 24.207.210.2, 68.110.7.34, 206.51.237.44, 209.172.34.176, 212.112.224.176 and 212.251.12.68. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And 213.239.210.243. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All these are open proxies and should be blocked indefinitely. When editors block for 24 hours, the short blocks have to be undone before the indefinite block can be applied, so it's best to wait for the proxy check to be done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:27, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Similarly, if you block for 24 hours just after an indefinite block is applied, you'll undo it, because apparently shorter blocks cancel out longer ones. So please check the blocklog before blocking. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Still at it, User:62.142.224.55 and User:216.152.71.153 Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Susvolans, this is very helpful. 216 blocked indefinitely, 62 Fuzheado is first going to undo his short block, then will block indefinitely. Please wikify any you report, so we can deal with them faster. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:56, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Deeceevoice[edit]

Three revert rule violation on African American Vernacular English (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Deeceevoice (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 15:21, 23 June 2005 (difference only in spacing}
• 2nd revert 17:45, 23 June 2005 (difference only in spacing}
• 3rd revert 19:17, 23 June 2005 (slight difference)
• 4th revert 11:18, 24 June 2005 (difference only in spacing}
• 5th revert 17:12, 24 June 2005 (slight difference)
• 6th revert: 23:22, 24 June 2005 (slight difference)
• 7th revert: 16:00, 25 June 2005 (exact)
• 8th revert: 16:26, 26 June 2005 (exact)
• 9th revert: 18:01, 26 June 2005 (exact)

Note: I have amended the above list of diffs, which were (incorrectly) diffs between reverts and the previous version by another editor, when they should have been diffs between identical versions. I found nine reverts over a period of a few days. You can find different violations in there depending on where you count from. For example, reverts 1 to 4 are a violation, or 2 to 5. After that, they are a bit more spaced out. Those diffs are there more for information purposes. — Chameleon 29 June 2005 10:25 (UTC)

Reported by: SaltyPig 13:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm baffled. Near as I can tell, that first so-called revert isn't related to any of the others. Checking the history, I see 4 reverts in 26 hours (from 07:03, 23 Jun 2005 to 09:18, 24 Jun 2005). --Calton | Talk 13:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose a revert is a revert regardless of what you are reverting. But was she warned? Has she broken the 3RR before? Don't we normally warn people the first time? Guettarda 13:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• It looks like SaltyPig and User:Deeceevoice are involved in an edit war here. Unless they are both willing to accept User:Noitall's compromise wording, I'd suggest warnings and page protection while they sort it out. Filiocht | Talk 13:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC

• the 3RR couldn't be more clear and concise: "Don't revert any single page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." there is nothing in the 3RR policy about a revert being "related to any of the others," nor is there anything about warning people the first time. the user i complained of violated the 3RR policy; i did not. from my first experience (this one), it looks like the automatic gateway intentions of the 3RR have been defanged with subjective, extra-policy warbling. i won't waste my time putting together a 3RR report again, only to hear, inaccurately, "I see 4 reverts in 26 hours...". Deeceevoice even used the word "restored" or "reverted" in each of the 4 edits listed above, which took place within 20 hours. suggest the commenters above read the 3RR policy. no, a block isn't guaranteed, but not acting for the reasons given is policy deviation. Deeceevoice isn't in an edit war with me; Deeceevoice, apparently with impunity, is in an edit war with everybody who edits the page in question. SaltyPig 12:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:198.93.113.49[edit]

Three revert rule violation on John_Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs):

Five reverts in less than 2 hours so far this morning. User 198.93.113.49 apparently dislikes the subject of the article and insists on including an arbitrary collection of inflammatory statements attributed to him in the article, while deleting links to links to more complete/contextual versions of subject's controversial comments.

• 1st revert: 14:19, 24 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:24, 24 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:47, 24 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 15:14, 24 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 15:57, 24 Jun 2005

6th revert: 16:33, 24 Jun 2005 N. Caligon 16:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In at least one case user 198.93.113.49 has not applied the RV tag, but simply cut/pasted his version of the disputed section back into the article, having essentially the same effect as a simple reversion. N. Caligon 16:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

N. Caligon is a sock puppet for JohnRTroy. "They" have been vandalizing the John Byrne page by deleting quotes made by John Byrne. The factual accuaracy of the quotes has not been disputed. He simply doesn't like them being there. I have reverted his vandalism.--198.93.113.49 16:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the two are the same person? Timrollpickering 16:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User 198.93.113.49 is simply lying about the sockpuppet claims. He has a significant history of making baseless personal accusations against editors he disagrees with. N. Caligon 16:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

N. Caligon is a new user who showed up and immediately started editing exclusively to John Byrne related articles which is exclusively what JorhRTroy has been editing lately. They are engaged in the exact same vandalism of the John Byrne article. And they have "handed off" their reverts today. When JohnRTroy reached his 3 revert of the day a few minutes later N. Caligon appeared and picked up reverting where JohnRTroy had left off.--198.93.113.49 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Once again, user 198.93.113.49 is simply lying. The only justification he could have for asserting I am editing "exclusively to John Byrne related articles" would be by referring to my contributions page. That page shows edits to roughly 50 different pages in the last month or so; most of those pages have little or nothing to do with John Byrne. N. Caligon 17:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am certainly not the same user as N. Caligon. We've actually had disagreements in the Byrne talk page. Also, we both have different styles of writing and different interests. The sysops should be able to confirm different ips and locations. We simply agree that the inclusions of 198.93.113.49 Byrne quotes have dubious relevance to the biography. --JRT 16:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You started a new section on the John Byrne talk page just to praise what a great job your alter ego was doing. Yeah, you "two" really disagree.--198.93.113.49 17:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Gamaliel 18:49, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Netoholic[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Spoiler warning (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Spoiler warning|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Netoholic (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:24, Jun 22, 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:40, Jun 22, 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:09, Jun 22, 2005
• 4th revert: 15:08, Jun 23, 2005

Reported by: Radiant_>|< 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Three more:

• 5th revert: 14:16, 24 Jun 2005
• 6th revert: 15:52, 24 Jun 2005
• 7th revert: 16:09, 24 Jun 2005

These include some other text changes, but similarly to the previous ones delete all mention of the other two templates. Noel (talk) 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This was two days ago, but he's made three additional reverts since then. Some of the reverts incorporate subtle rewritings rather than rollbacking from the edit history, but all are an attempt to force his opinion of the page (that only one template should be used for spoiler warnings) against consensus on talk page (that three such templates are in existence and they should all be explained here; this is backed by TFD consensus to keep those templates). Radiant_>|< 20:15, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• This was a mistake on my part (two days ago now). It was unintentional, but I'll ask to be excused because my effort was not to edit war, just to make sure the {{twoversions}} tag was left in place to prevent future edit warring while we were discussing. Why would someone acting in good faith remove such a tag? I ask admins reading this to simply refer this to my mentors, per the conditions of that mentorship arrangement. -- Netoholic @ 20:24, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Did you notice how up at the top of this page, it quotes the 3RR page as follows:

The 3RR .. does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every twenty-four hours. If you find you have reverted more than even once in a day, it indicates there is a serious problem

Please note the second sentence. How on earth could you not have known that you were in an edit war? You were edit warring, and you knew it. And your third and fourth edits, where you added the "twoversions" tag, didn't simply add that tag, it also included the very same reversion (removing those two templates) you'd done twice earlier that day.

(Not that I'm saying that Lifeisunfair (talk · contribs) isn't equally at fault - they are - but right here we're talking about you.)

Exactly which part of 'don't edit war' do you not understand? You need to find areas of Wikipedia to work on where aren't constantly provoking confrontations! Noel (talk) 20:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mackeriv blocked Mateusc to protect your revision and hidding information[edit]

The Administrator Mackeriv just blocked the Mateusc user for 24 hours, because Mateusc added information, justified its deletions in the summary (to move main article Brazilian Internet Phenomenon) and this didn't please the administrator in the orkut article.

Note that Mateusc increased the article in your last revisions with information, and Macheriv instead to discuss and ask user about the points, just blocked him [55] maybe because the Orkut section was discuted excessively. [56]

Highly authoritarian banishment and without quarrel, the administrator did not look for to know or to argue the point of them you finish revisions (that they had been justified in the summary).

The two users are brazilians, and the Mateusc editions apparently didn't please the vanity of Mackeriv. ----203.197.239.218 22:06, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Mateus. Look, I really did try my very best not to do this, but you aren't not just listening to me. You're not paying attention to anyone. Do you have any idea of what talk page you are talking about? Is it the one that has the huge discussion about this same issue, and that had you alone sustaining the POV-oriented material everybody else agreed that has no place in the article, and on Wikipedia as a whole? Yes, it is. I frankly don't understand what you're trying to achieve with this. You sure have your rights to question the "authoritarian banishment", you're referring to, but this can't be any more explained than it already is. I will also not do anything about what you just did to that article again (at least not for now), under this IP adress of yours. It really did confuse me, since it points to India, but this just cannot be anyone else other than you. I'll leave this to the opinions of other administrators for now.--Kaonashi 22:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have undone the block, since it looks more like a content dispute, and I can't see a justification on the blocking policy for the block. I couldn't find where he was warned not to change to that version on his talk page, not even on the conversations he removed recently. Since you are too involved in that content dispute, it might be better to ask for someone else to block him, instead of blocking him yourself (which means I won't oppose an uninvolved administrator undoing my unblocking). --cesarb 22:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, from looking at Talk:Orkut, I see a disagreement over content, and Mateusc is in the minority here, but that's about as far as it goes. Input from more people familiar with the Brazilian influx on Orkut would probably help that situation. Meanwhile, Mateusc got blocked for reverting once, which is incredibly premature. Mackeriv/Kaonashi, please review Wikipedia:Blocking policy and adhere to it in the future. Stick to established justifications for blocking and don't block people when you're personally involved in the dispute, ask someone else to help. This page is a good place to ask for such help. --Michael Snow 22:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that I didn't go all the way to his talk page to warn that he'd be blocked, but just pay attention to what this all means. First of all, he is going against what was stabilished by a consensus... for what, the third time now? He had removed content from the revision that was agreed by many users are being the optimal one for the article, and adding back characteristis from his own revision. As if that wasn't enough, he made use of an anonymous account to express his complaint instead of waiting for the blocking period to be over. I'll ask each one of you to go to the top of this page and pay attention to the "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks" part. That user did exactly that, and right here. I just don't know anymore.--Kaonashi 22:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm unblocked now. I just write in User:Mackeriv talk page and that's all ok. Mackeriv knows about my intention isn't vandalize or lack with information. A lot of things they had been argued about Brazilian Invasion section. I'm simply scared with the banishment of Mackeriv because him was part of everything: the discussion, the nonsense and un-discuted reverts. --Mateusc 22:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To talk about backpedalling.--Kaonashi 22:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'm really worried. Mackeriv is making me threats on my Talk page. Before an authoritarian and controversial act, He intimidates a simple user.

Sorry Mackeriv, but you changes a simply discordance in abuse of Administrator authority. The only thing that you made today is controversial act and to contranger me. I'm disappointed. --Mateusc 23:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm really sorry that you're disappointed. I'm really sorry that I sound like I could eat your heart out with barbecue sauce. I really do sound all firespitting menacing, ya know. But I'll refrain from this discussion from now on. If anyone has useful words to exchange with me, my talk page is there. What I wrote here, and what was written right after, contains all the answers for anyone that gets interested on understanding this issue. Thanks for hearing.--Kaonashi 23:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't have nothing more to say. You only proved how much controversial it was your act today, scoffing of all situation.

In my opinion, what you it made today, all constaint who made me to pass for a so small thing is enough to take off its status of Administrator. You abuse of your status to make to be valid the force of your opnion. This is very bad. --Mateusc 23:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Intellectualprop2002[edit]

Three revert rule violation on Homosexuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Intellectualprop2002 (talk · contribs) and aliases 205.188.117.66 (talk · contribs) 66.91.248.226 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [57]
• 2nd revert: [58]
• 3rd revert: [59]
• 4th revert: [60]
• 5th revert: [61]

Persistent AOL troll, consistently been reverted today by three separate users. Recommend 24 hour bans on various ips and username. Inserting original research and fringe book material into articles.

Reported by: 207.224.198.170 22:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Aetherometry[edit]

Aetherometry and its VfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Aetherometry seem to be too stressfull for some new users like Helicoid and FrankZappo.

• rude language: can't find the diffs in the very convoluted hiostory...
• manipulating other users postings: [62]
• personal attacks: [63], [64], [65]

Pjacobi 23:13, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Can someone please give User:Helicoid a serious warning or block? He just manipulated my talk page posting the third time:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aetherometry&diff=prev&oldid=15770356
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aetherometry&diff=next&oldid=15780108
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aetherometry&diff=next&oldid=15782133

I gave hime two warnings: User talk:Helicoid

Pjacobi 00:34, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

He inserted vandalism such as this [66], and repeated it multiple times [67] [68] [69]. I assume comments like changing "detractors" to "detractors who have not read the material", and continous restoration of article space comments like "do not delete" is vandalism.I hope reverting it doesn't make it a 3RR violation. -- Natalinasmpf 01:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Based on the arguments on the Talk page it appears that the insertion "Detractors of aetherometry who have not read the material state" (italics = insertion) is a personal attack on other editors. It's a complicated Talk page - have a look at it. This behaviour strikes me as unacceptable. Guettarda 01:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am a relative newcomer to this article dispute, but it didn't take me long to see the disruptive behavior of User:209.29.93.65. Beyond POV pushing, he writes abusive edit summaries, using them to call editors he disagrees with moron and stupid [70], people who disagree with him vandals [71], and generally makes abusive comments that create a poisonous atmosphere, like get that? Or is it too hard a concept for you? [72]. · Katefan0^(scribble) 07:43, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Well he hasn't been a model of civility that's true but reverting him without a proper explanation will hardly make matters better. [73] [74]. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 09:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right of course, I could've done a better job (always learning), but I really felt like the objections to the types of edits he was trying to do had already been aired on the talk page, which he wasn't responding to in any fruitful way. Thanks much · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:07, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

209.29.93.65 has been attacking my contributions and me as an editor based on my age, which I find wholly non-constructive and disrespectful. [75] and [76], and he keeps misusing the term "vandalism" - which is for bad faith edits, not good faith ones. -- Natalinasmpf 02:03, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Helicoid is still angry and sees fascism as the underlying editorial policy in Wikipedia: [77]. --Pjacobi June 28, 2005 20:43 (UTC)