Contents: May 20, 2005 - May 24, 2005

As seen here; Both users are currently permablocked.

This appears not to be a good-faith blocking either; the so-called "evidence" of sockpuppetry is weak. A quick check of Sock Puppet reveals the following:

However, simply having made few edits is not evidence of sockpuppetry on its own, and if you call a new user a sockpuppet without justification, they will probably be insulted and get a negative impression of Wikipedia.

Keep in mind there can be multiple users who are driven to start participating in Wikipedia for the same reason, particularly in controversial areas such as articles about the conflict in the Middle East, cult figures, or Wikipedia:Votes for deletion.

The Admins in question ignored this, and are making ludicrous claims of sockpuppetry to use as a basis for permanently blocking two entirely different accounts, in flagrant violation of Wikipedia policy on blocking users to gain an advantage in content disputes regarding the George W Bush page and possibly other pages that the users were involved in defending from POV-pushers.

Good-faith emails to the Admins have gone unheeded; the goal of the Admins is apparently not to find the truth, but rather establish a flimsy precept for permablocking at least one account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.176 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 May 2005

The evidence of sockpuppetry is about as clear as evidence gets: their IP addresses match, and one signed comments with the other's name. I believe David Gerard offered to unblock whichever of the two is the primary account; rather than spout this ineffectual bluster that everyone can see right through, why not take him up on the offer? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible for there to be matching IP addresses, and David Gerard re-edited his own bullshit in that regard twice. There is no sockpuppetry going on, just Admins abusing their power in violation of Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.176 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 May 2005

Even if the IP addresses don't match, how do you explain one signing comments with the other's name? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The above comes after ElKabong admitted in email that 129.7.35.176 was his IP. I unblocked ElKabong; then he wrote as KaintheScion wanting that account unblocked. I sent a copy of the evidence busting them. So the above would then be ElKabong claiming that KaintheScion is not a sock. Uh huh. - David Gerard 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no sockpuppets. I only have one account. As of 8 AM this morning, I was still seeing a message saying that I was blocked.

Mirv, I was making a good-faith edit and made a mis-click trying to hit the "watch this page" box. Is that a crime?

David Gerard, if you're still blocking KaintheScion, then you're still a lying sack of crap and a vandal-protector. ElKabong 15:56, 20 May 2005

You can avoid hitting the wrong checkbox by setting it to watch by default, that's what I do. Really quite useful. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And please remember to read WP:NPA. Saying things like that makes you no better than you say he is. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking at the edit screen right now, and I don't see the "[Sign someone else's name to this comment" button, near the "Watch this page" checkbox or anywhere else. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppet accusations against ElKabong/KaintheScion are also being debated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/KaintheScion. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:19, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Fascinating... personally I'm not going to take part in that, too involved an issue. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 16:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

That's ok, but I just wanted to let the people here know what is going on. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:53, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

An editor using a rotating set of anonymous IPs keeps placing multiple links to his photographs in these and related articles. Several editors have told him to stop, to no avail. I'm looking for further input or suggestions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 02:34, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 2nd revert: 02:58, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 3rd revert: 04:50, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 5th revert: 04:58, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 6th revert: 05:03, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 7th revert: 05:19, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 8th revert: 06:41, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 9th revert: 07:38, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 10th revert: 07:38, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 11th revert: 08:19, 20 May 2005 (PST)
• 12th revert: 08:37, 20 May 2005 (PST)

Reported by: Jiang 19:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Not the first violation be the same user. --Jiang 19:28, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Proteus (Talk) 20:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Wow. 12 reverts. 24 hours seems so.. inadequate. Noel (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti has moved Nuclear Power to Nuclear debate without any consensus and redirected Nuclear power to Nuclear reactor. This after trying to spam the article with statements without sources and censoring the talk page by very selective archiving. Please reverse this move of a well established article. Ultramarine 22:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with. Noel (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Magneto (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 24.253.120.206 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:39, 20 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:50, 20 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:57, 20 May 2005
• 4th revert: 00:13, 21 May 2005

Reported by: SoM 00:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 12 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 23:28, 19 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 00:35, 20 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:45, 20 May 2005 (to [1])
• 4th revert: 21:52, 20 May 2005
• 5th revert: 23:14, 20 May 2005 (to [2])

Reported by: SoM 00:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for 12 hours. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:18, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

• 00:03, 21 May 2005
• 00:13, 21 May 2005
• 01:25, 21 May 2005
• 02:07, 21 May 2005
• 02:34, 21 May 2005
• 02:43, 21 May 2005.

Comments:

• Not the first time here. Again for Nicaragua. Some of the edits are from anon Mexico City IP addresses, clearly identifiable as KEITH. Also blanked Slim Virginia's message on his talk page here, SqueakBox 01:15, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Repeated requests on his talk page by SqueakBox and myself for him to discuss rather than continuously re-inserting his edits have proved fruitless. Has reverted probably 20 or more times in the last few days on this article now. Worldtraveller 01:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Fidel Castro. Grace Note:

• 1st revert: 18:16, 20 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:34, 20 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:38, 20 May 2005
• 4th revert: 18:48, 20 May 2005

Reported by: J. Parker Stone 01:58, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I should think that the slight difference in the last RV (the fact that the picture has been removed) should not matter, considering I was blocked for "reverts" of a phrase while editting differently other aspects.

Take this with a grain of salt: the user complaining states on his user page that he "dislikes Marxist apologists and will revert their biased work wherever I see it, especially if their name happens to be ..." Tannin 02:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

This is irrelevant. And quite frankly, I don't see what's so POV about wanting to eliminate left-bias from this encyclopedia, other than that it offends certain users' sensibilities. J. Parker Stone 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

does User:Grace Note have any history of gameing the 3RR?Geni 02:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

excuse me? the fact is that he has reverted the intro 4 times. i have only "gamed" the 3RR in that I have tried to make compromise edits (something he has not done) only to be continually reported by POV-pushers on that article. if reverting a phrase counts as a reversion, surely this does. J. Parker Stone 02:22, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

and I was unaware that there are shifting standards for what is a 3RR violation depending on history (there isn't supposed to be) J. Parker Stone 02:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well now yopu learn (although this fact has been stated in the past. I like to be as sure as I can be that someone is gameing the rule if I'm going to block them for that. Past activity is an important pice of information.Geni 10:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

From the look of it this is very new behaviour and looks like her first offence. Only a handful of edits till April 8, now 1333, mostly in uncontroversial subjects. Seemed to get involved in Kissinger before Castro. Must know the 3RR because of her interest in Trey Stone, SqueakBox 02:24, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone patient take a look at Elizabeth Morgan, a user seems to be constrcuting some kind of libelous nonsense page there--nixie 06:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

What the?!? ...what the crap is this crap? I can't make it out... either this is a really really bizarre case, or someone's misconstrued a real-world case for some unclear purpose (an objective like those covered in WP:POINT perhaps?). Even so, not written in Wiki standard... and the disclaimer is also very suspicious, I mean we don't have a disclaimer on Hitler or Jihad do we? I would look into it, but I can't think *that* clearly this late at night. Smacks to me like something off Jerry Springer... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Also should point out a vast number of the edits are to the #Oh no! This is too funny! We will re-move it la-ter. secion, which is horrendously non-encyclopedic. This is clearly POV, but what the editor's reason for having such a POV is unclear. This seems to be someone's labour of, well, not love, but... hate, maybe? Suspicious. This user is now editing this page almost exclusively, whereas before that ~500 they were editing all kinds of things. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 11:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone going to take issue if I just speedy it? --nixie 11:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's a very real and very famous child custody case. The article is pretty crappy, but it's not "made up". It could be cleaned up if the "devotee" would leave it alone. Perhaps everyone should have a pass at decrapifying the article, then we'll see how it looks. - Nunh-huh 12:04, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I've chopped off the most obviously wrong part of the article - two paragraphs in the "Denouement" section which began with "Elizabeth Morgan was and is an excellent parent" - which is opinion, and in any case seems totally incorrect - and ended with "But we digress". But it's a mess.-Ashley Pomeroy 12:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I banged on it some more too; wrote a proper intro, reordered stuff to make it flow better, removed some non-germane stuff and tried to make the tone more encyclopaedic, etc. It's not all the way there yet, but it's not wholly unreasonable now. Noel (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 07:12, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 07:38, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• 3rd revert: 08:52, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• 4th revert: 10:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Reported by: Davenbelle 10:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Trey again. Davenbelle 10:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Proteus (Talk) 11:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Kurdistan Workers Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Coolcat (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 10:22, 21 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:11, 21 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:39, 21 May 2005
• 4th revert: 17:35, 21 May 2005

Reported by: Stereotek 18:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The user has (among other many other things) insisted on removing the cleanup tag and changing the headlines of the external links. The user has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hours in order to make these changes. The users first revert was to this version of the article: [3] Stereotek 18:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Based on these clearer diffs:

• 17:35, 21 May 2005
• 13:39, 21 May 2005
• 13:11, 21 May 2005
• 10:22, 21 May 2005

a 3RR violation is indeed apparent. Blocked for 24 hours. -- Viajero | Talk 19:36, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and Pila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 83.109.166.232 (talk · contribs), 83.109.180.84 (talk · contribs), 83.109.185.54 (talk · contribs), 83.109.157.171 (talk · contribs), 83.109.180.201 (talk · contribs):

Erika Steinbach:

• 1 [4]
• 2 [5]
• 3 [6]
• 4 [7]
• 5 [8]
• 6 [9]

Reported by: --Witkacy 04:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

That that is an awfully big range to block. I could protect the page against them if their actions continue.Geni 08:35, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The "anon" reverted again on Erika Steinbach see: [10], 83.109.172.229 (talk · contribs), 83.109.179.168 (talk · contribs), 83.109.188.75 (talk · contribs), 83.109.147.55 (talk · contribs), 83.109.183.52 (talk · contribs), 83.109.183.84 (talk · contribs), 83.109.191.90 (talk · contribs), 83.109.140.47 (talk · contribs) --Witkacy 03:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone protect the Erika Steinbach article, please? Thx. That user changing every 5 minutes his IP...--Witkacy 04:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Violation (today) of the 3rr on Erika Steinbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• 1 [11]
• 2 [12]
• 3 [13]
• 4 [14]

The page is now protected, but please revert to the last version. The current version is of that anon vandal.--Witkacy 05:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Michellebarlowrobhowes is repeatedly adding copyright violations and spamming the article with a link to his/her personal website. When their copyvio was reverted, they blanked the article. I have repeatedly suggested that this behavior is unacceptable, and have been met with antagonism and repeated spamming and copyvio insertion. RickK 08:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've used up my 3 reverts, and they've done it again. I've blocked the account for 24 hours, but could somebody else please revert the copyvio and spamming? RickK 08:45, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

done. Thryduulf 08:49, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. RickK 08:58, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

SouthernComfort (talk · contributions) is going through various articles and changing them from BC/AD to BCE/CE. He began this with a revert war at List of kings of Persia (which has ended in an RFAr against [[user:jguk|jguk) and then continued to change other Iran/Persia-related articles to his preference. We should take the view of leaving it the same as the original author, especially following the recent discussions where there was no consensus for the change (or, for that matter, against it). It is going to lead to constant revert wars if he continues like this. violet/riga (t) 19:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

It currently is in a revert war. Violetriga changed all of SouthernComfort's changes back to the originals, User:Sunray then went back and reverted Violetriga, and I am going around and re-reverting Sunray. This is clear violation of the vote that is ongoing, and a direct challenge to Wikipedia consensus-making. RickK 22:00, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Did you catch that? "Violetriga changed all of SouthernComfort's changes back to the originals" In the process, serious edits to many of the articles were lost. I then revert Violet. RickK then steps in reverts and accuses some other users and me of "violation of the vote." Can he be serious??? Sounds like he is going to write up some big blue "violation of the vote" speeding ticket. In my time on Wikipedia I've never heard of such a thing. I try very hard to uphold the principles and policies of Wikipedia. To make these bizzarre accusations, I can only conclude that he has not been reading the talk pages of the articles concerned.

There may not be consensus on a change to Wikipedia: Manual of Style (dates and numbers). There is plenty of discussion about the use of BCE/CE and an emerging consensus among article authors. This consensus is to apply the provisions of the existing style guide with respect to eras in articles written by non-Christians about non-Christian topics in non-Christian regions of the world. The articles in question are on the subject of Persia. One who takes exception to this emerging consensus is user:jguk, and although he is not a contributor to any of the articles in question, he has chosen to repeatedly revert SouthernComfort who is one of the authors of several of these articles (see Talk:List of kings of Persia). This would not be a "revert war" if violet/riga and RickK were able to understand and apply Wikipedia policies. Sunray 06:25, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

what is an "emerging consensus"? A consensus that you think or hope will emerge some day? Last time I checked (two days ago), the "CE/BCE" proposal was being voted down. AD and BC are not a Christian polemic any more than the number, 2005 [years after the date of jesus' birth, as calculated in the 6th century AD], they are just standard English. Of course revert-warring is silly, meaning both parties. dab (ᛏ) 07:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, of course I do subscribe to the idea that if all editors involved in a particular article agree on a point, that's fair enough. We are not going to settle for a binding policy of BC/AD either, so let people have their way as long as nobody tries to "own" an article. Of course, additional editors may always show up, disputing points formerly based on consensus. dab (ᛏ) 07:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Let it be said that I did not initiate any 'revert war.' Jguk, who has never been involved with Iran-related articles, took it upon himself to revert every single article where I had changed the dating convention, even going so far as to change those that had not even been originally BC/AD. As seen by the prevalence of BCE/CE in Iran-related articles, most editors involved in that subject seem to have no objection. Furthermore, that two admins - Violetriga and RickK - have joined in the revert war which Jguk initiated is truly absurd. RickK has even gone so far as to suggest that Sunray and myself are part of some grand BCE/CE conspiracy (see User_talk:SouthernComfort) and has even threatened me with a block. All three of these users (Jguk, Violetriga, RickK) claim that I am violating policy - and yet when I request that they show me the policy that I am violating, they ignore me. This sort of behaviour is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. SouthernComfort 10:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that some people might have a fundamental misunderstanding of style guidelines . The "don't change (color|BC|kg) to (colour|BCE|pound)" rule clearly does not mean "don't change it under any circumstances", but rather "don't change without a good reason" (as the disclaimer on top of every style guide page implies). And if the people who work on an article i.e. those that have knowledge about a subject think that it should be changed, that seems like a pretty good reason to me. Zocky 10:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This goes to the heart of the matter - they will claim that there is no good reason to change from BC/AD to BCE/CE. My argument has been that since BCE/CE is the standard in Near Eastern/Oriental studies, and that since Iranian history and civilisation (Elamite, Persian, Median, Parthian, etc) predates Christianity and Christian POV terminology (BC/AD - it's very use implying automatic acceptance of Jesus Christ), that there is no reason to impose BC/AD - especially when most editors involved with the subject matter would not oppose it. Furthermore, I feel that consistency in dating convention between these articles is not only important, but will only add to the professionalism of WP as a well established reference medium. What these three are saying is that those articles that were BC/AD originally, should never be changed. That's ridiculous, especially considering the very nature of WP as being a medium constantly in flux. And these three have never even been involved in the subject matter in question, nor did Jguk (who started the revert war in the first place) ever try to properly communicate (other than harassing me and other users). How Violetriga and RickK can defend RickK's Jguk's actions are beyond me. SouthernComfort 12:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

In an attempt to solve these issues a new page (and vote) has been created at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras. violet/riga (t) 22:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This has been here for 2 days. Can people please put Javier Solana on their watchlist. The fact that the vandal had just been reverted several times is a disgrace to all of us involved. Please can you put this article on your watchlists. this kind of stuff totally undermines wikipedia, and makes me feel like leaving. If the anonj had been speedily blocked it would not have happened. There is an argument that all Solana vandals should be blocked on sight (they were reported). Please can I have some support, as I can't do it all on my own. A very disgruntled SqueakBox 19:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I have the article on my watchlist, but I let that one slip below my radar. The vandal has been blocked. RickK 22:18, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne is under a personal attack parole (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne: If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be personal attacks, then he shall be temp-banned for a short time of up to one week.). Despite this, he continues to be unpleasant, and has finally (I think) obviously gone too far: [15].

Therefore I request the sanctions be invoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 May 2005 (Oops, sorry: I'll sign it: William M. Connolley 20:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC) but the time will be wrong).

I think the quote in question is Put simply, if you had the facts to support your views... you wouldn't have to be so rude. But I suppose I shouldn't expect anything different from someone who collects his paycheck as the result of the promulgation of a particular POV. People in that position tend to respond with hostility to those who they see as a threat to their POV. --JonGwynne 19:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC). Any comments on whether this is a critical or a personal attack? silsor 20:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's borderline. It's definitely "ad hominem", which is I think the spirit of the "no personal attacks" rule. On the other hand, it's not exactly foul cursing. Noel (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

And its not the only thing in that diff either (William M. Connolley 20:44, 22 May 2005 (UTC)).

I've had problems, too (e.g., [16]. Nothing extreme, compared to what I've seen him capable of, but I think that someone should tweak his reins a little. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Global climate model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). William M. Connolley (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:59, 19 May 2005 Last
• 2nd revert: 19:25, 19 May 2005 Last
• 3rd revert: 20:23, 19 May 2005 Last
• 4th revert: 13:46, 20 May 2005 Last

Reported by: — Cortonin | Talk 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Four reverts within 20 hours. This is his fourth 3RR violation in the past two months. — Cortonin | Talk 20:59, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• The two beneath this have been dealt with, but no administrator has commented on this violation yet. — Cortonin | Talk 20:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 00:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mishing has dissolved into a heap of personal attacks, supposedly from users, but *actually* from a crapload of anon IPs. If you look at the history it's 82.42.229.59, 81.132.114.125, and 195.93.21.69.

195.93.21.69 is the key, as the IP is almost identical to 195.93.21.38, the sole author of this article, and you can't tell me it's a coincidence.

Unfortunately most are those damned AOL proxies (as shown on the Talk page of one), so banning the smacktards won't necessarily help and could in fact hinder legitimate users.

I've slammed a generic {{test2}} on each of the offenders' talk pages, but I doubt that will do any good, this User (or User and his friends?) seem determined to stop the Vfd of their beloved vanity article.

I don't know what should be done... maybe you can lock out the Vfd page to non-Users? Anyway, something needs to be done... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The article is clearly nonsense, is there any reason why it can't be speedied and we can skip the painful vandalism frenzy on vfd --nixie 03:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

meh, who's gonna slap your wrist if you DO make it vanish? Or just say it was an accident, heheheh... Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I want to presume that comment was a joke. I am technically nobody, but that kind of thinking or editing does not fit the tone of Wikipedia in my thoughts. If an admin can just select things he/she does not like and delete them "because" they are an admin should not be tolerated. I am *NOT* saying that the article Nixie is talking about doesn't need to be deleted, I am only referring to the comment by MTG. It's such thought and comments that seem to take the toll on users like myself, who is technically no higher or lower than any other Wikipedian. Having the power of veto doesn't mean one should go stamping things just because they can. Just my thoughts on the matter. <> Who 03:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but how is ending a remark with "heheheh" so unclear? Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore the anons and delete the article at the normal time according to normal procedure. Everyking 04:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the personal attacks made by the anon editors, and left a note to that effect on the VfD. If anyone thinks I've overstepped my bounds, then feel free to restore the ranting. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on List_of_self-proclaimed_deities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Gmaxwell (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 11:45
• 2nd revert: 11:56
• 3rd revert: 16:10
• 4th revert: 0:50

Reported by: Gmaxwell 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: I was asked to check out a dispute on an article where the long standing editors were hesitant to get into an increased revert war. I reverted some formatting destroying changes, and was promptly reverted by Zappaz.

May I have a sampling of opinions from administrators on the contents of the userpage here please? -- Longhair | Talk 08:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"Initially, I incorrectly thought that longhair was an administrator, but it turned out that he was not. It seems that he is just a very good liar." is obviously a a personal attack. The user in question seems to be particularly vehement about this particular issue. I'll try to talk to them. Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

As I said to you, it is a factual statement, in reference to longhair's abusive behaviour. I trust that I am not being told to stop being factual. 203.26.206.129 09:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd say this qualifies as an inappropriate user page. Radiant_* 09:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the personal swipe at Longhair is over the line, and needs to go, but in general I'd be inclined to leave most of the rest of it alone. It is a user page, after all. I think this person is likely confused, but as long as they don't get into an edit war pushing their theory I think "live and let live" is the best policy. Noel (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Just ignore it and leave it alone. That works better for everybody. Everyking 10:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Cannot agree with Everyking here. That userpage contains personal attacks and is not acceptable. Tolerance of what can go on userpages does not extend to personal attacks and libellous accusations. Sjakkalle 11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

"leave it alone" means "make Wikipedia User namespace free webhosting space for internet kooks". dab (ᛏ) 12:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

This user has engaged in personal attacks, vandalism of user pages and is now using their personal user space as a means to further their attempts to push their POV. I'm unsure where to take this. It's not a content war, it's not a revert war, it's simply unwanted harassment. -- Longhair | Talk 12:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to yourself, then you are being honest. If you are referring to me, then you are lying. I should report you for slander. Is that what you want? 203.23.22.154 09:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it either, and the user should remove that stuff. But getting into battles about this kind of thing is useless and draining, and it tends to deepen animosity. Everyking 12:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm here to edit articles, not slanderous user pages. So where do I take it? List it on VfD? -- Longhair | Talk 12:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I doubt there'd be any consensus to delete a user page...it's been done before, but not really in cases where the user is an active and legit contributor. Maybe you could call a truce with this guy, and talk things over privately in e-mail, something like that? Everyking 12:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Active and legit contributor my ass. I'd VFD it, frankly. Ambi 12:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds fair to me, but VFD tends to strongly object to deleting anything not in mainspace. Radiant_* 21:00, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• How about simply invoking WP:RPA? Radiant_* 12:53, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • • A beautiful idea. Ask longhair and others to cease personal attacks. Fantastic. I only ever retaliated, and only because administrators banned me for being the victim of personal attacks!!!! 203.26.206.129 12:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

refactoring won't solve the problem even if possible --AYArktos 09:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete/reword the personal attacks, leave the rest. best if the user can do it him/herself. clarkk 18:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Check the latest version. It looks like the user has done so. FreplySpang (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• While I note that the user has removed the personal attacks on Longhair and others with his user page revision of 22:34, 23 May 2005, I would like to note that I was distressed by the personal attacks on me as a result of edits I undertook in good faith. I had been particularly careful not to delete assertions but to seek references for what seemed unsupportable assertions and I did not appreciate the return vilification. I note the attacks still stand at Talk:Alice Springs. I do not feel empowered to remove them and moreover, they remain in the page's history.--AYArktos 00:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I also add that while the user page itself has been removed, several carbon copy quotes are intact on the user page about my "lying abilities" among other things, in plain view for all to see. Some of us have innocently quoted the offender, further spreading the disease. -- Longhair | Talk 03:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You can reference these, you know, since I am telling the truth. You *ARE* a liar! 203.23.22.154 09:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, there not much I can do about them staying in the talk history without deleting the page. I have left the user a message about personal attacks on their talk page. Please let me or another admin know if they continue and we can take further action--nixie 00:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I trust that you have told Longhair not to engage in personal attacks. You seem to be misled. 203.23.22.154 09:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I for one don't want to see this dispute spoil over to this board of all places. I'll raise a request for arbitration to put an end to the matter once and for all. -- Longhair | Talk 09:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think of this situation, nor whether any action needs to be take. It's an article Talk page which seems to have been taken over by Amorrow (talk · contribs) (also editing from 204.147.187.240 (talk · contribs)) — see [17]. Should it be Userfied, or just ignored? It's not doing any real harm, I suppose, but it seems an inappropraite use for an article Talk page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Move it to the user page--nixie 11:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I have done, and the User doesn't seem to mind, but has happily gone on adding to it. Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected Germany on 18 May, see Talk:Germany#unprotecting_again.2C_hear_ye. User:Gidonb was really unhappy with this (it was, of course, "the right version" that had been protected). I asked him to bring up the matter either here or in an rfc. He didn't choose to do that so far, but he keeps bickering about my "unevenhanded" move on Talk:Germany, so I am putting this here myself, because I want the case in the open, with other admins looking into my action. See also our exchange on User_talk:Gidonb#Germany_2. dab (ᛏ) 11:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been a longtime reader of Wikipedia, but yesterday I witnessed such egregious violation of CSD policy, I felt there was no choice but to create an account, login, and make my first edit in order to report this activity.

After RickK's "hard-ban" of User:24.54.208.177, two CSDs, recorded at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/British Legalise Cannabis Campaigns and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/United Kingdom Cannabis Internet Activists were made citing CSD Rule #5, essentially applying it retroactively, when the provisions of Rule #5 state that it applies to contributions made by a banned user "after they were banned" (emphasis added). The purpose of Rule #5 is to enforce a ban that is in effect, as opposed to allowing the retroactive destruction of said user's articles from the period before they were banned.

The validity of this interpretation of Rule #5 is suggested by the banning policy provision that "All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion" (emphasis added).

The articles should, no doubt, be reinstated and the normal Votes for Deletion process resumed, unless it can be shown that the articles merit speedy deletion based on one or more CSD criteria other than Rule #5. Sincerity 12:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Given that that is your first edit ([18]), I find it hard to believe your sincerity. Radiant_* 12:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Could you be any more rude? Revolución 14:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Certainly. Would you want me to? Radiant_* 16:55, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• No big deal. I will reinstall them. I have no particular grudge against these articles. No need to panic. You could have written all the above at my talk page rather than start kicking my ass. I didn't check the axact dates of the ban. RickK quoted the ban, and I jumped in. Mikkalai 15:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that I only voted delete on the two VfD pages, and noted that the anon is NOW hard-banned, I did not say, and did not imply, although perhaps it was read that way, that the user was banned prior to the creation of the articles. RickK 23:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Is this a reincantation of User:Willy on Wheels. Poly on Pills is voting keep on every VfD she can come accross. Sjakkalle 13:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Jjeffs is another one. Sjakkalle 13:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The name made me think of Willy on Wheels, can this be checked in anyway?--nixie 13:39, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yep. "Polly"'s MO is exactly that of Willy on Wheels, Javascript programming and all. -- Karada. Oh, and also User:Jjeffs, who has the new signature "blocking the usermessage in CSS" trick that he's been using of late, that he presumably imagines will make it impossible for us to see him if he can't see our comments. 13:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

He put the welocme message on his own talk too, I'm going to block--nixie 13:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I hard-blocked User:Tilly on Tills last night while they were in the process of creating their User pages. RickK 20:26, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Almost every edit this user is making is a personal attack against someone, frequently Zscout370, David Gerard and Tony Sidaway. Please could someone examine the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion and block if they feel it warrants it. Thryduulf 16:17, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf, those users have been persecuting and hounding not just me but another user who dared to point out that they were abusing their powers. [silliness removed] ElKabong

Regardless of whether they have or have not, personal attacks are never acceptable. Thryduulf 16:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ElKabong (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 17:11, 23 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:24, 23 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:26, 23 May 2005
• 4th revert: 17:35, 23 May 2005
• 5th revert: 17:47, 23 May 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: ElKabong is in fact KaintheScion (talk · contribs), the subject of the RfC from which he's removing evidence. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong returned during his block as 66.69.141.11 (talk · contribs), edited Dhimmi, and removed the sockpuppet notice from User:KaintheScion's user page, so I've blocked the IP address for 24 hours too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:27, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm now getting e-mails from a Cranston Snord as User:66.69.141.11 insisting that he's not KaintheScion and ElKabong, and making more abusive-admin allegations. If anyone would like to review his edits to check that the decision to block was justified, by all means feel free. It's the same editing pattern, and the IP address resolves to the same city as KaintheScion's. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:12, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

You will be UTTERLY AMAZED to know it's Kain's DSL - David Gerard 00:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is a surprise. Still, his Cranston Snord e-mail didn't contain a single swear word, so he may be learning something from this process, if nothing else. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:52, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It was his email to me as Kain calling me a "lying son of a fascist whore" that really got me. "fascist whore"? Someone on IRC said "presumably they make the trains come on time" - David Gerard 14:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

LOL!!! He must have had more respect for me. I was only a "mentally impaired power-mad moron." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:47, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have to get in on this, I haven't gotten a good oppressed-o-gram in my inbox in a while. silsor 15:56, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

He has came back from the block, reverted KaintheScion's user page four times today. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I was disturbed by the following edit by User:Ta bu shi da yu to the day's featured article here: [19], which strike me as uncharacteristic of the former admin (whom I have had nothing but good dealings with). This comes at a particularly troubling time, as his adminship is to be reinstated in two days: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ta bu shi da yu. My main concern is that his account password has somehow been compromised, which could be very dangerous for an account with admin powers. If no explanation is given soon, I recommend delaying his admin promotion until the matter can be explained and resolved to satisfaction. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

• He is referring to this and [20] this, whic are simple cases of vandalism, SqueakBox 18:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• There's another page blanking from May 14. TBSDY replied that he was just showing a new user how Wikipedia worked...but he didn't revert it himself. (Another editor restored the content 13 minutes later: [21].) I'm really starting to get worried about whether or not this is the TBSDY that we know and love.... --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 20:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, that is correct. I wanted to show just how fast the page would be reverted to prove to a colleague that Wikipedia is self healing. I knew that exploding whale was on plenty of watchlists and a good example. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You can show somebody how Wikipedia works without blanking pages. In fact...isn't that a very bad example to set, as it basically encourages vandalism? Hmm. sjorford →•← 21:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
    • And even if blanking a page for demonstration is absolutely necessary for some reason, why choose, of all the hundreds of thousands of articles available, the featured article of the day? That strikes me as rather odd, to say the least. Proteus (Talk) 21:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I fail to see how blanking a page for demonstration is absolutely necessary for any reason. -- Longhair | Talk 21:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
        • How else would you demonstrate Wikipedia's self-healing properties? - Ta bu shi da yu 01:47, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Create a new nonsense article and watch it get slammed with a CSD? That's self healing. There's far more better options that taking aim at the days featured article. -- Longhair | Talk 02:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
          • It's still wrong headed, though. It's like commiting a crime just to prove that the cops show up when you do. As an alternative, there's always the history pages of commonly vandalized pages like George W. Bush. Everything's preserved - you don't have to do it in real time to prove your point. --khaosworks 02:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
          • As a side note, I accept your explanation that it was intended to be a joke and was a lapse of judgment. Just hope that such lapses are rare. --khaosworks 02:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Quite. If this is the real TBSDY, the two incidents would seem to show remarkably poor judgement for an admin...I mean, we have a sandbox for this stuff. Heck, even his own user space could be modified for demonstration purposes without bothering anybody. This is weird. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:13, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, OK, I admit it. I was being a bit of an idiot... I see this has caused lots of problems. If people would like me to withdraw my admin nomination, then I'll do so. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It was poor judgment, yes, but Ta bu shi da yu already has an established great record as an admin, and this is certainly not a pattern with him. I don't expect he would ever do anything like this again, based on his history, so my vote, for one, stands in support of his adminship. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I have withdrawn my nomination. This is not a dummy spit, I realise that my adminship (if I got it) would now be under a cloud due to my sense of humour causing a problem. My sincerest apologies to all of those I disappointed! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Everyone makes mistakes (even me? no, never!), TBSDY, don't be too hard on yourself. El_C 06:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, everyone makes mistakes, but under the circumstances I think it would be wise for TBSDY to withdraw for, say, a month to demonstrate his genuine qualities. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mean it in that sense, I meant him feeling down about it. El_C 09:27, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Filiocht. Please TBSDY - allow a month or so for things to cool off, then stand again. It was a dumb mistake, but we're all human (except the bots). Grutness...wha? 03:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to know what is sad? I once wanted to show my mom how WP is self-healing. I anonomously added "I am gay" to an article, and then said to my mom "watch, someone's going to remove it". So we waited, and waited, and waited.... Finally, I had no choice but to log in and remove it myself, "See mom, someone always removes the vandalism". ;-) func(talk) 17:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 12:35
• 2nd revert: 12:40
• 3rd revert: 13:12
• 4th revert: 13:27
• 5th revert: 17:09

Reported by: -- E.A 19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments: User:Argyrosargyrou is reverting the article Cyprus dispute along his own lines, despite the best efforts of a number of editors to reinstate a netural version, he has been warned about the 3RR but is continuing regardless.

• Blocked for 24 hours. Proteus (Talk) 20:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 14:43 23 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 16:39
• 3rd revert: 19:45
• 4th revert: 20:20
• 5th revert: 20:39

Reported by: zen master T 21:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Caucasian Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.150.38.114 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 13:28
• 2nd revert: 14:07
• 3rd revert: 14:54
• 4th revert: 16:48

Reported by: Who 21:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm assuming this is User:Rovoam using sockpuppets or anon ip's. All the ip's come from the same ISP. <> Who 21:24, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

List of self-proclaimed deities is being held hostage by User:Zappaz. Yesterday he violated 3RR after a user reverted his damage. In one day he placed four templates on the article, {{cleanup}},{{wikify}},{{dispute}}, and {{limitedgeographicscope}}. He has inserted extreme POV statements such as "There is no material or textual evidence supporting the claim that Jesus self-proclaimed to be deity". After I submitted an RFC he then changed my words. He does not allow the templates to be removed until his point of view is satisfied, and he satisfies them not by discussing it with others but by editing the article to his liking and then removing it, irrespective of the talk page. When I say that he trashed the article I mean that literally. Compare this version before his arrival and this one after it, when it was at a point where he beamed on the talk page. I am posting this here because I have lost my cool and patience (I reasoned at length on the talk page to no avail, or response) and would appreciate an outside voice to check my behavior and his. Thank you. --Alterego 23:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

copied from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) by Thryduulf 01:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it from there, I don't think the Village pump (miscellaneous) is the propper place to comment on allegations that this or that user "trashed [an] article," be it literally or figuritively, and at any case, we have it noted here now. El_C 08:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Rovoam has been using a number of anon IPs to engage in vandalism. See the page history for Caucasian Albania for an example. I believe (given his apparent dedication and the specifics of the situation) that it may be time to engage the "authorities". By this I mean contact his ISP and/or file a report with the police (or FBI, or whoever covers "digital trespass"). Anyone concur? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

he is certainly annoying. I'm rolling him back every day on Urartu. Wouldn't mind if he was gone. dab (ᛏ) 12:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm on the verge of doing a /16 range block, so if anyone has a good alternative, let me know. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I concur with you that a short-term range block would be beneficial in this case. What ISP he is using? Let's track this sucker and complain to its ISP (although my experience is that ISPs are usually quite lax about abuse reports nowadays). jni 19:04, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I did it. /16 range block for 2 hours. Let's see what kind of fallout there is. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:01, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Seems not to be sufficient. Currently evading your block as 65.148.145.241 (talk · contribs) (blocked the /24 range for 2 hours) jni 19:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

209.7.219.21 may be Rovoam... That's based on the fact that I reverted the blanking of one talkpage that had a disclaimer about the IP being used by Rovoam, and this IP address blanked it again. However, I might be wrong, but I know for certain this is a vandal. I reverted changes to the Turkey article that changed it from an article about the country to an article about the animal (at least from what I looked at before reverting it back to the last version, It would help if I knew a bit about his pattern of vandalism. --Chanting Fox 07:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC) he has lots of geographically unrelated IPs, maybe trojaned boxes 209.7.219.21 (talk · contribs) is definitely Rovoam, right now. dab (ᛏ) 07:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm currently appear to be engaged in a revert war with another anon. IP being used by Rovoam The problem is every time I revert, the IP reverts it right back. I also saw something in the edit history in regard to the edits by the IP. In one or two cases, it had this edit summary: (chron.pl:auto revert). Any idea what that means, if anything? --Chanting Fox 08:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This suggests that he's experimenting with use of a bot to perform malicious edits. The name suggests that he has this script to check at regular intervals for any edit on a given page of Wikipedia and to revert it. He could also be using a bot to select new IPs to post from as others become blocked. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• I am putting regular disclaimers on all his known IPs, at least those which I notice. Please, see my contribution log if you want to track his anon IPs. Because of this person my whole activity in Wikipedia has been reduced to merely reverting his vandalisms and putting regular disclaimers.. After all that negative energy I receive every time I log into WP, see his vandalisms and revert them, I possess no more energy to make any other contribution to Wikipedia. I strongly support Dante's suggestion to contact his ISP and if necessary even the "authorities". --Tabib 09:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

It sounds like you have very good plan to implement. Here is my few suggestions:

1) Try to complain to UN and other international organizations (in addition to your local police, FBI, Interpol, KGB, etc. - depending on where you live). Also try to complain to your local condominimum association (if you have one).

2) Block as many IP addresses (using long range) as you possibly could. So fewer people will get access. Block the whole network segments by countries, don't target just few ISP providers. Or, at least, block the main ISP providers, like AOL, MSN, PeoplePC, Netscape, Juno, Earthlink, NetZero, RoadRunner, DSLextreme, etc. etc. for as long as feasable. This way you would cut off as many people as possible.

3) Protect from editing as many wikipedia's articles as possible, and for as long as possible, so these articles would not get any better (as they are allready perfect, as they are).

Be more creative with imposing your own totalitarian POV (TPOV). Support your own opinion only, no matter what, as soon as it is yours, and don't listen your opponents. Just keep they from expressing their different from yours POV, so you would get an impression other opinions don't even exist.

Overall, you are all very smart guys. Perhaps, most of you have a high school diploma!?

Your virtual friend,

Rovoam (Andrew Kirsanoff)

{{subst:unsigned:66.81.167.82|00:18, 27 May 2005}}

I posted this at WP:AN more than 24 hours ago, getting nothing, and as it's urgent and has already been delayed by many a false start of mine, I'm cross-posting it here. I still think it's a notice-board item rather than an "incident", but I don't know how it is... WP:AN/I somehow seems to get all the attention! Someone please help, I'm begging you. Several newbies are involved, and this is not doing any of them any good. Bishonen | talk.

Subhash Chandra Bose looks to me to be in a lot of POV trouble, and new user Ulflarsen appears to be in need of support against personal attacks. I know so little of the subject and will by no means take sides on the facts as presented in the article, but Ulflarsen is certainly doing everything right in the sense of remaining civil in the face of rudeness, posting the article on RFC, and appealing to some of our historians to take a look (the last two initiatives on my advice). Nothing's panning out, though. The talk page is rapidly becoming a monster, and unfortunately neither El C, Jmabel, nor John Kenney are around. I'm sure I've overlooked several really obvious people that he could have appealed to, apologies for that, but I don't know what to suggest next. Help, please?--Bishonen | talk 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Five days later, I finally have a few minutes. I'll look into it now and try to get the respective parties started towards a comrpomise. El_C 06:52, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

El C, please marry me, I love you! Ulflarsen has stated on his talk page that he's not going back to the article, but I hope he'll reconsider when he sees your masterful comment. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I love you, too! But your marriage proposal is a bit ... sudden, though very flattering nonetheless! Anyway, I dropped him a note. :) El_C 12:57, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This page in userspace was created entirely by an anon, User:81.136.182.49, I don't think there actually is a Judvrd account. See also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Leeroy Jenkins which has a load of sockpuppets voting for Leeroy Jenkins's inclusion, including the anon behind User:Judvrd. Actually signed one of his "votes" with Judvrd. Sjakkalle 06:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I can confirm that the user does not exist.Geni 09:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• We could tell the user he needs to register if he wants to use that userspace. 131.211.210.13 10:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Possibly there's confusion about how to create an account. Everyking 10:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

He probably knows. It is probably the exact same user as all the sockpuppets on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Leeroy Jenkins. Sjakkalle 10:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed that User:Escobar600ie seems to have been periodically deleting votes from this page. Too complicated to just revert. I suppose this counts as vandalism, but the 5-day lag time is almost up (vote was started on the 19th). Just figured that I should let whoever decides to close this vote know that you need to check the edit history to see the real votes. I've left a polite note on his talk page to let him know that doing this sort of thing is Not a Good Idea. Soundguy99 13:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I restored (and signed) all the votes and will keep an eye on it. El_C 13:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

70.88.129.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Hateful, racist vandal. From the looks of his talk page, he's been blocked more times than I want to count, and his contributions are nothing but racist vandalism, including redirects, page blankings, and inserting racist comments and slogans. Since he had been blocked so often, in exasperation I threatened him with a permanent block after blocking him for a week on May 16. Now he's back in action, with masterpieces like Bitchnigger, to which he redirected a number of pages. However, I know that according to policy, I'm not authorized to block him for more than a month, and considering I'm still pretty inexperienced/careless, as the "supervandal" fiasco above demonstrates, I wanted to ask if some other admin could block him permanently/for a very long time. It's obvious he isn't going to stop now, after months of vandalism. Phils 14:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

hmm he appears to have just been blocked for a few day by to different users. I've blocked him for 1 year.Geni 14:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"70-88-129-205-bsr02-howard01-md.hfc.comcastbusiness.net (70.88.129.205) is located in Marina Del Rey, California, United States." [22]. probably a semi-permanent IP rented to somebody. We might try to contact the ISP. dab (ᛏ) 14:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Marina Del Rey is a gigantic traffic node (see our article); antionline says I'm located there too... But the howard01-md.hfc.comcastbusiness.net thing might be useful. — mark ✎ 15:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

A year is way too much. Block for a month, and if he starts up again at the end of the month, block him again. Everyking 15:38, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. WP:BAN clearly states that one month is the longest one can block for vandalism. A year block is something that can only come about as a result of arbitration, and would rarely apply to an anon IP. --Deathphoenix 18:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I have undone User:Geni's block and reblocked the user for a month. I am keeping his contribs page bookmarked and will check back in a month; if he resumes vandalism, I'll block him again and try to email his ISP (although I doubt they can/will do much about this). Phils 19:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course he will restart his vandalism. An ID that has never made a single good edit should be permanently blocked. RickK 20:35, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and block him permanently, then. I just don't want to take responsibility for such important decisions just yet, especially when there is no clear consensus. I prefer leaving this to more experienced admins for now. The reason I modified the block expiry is because WP:BAN says the maximal block time we're allowed to put on a user is a month, which rather makes sense, given a year is more than enough for this IP to change hands and for the vandal (who seems rather tenacious) to come back to edit from a new IP. Phils 21:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason for a month limit on IP blocks is that IPs do change hands. Even Paul Vogel (a milder neo-Nazi vandal) just gets his IP reblocked monthly. FWIW, MediaWiki 1.5 will include reversion of page moves - David Gerard 22:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

we currently have two IP blocks in place that are over a year old. One of them is a range block.[23] (not that I have the faintest idea who DW is but no matter).Geni 00:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

we do have the authority to block indefinitely new accounts that are obviously disruptive. If we do not block this user indefinitely, it is because his IP may be re-assigned some time. Seeing that this IP pparently did not change hands over the past 7 months, I have no objection to a year's block as a toned-down version of an indefinite block in this sense. dab (ᛏ) 08:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

User William M. Connolley was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violation as shown here, and then proceeded to evade that block during the blocked time period by editing talk pages with this ip, which I believe is a direct violation of Wikipedia:Banning policy. — Cortonin | Talk 17:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that Wikipedia:Banning policy has much to do with this situation, but this is a rather clear evasion of a block. I'm going to consider the last edit by his IP, at 09:27, 24 May 2005, to have reset the 24 hour block. Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Presumably Cortonin meant to refer to Wikipedia:Blocking policy. — Dan | Talk 18:50, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Yoweri Museveni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Bamboo (talk · contribs) also using 81.199.23.86 (talk · contribs) as sockpuppet:

• 1st revert: 13:55
• 2nd revert: 15:54
• 3rd revert: 16:26
• 4th revert: 19:35

Reported by: TreveX^talk 21:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments (moved from incorrect listing in Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress):

• 81.199.23.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Bamboo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User Bamboo also acts anonymously as 81.199.23.86. Engaging in edit wars on articles relating to Eastern Africa. This is most notable on Yoweri Museveni, where he flooded the article with extremely negative POV material (See Talk:Yoweri Museveni, [24] and [25]). Has rejected repeated attempts by other users to engage with him in a constructive way. Is now in violation of 3RR. Has also made a statement of intent to continue his current behaviour:

This is the basis upon which Bamboo and associates will continue uploading the same article on Museveni and will ignore the attempts to censure our contribution on Museveni. (from Talk:Yoweri Museveni#comment)

What he means by associates is unclear as several experienced users are of the belief that he is acting alone. The edit wars result from a refusal to reference statements including claims that Yoweri Museveni suffers from bi-polar disorder and qualification of universally accepted human rights abuse information from Idi Amin ([26]). TreveX^talk 19:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

• This is not vandalism, and should not be listed here. Sam Spade 21:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I agree. It is a NPOV dispute where the culprit has violated 3RR. I will move this to the appropriate page. This user has now been blocked for 24-hours, which is legitimate under 3RR. TreveX^talk 21:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record:

16:59, 24 May 2005 CryptoDerk blocked "User:Bamboo" with an expiry time

of 24 hours (POV edits, sockpuppetry to revert, etc.)

-- El_C 08:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 15:16, 24 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:03, 24 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:35, 24 May 2005
• 4th revert: 21:43, 24 May 2005

Reported by: violet/riga (t) 22:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• One of many articles on which this user is revert warring to push his preference of the BCE/CE system. He has avoided the 3RR on most (not checked them all) articles but has clearly broken it here. violet/riga (t) 22:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Considering my involvement with the user and the topic I find it inappropriate to ban him myself. violet/riga (t) 22:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

You think...(?) a tad inappropriate... You probably should not have been the one to protect the article either. If this is the user's 1st offence, and there are no specific objections, I am inclined to significantly reduce the block period. El_C 22:56, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I really hope you don't as I'll have to put it back to 24 hours! He has been edit warring on numerous articles, has been warned by more than one admin about the 3RR and has clearly broken it. To reduce the ban would be a clear violation of the rules. As for protecting the other article I went through the correct channels and waited for 11 hours. I then requested on IRC but still the article didn't become protected. In that time the reverts had continued and so I protected it. violet/riga (t) 08:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This is rather worrying. You protected an article on which you'd been involved? There's nothing in policy that says that impatience is a reason for breaking the rules on this. Why didn't you simply contact another admin directly, and ask for help? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I echo Mel's concerns, strongly. Also, I note how insistent you seem to be for the user to suffer the entire 24 hour maximum of the block, even threatning to re-block yourself (?), stating: "I really hope you don't as I'll have to put it back to 24 hours!" (and recall, I was only asking for objections and/or lack thereof for reducing the block) Sorry, I'm afraid that it dosen't inspire confidence at this time. El_C 09:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Inspire confidence" in what? I'm insistent that a person that has violated the 3RR be punished as per the rules, surely that's correct? As for protecting the article then I totally stand by my decision to do it, considering that I attempted to get other people to do it and got no response. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, just read that back and it sounds a little rude. I know you're not supposed to protect articles in which you're involved, but I tried to show inpartiality. Technically my involvement was only to return the article to its pre-edit war state and attempt discussions, but they continued to edit war. violet/riga (t) 10:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's okay. Anyway, I think you are just too involved in this. And it bothers me that you ask for the maximum block time (which isn't applied in all 3RR cases, esp. 1st offences), yet you yourself seem to have violated 1PP (I hope you're following me: WP:RFPP#Zanskar ). Was it really that urgent to protect it right then and there? (rather than post a RFPP and wait a bit longer) ? El_C 11:48, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Not quite following the Zanskar bit. I posted the RFPP and waited 11 hours. Seeing as nobody was doing anything about it (I considering that it'd been going on for 5 days) I decided to step in and make sure it was done before I went to bed for the night - I didn't want to wake up and see there'd been still more pointless edit warring. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No doubt you don't follow that, both dates say 13 May, I misread one as 12. Sorry about that. My point, though, that revert-wise it dosen't seem to have been that out of control. El_C 12:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm still unsure why you mention Zanskar - I've never been to that article. As for the protection, please remember that it's list of kings of Persia that I protected, which, I think, was out of hand. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

WRT the maximum block. I really think he should've been blocked for the 24 hours because of the similar acitivities on many other pages and the fact that he was warned about it by myself (who opposes his tactics) and Slrubenstein (who supports his changes). violet/riga (t) 12:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

And yet you yourself engaged in this 'revert warring' that you accuse me of and defend Jguk who initiated this to begin with and has been at the forefront in POV warring. SouthernComfort 12:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You clearly aren't bothering to look at anything I'm saying. violet/riga (t) 12:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh I know exactly what you are saying and it offends me that you would ask for the maximum block and yet still continue to claim impartiality. SouthernComfort 13:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Neither of you are impartial, and I don't think this exchange is productive at the moment. El_C 13:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I have never claimed impartiality and have made my POV very clear. SouthernComfort 13:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I only count three - once after Geni converted all BCE/CE to BC/AD manually, I also manually converted back to BCE/CE. SouthernComfort 22:41, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but the four shown above are all reverts. violet/riga (t) 08:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they clearly are. So, am I gather there are no objections to reduce the block's duration...(?) El_C 08:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours (it doesn't matter whether the edit is done "manually" or not, I'm afraid). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:45, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I was too hasty. The first wasn't a revert, it was an initial edit, so there were only three reverts. I've unblocked SouthernComfort with apologies. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm. According to this 07:19, 24 May 2005, Mel, it appears to have been one. El_C 08:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was an edit. A revert involves returning the text to its previous state, but this was a completely new change to the article. (In any case, something else that I should have noticed was that SouthernComfort hadn't been warned, and it seems clear that he didn't think that he'd broken the rule. There's plenty of precedent above and in the archives for giving editors a warning in such cases — though in fact even a warning would have been inappropriate in this case). I'll be more vigilant in future.

I'm of course assuming good faith, and that the other editors involved in the edit war, including violet/riga, were also unaware that the first of the four edits wasn't a revert. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, Mel, in relation to the diff I cited above, the first edit can and, indeed, should be counted as a revert. I am more than comfortable with leaving SC unblocked, however, I do wish to get this technical point across. El_C 09:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

:Mel, please reread — Preceding unsigned comment added by El C (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 May 2005 From initial change 11:19, 24 May 2005, then the following edit bellow changes the dates back, it –is– a revert:

• 1st revert: 15:16, 24 May 2005
  
• 2nd revert: 19:03, 24 May 2005
  
• 3rd revert: 20:35, 24 May 2005
  
• 4th revert: 21:43, 24 May 2005
  

El_C 09:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC) In order got the first one to be a revert, it must be reverting; in fact, though, it's making an initial change. That change is reverted, and the war begins. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I really am at a loss as to how you've interpreted this as not being a 3RR. violet/riga (t) 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please see my bold emphasis above, Mel. El_C 10:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it from 07:19 to 11:19 as that seems to be the actual time. The point still stands, though. Might it be a good idea to ask people to add the diff for the initial change too? Or is it assumed that we're going to check them thoroughly anyway? violet/riga (t) 10:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Please compare the diffs - the first so-called "revert" listed is a change (go to the end of the diff), not a revert. SouthernComfort 10:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Even if it introduced something different to the article it still reverted the BC/AD and BCE/CE bits, so it's still a revert. violet/riga (t) 11:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. The dates were changed back in each and evry one of the four occasions, which followed 11:19, 24 May 2005. El_C 11:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

How can it be a revert if I didn't go to the history and revert to a previous version? If I had changed each section separately, as Geni had done, would that have been better, or made any difference? SouthernComfort 11:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

A "revert" doesn't refer to going to a previous version and reverting that one back, it means reverting to a previous version by any means, and that includes doing the same activity repeatedly. In other words, clicking on the edit button and replaceing BCE is the equivalent to changing it back via history. violet/riga (t) 12:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Otherwise, 3RR would have no meaning: everyone would be reverting to their versions as many times as they wish without reverting whole revisions because they added or modified certain portions of it. For the 3RR to work, it's the insertion of the contested, previously-reverted version of something or other which is the revert (it could, of course, also amount to a whole article revision). El_C 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

If we want to get technical about things, then what I did was not technically a revert. I made a change along with changing the dates dating convention. At least I did it honestly, rather than going through each separate section as Geni had done (along with comments implying that she was making other edits) which is rather disingenuous. SouthernComfort 12:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It was technically a revert, sorry. If you want me to look into your claims regarding Geni's edits which you argue were disingenuous, I'm going to need to see individual diffs. El_C 13:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Geni's edits: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. This is what I'm talking about when I say 'disingenuous.' SouthernComfort 13:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not seeing it. What I see is dating war edits along with other edits which are of no consequnce for our immediate purposes here as per your claims. What am I missing? El_C 13:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Man, you're missing the disingenuity! If you can't see it, then what can I say? ;) Anyway, I was trying to make a point - i.e. that I didn't edit each separate section to remove the dating ceonventions while leaving comments implying other edits and so forth. Perhaps the lesson to be learned from this is that this sort of disingenuity (removing minor data section by section) is potentially helpful in avoiding accusations of reversion. SouthernComfort 13:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, regardless of what the facts may or may not be, I'm not sure how illustrative and clear your explantion was. I suggest you submitt it to the RFAr and see if the arbitrators are able to see what is so obvious to you, I have no authority here anyway. El_C 14:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See the diffs I provided below. After Paul Barlow's edits (made after Geni's reversion) the article returned to the previous dating convention, but with new edits made by Paul. I did not revert those edits. Instead I made new edits while changing the dating convention as well. This is an entirely new initial change since new edits were made after Geni's reversion, and those new contribs were not reverted. What would arbitration accomplish? SouthernComfort 15:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm clearly missing something here. What is claimed to be the initial change to which these four reverts are reverting? Could someone supply the diff? How far back in the History is it? If I make a change to an article, then revert to it three times, can I be found guilty of four reverts because at some time in the past my change had been made before, so that technically I'm reverting? How far back is that allowed to go? At the very least, it seems to me that this risks offending against the spirit and purpose of the 3RR. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Mel, in all fairness, I have supplied the pertinent diff more than once now. All 5 edits (initial plus 4 reverts) were made within a 24 hour-span. El_C 14:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The issue is confused because of Geni's disingenuous method of editing. It confused me as well. I make an initial edit, she removes all those edits section by section (see diffs above), thus the article returns to its previous state. Then I change the conventions back to BCE/CE as well as adding other legitimate edits. Then the out-and-out reversions begin. SouthernComfort 13:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

This was my first reversion: [34]. There were only two reverts after that. SouthernComfort 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Also, after Geni's first revert, another user made edits to the article which I did not revert. His contribs remained in the article after I edited. I stand by my word of three reverts and emphatically reject the accusations. SouthernComfort 13:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Paul Barlow's edits after Geni's reversion (which I did not revert): [35] [36] [37]. SouthernComfort 14:01, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't see how we can make it much clearer than it's shown above! It's a blatant 3RR violation. violet/riga (t) 14:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, neither can I. And yet the circularity persists, somehow. El_C 14:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's a clear example of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Phew! For a moment there I thought I was hallucinating other people's hallucinations. El_C 14:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that Mel unblocking him after 10 hours wasn't really the right thing to do considering that there were two admins explaining that he had indeed violated the 3RR. I do think he should've served the full 24 hours. However, I'm not about to do anything about it myself. violet/riga (t) 14:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've just looked at his talk page to see whether there was a warning, and it seems there wasn't. This would matter less if he's violated it elsewhere recently, or was system gaming and miscalculated, but I don't know anything about the pattern of edits. It's worrying, though, that he's still claiming this wasn't a "technical" violation, whatever that means. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way would be to investigate the history section [38] itself to compare the pattern of edits. SouthernComfort 15:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant your recent pattern of edits overall, not just in this article. I'd be interested to know what you mean by saying this was "not technically a revert." If you do explain, please don't mention what anyone else did: all that matters is whether you reverted to a previous version more than three times within 24 hours, and you did. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:39, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

As I have explained above, I only reverted to a previous version three times. My edits after Paul Barlow contribs [39] (made after Geni's first revert) was not a revert since his contribs remained in the article. Please see Paul Barlow's diffs above and compare with this version. Again, I did not revert to a previous version, but it is claimed that I did and they're counting that as a revert despite the obvious fact that I did not revert to an earlier version. If there are any doubts, this is WP and everything is well recorded and anyone can look at my edit history to see what I did or did not do. SouthernComfort 15:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You reverted to BCE/CE more than three times in 24 hours, as the diffs clearly show. Why are you not counting these as reverts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Because I did not revert to a previous version. If you're counting the fact that I changed the dating conventions after Paul's contribs (as well as including another unrelated edit) and counting that as a revert, then I think I have a serious misunderstanding of what reversion means, since I thought reverting only referred to clicking on the history and reverting to a previous version. I only did that three times. SouthernComfort 15:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

What you are describing is what is known as a "complex revert", or as "gaming the revert rule". You reverted to a preferred portion of a previous text, while not reverting all of it. People regularly do this in order to skirt the 3RR; if Wikipedia allowed this, then no-one would ever have to worry about the 3RR at all, since they could always make small other changes to the article so that they hadn't made reverts to exact previous version of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I didn't know that at all, and from what you're describing, this is official policy. At least now I've got that clarified. SouthernComfort 16:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

First, I can now see where the first change is that I'd missed, and there was clearly a 3RR violation. My worry is that a fair number of changes, most of them unrelated, and made by a number of users, separated SouthernComfort's first introduction of the change from the set of changes in question. That's why I believed that my initial block had been too hasty, because the little revert war was sufficiently separated from that first change that it looked as though the first revert was in fact not a revert at all (as I explained above). My feeling is that this situation is at least at the edge of what the 3RR was designed to cover, but no-one seems to agree with me on that, so let it pass. Secondly, it's common practice for first offenders (especially those who received no warning (pace violet/riga), and who have violated 3RR as the result of a misunderstanding) should be let off with a warning. A ten-hour block is more than sufficient punishment. violet/riga seems to be demanding a pound of flesh here, but is clearly emotionally involved in the case (as the protection of List of kings of Persia against the rules also indicates). Could we drop this now? I made an initial mistake in not checking for warnings. I then made a second mistake in not checking the history as well as the diffs (though that that mistake was cancelled out by the first). I've apologised, and do so again. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. What do you want, blood? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Warnings were from me [40] regarding another article he nearly 3RR'd on and Slrubenstein [41] when he gave him tips on "dealing with problem users" (Jguk). I find the accusations of being "personally involved" quite frustrating when my entire participation on this to help resolve the issue (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Eras) with my edits being to revert to a previously accepted version and to try to work towards a compromise. I think that Jguk has been showing some POV and edit-warring too much, but it is SouthernComfort that has gone around and changed them all, kicking this situation off. He can't just carry on reverting and this violation should be used to demonstrate that. violet/riga (t) 17:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I have never violated any WP policy by going around changing dating conventions from BC/AD to BCE/CE. For you to accuse me of wrongdoing based on this is absurd, especially when there has been a distinct lack of opposition from most editors involved with these articles. This violation doesn't change anything as far as I'm concerned and I refuse to be badgered and bullied. SouthernComfort 18:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

When you say this violation doesn't change anything, you're wrong in at least one regard, because it means that several of us will be watching your edits, and if you violate 3RR again, you'll be blocked for 24 hours without warning. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:17, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I invite everyone to watch every single edit and reversion I make. I wasn't clear on the exact WP definition of reversion, and now that I am I won't make this one single mistake again. SouthernComfort 19:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Better still, stop making reversions. Violet has created a page with a proposal regarding BCE/CE, so the correct thing to do is wait for the outcome of that debate, and leave things as they are in the meantime. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Skyring (talk · contribs) keeps adding to Government of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that the Queen of England is not the Queen of Australia, and/or that Australia is a republic. He's been doing this for months, with a break of a few weeks while he was away, but he's back now, and it has started up again. He's opposed by all the editors on the page, including Adam Carr and El C, and has been provided with many sources showing the Queen as the Australian head of state, but it makes no difference. He has also posted about it to the mailing list, and got no support there either. I would like to classify these edits as vandalism from now on, and give him a short block, after a warning, if he does it again. Does anyone here feel this would be inappropriate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:55, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure we can. Where are things in the wikipedia disspute resolution process.Geni 00:03, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not simple vandalism per definition. He sincerely believes he is right and you, I and lots of Australians are wrong wrong wrong. RFC would probably be the next stage. This could be the ArbCom's first true content-based case as well. I'm so glad I'd be recusing from it - David Gerard 00:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

We had an edit conflict, David, so I wrote the following before I read your post. Just to answer Geni: There's been an article RfC, not an RfC on Skyring, except that people on the mailing list made it abundantly clear what they thought of him (that he is, in effect, trolling), but it's made no difference to his behavior. Now Adam Carr is making a proposal that Skyring's edits about the Queen not being the head of state should be reverted by any editor, and should not be subject to 3RR. Adam has posted this on several talk pages and is going to hold a vote. See here for instance User talk:SlimVirgin#Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia. In my view, it would make a lot more sense, rather than allowing all editors to violate 3RR to delete Skyring's edits, to decide they constitute vandalism so that he can be blocked if he persists. The edits are false; he can't produce sources; no one agrees with him; when challenged he wanders off into long-winded, spurious arguments; he tried to get Adam blocked for 3RR and personal attacks over the issue; and he won't accept any of the sources other editors have produced. It's certainly not a million miles from vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:46, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sure sounds arbitrable to me, FWIW. This might avoid crossing the streams - David Gerard 00:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not really vandalism. Since his edits are so specific, as David suugests, RfA would be a better route to take. Excluding reverts of Skyrings edits from 3RR the seems like a slippery slope--nixie 00:54, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, everyone. RfC it is, then. I agree about the slippery slope problem, Nixie. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I have recommended arbitration to the parties, hopefully this long going dispute can be concluded soon. --nixie 05:44, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, but some sort of steps toward substantial dispute resolution are clearly needed. Everyking 05:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear that Skyring's pattern of questionable edits all follow an Australian Republicanist thrust. Adam's policy (which perhaps should be extended to other article where Skyring propogates Australian Republicanism) effectively curtails this. Of course, the Committee could implement the policy as a temporary injuction – practically, that would amount to the same thing. They could also consider Adam's policy as a possible remedy – that would also amount to the same thing. Or issue a different injunction (if at all) and possible remedies. But all of that seems unecessary to me (unless I'm missing something; very much in the realm of possibility), considering that there is unanimous consensus against Skyring Australian Republicanist edits, and I view Adam's proposal as an extension of and a mechanism towards a clear depiction of this editorial consensus. Thereby avoiding wasting the Committee and other editors' time and energy. El_C 06:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with the idea that a group of editors could choose to gang up on another editor with whom they disagreed. While the case with Skyring is completely valid, Adams poll does set a precedent for discriminatory editing, and creates an opportunity where people could stack a page with like minded editors and over rule someones valid edits. I have lodged a RfA on behalf of the editors of Governent of Australia, because they have put up with the situation for far too long. --nixie 06:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I am one of them, and as I said, it isn't as if I'm objecting to an arbitration case against him. Yes, your point is valid, but I already accepted as a given that propper safeguards would need to be in place (I seem to have failed to communicate that). But I do still think that it is possible to significantly improve the process in certain instances, without being at the expense of fairness and due process. A pipe dream? To many, at this time, it may indeed appear be just that. The question, I suppose, is indefintiely or not. El_C 07:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, that a group of editors on a certain article, if they have firm consensus, could choose to indefinitely revert someone who they feel is not being reasonable, pushing a POV beyond the acceptable limits, etc. To me, that's a much better resolution than going to the ArbCom and getting some ruling that he's banned for a year and his grandmother must be beaten up, too. The only question would be whether the consensus-based reverts were themselves being reasonable, or were deliberately excluding a dissident editor no matter what he or she did.

On the other hand, I somewhat lack enthusiasm for this because I have seen Adam Carr say unilaterally that he will revert automatically anyone who tries to correct right-wing bias in articles on topics related to 20th century leftism. So I think that while it might be good in this instance, further applications of that idea would have to be approached carefully. Everyking 11:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree; carefuly. As for automatic reverts elsewhere, in controversial subjects, that can of course work both ways, I'm sure Adam is well aware of that (and obviously, I am one who would be on the opposite side as himself), I don't at all think, however, that he is considering similar propositions for controversial topics. But this isn't such a 'contested' topic in reality; precisely the reason why myself and Adam, who hold such antithetical worldviews, can both be in agreement on this issue.El_C 11:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)