• August 5 - August 8 2005

User:203.63.151.22 is adding information to History of Christianity from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Should I revert? What's the copyright status of this info? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote from Catholic Encyclopedia: "Due to its public domain status, content from the 1913 edition can be incorporated into any work. The online site is copyrighted (© 2003 by K. Knight), but this doesn't apply to the 1913 text. Text from the Catholic Encyclopedia appears, sometimes in an edited form, in online reference works such as Wikipedia." HKT ^talk 02:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Depends on the edition they took it from. See Catholic Encyclopedia#Derived works and Wikipedia:Using Catholic Encyclopedia material. --02:47, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

I believe it's from the 1913 text. Will check. What about POV status? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Boldly," "confidently," "a vision assured him," "bigoted pagan," and "cruel tyrant" (and quite a few others) don't sound neutral to me. HKT ^talk 03:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Public domain encyclopedias have this problem a lot. The second best way to fix the problem is to NPOV the material, not revert it, and the very best is to get the editor in question to NPOV it themselves ;-) - David Gerard 06:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Almost all of our Christianity-related articles have material from one PD RCC source or another. It's up to the person doing the editing to show some intelligence and sensitivity and add only those things that are NPOV. I think cutting and pasting whole PD encyclopedia articles into Wikipedia ought to be punished by trampling by elephants, myself, but it has long, sad precedent. Material from a PD encyclopedia is groovy, but it should be material, selected (and therefore evaluated) by the editor if it's going to be at all intelligently done. The Catholic Encyclopedia is quite scholarly and rarely gets its facts wrong, but it is not NPOV. For that matter, the 1911 Britanica is wretched when it comes to NPOV, and I frequently have to rip out every word of a 1911 article before I can write a decent article on an Augustan era topic, just because of the POV in every line of the Whig-dominated history they had. Geogre 19:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is a particular problem with the PD Catholic Encyclopedia: It's from 1913. The Church has changed so dramatically over the past 100 years (look at Vatican II alone) that most information in the CE is only useful as a historical record. Anytime the CE is used (alone) to support a "the current belief of the Church is" statement, it should be strongly doubted. -- Essjay · Talk 19:48, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, pre- and post-VC2 are huge issues. The only caution to your caution I have is that the New Advent exists in open license in more than one form, I believe. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia is PD, but I think the New Advent Online is at least somewhat updated and from a near-VC2 date. Ultimately, though, it comes down, in my opinion, to the editor. My rule, if I could set rules, would be 1) Never paste in a whole article from anywhere, even if open source, because if you don't know enough about the subject to edit it intelligently and adapt it, you probably ought to leave the blank; 2) Never paste in even a sentence from a PD source unless you can verify and corroborate its statements by your own contemporary reading or a second source; 3) Never paste in anything that is POV unless you also paste in an explicit reference to the source of that specific statement and not a general "Well, bits of this article were taken from X or Y. Then again, every time I propose a rule, someone says, "That sounds like slashdot, so it's not original and I'm voting against it." This is especially true if there is no voting involved. Geogre 14:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Benjamin Gatti created a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Wikiblower protection. This was nominated for deletion by a selection of users who didn't like it (which personally I think was inappropriate since we accept or reject policy proposals made in good faith, not VFD them, but that's not the point). In response to the VFD on his proposal, Benjamin Gatti created a VFD on THE VFD PROPOSAL. Subsequently, he has been fighting with other users to keep the {{VFD}} tag on the VFD proposal he doesn't like, and to keep others from blanking/redirecting the second VFD. Will someone please sort this out. Probably requires deleting or redirecting the second VFD and protecting it against editting. Dragons flight 02:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

My deletion comment: "Ridiculous. What are we going to have now? A VFD on the VFD of the VFD? Get real.". - Ta bu shi da yu 02:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Dragons flight 03:12, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Benjamin is having a case of WP:POINT here. The proposal is rather hard to take seriously; basically it states that 'wikiblowers' (intended as a pun on 'whistleblowers', although other connotations come to mind) should be able to get away with breaking policy if, in doing so, they bring a perceived problem of the wiki to the community attention. That basically means that a vandal shouldn't be blocked, since in vandalizing he brings the problem of vandalism to our attention. Not good. Also, it was arguably a personal attack. Radiant_>|< 08:33, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

He has now been reverting the removal of the VFD tag (despite the linked VFD having been deleted) as well as repeatedly removing comments from katefan0. I've warned him to be careful of the 3RR and of deliberate disruption. If he continues his one-man fight in such a way then he should be blocked for a short time. Hopefully then the VFD process can go through smoothly. violet/riga (t) 13:41, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. violet/riga (t) 15:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

If the current behavior continues, should the user be sent to RfAr? It's disruptive, bad faith, and personal attacks, and doesn't show signs of stopping. -- Essjay · Talk 06:37, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have gotten in contact with Ozemail. Put Ozemail's contact details on the talk pages. Hope this causes a little DDOS of people calling their support number - this might make them take notice. Anyway, I've alerted them to the fact that there is a problem here. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Could someone have a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Witkacy/Black Book? Witkacy (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly adding a speedy deletion tag to the VfD discussion. I've been involved in the dispute over whether the page should exist and support its deletion, so I don't feel comfortable taking further action over this. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

pls take a look on [1] - a consensus was reached, but some users simply ignored it and started a new voting.--Witkacy 15:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the "consensus" at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Polish Wikipedians' notice board/Black Book, the closing admin tallied the votes as "The result of the debate was 8 Userfy, 20 DELETE." While the article at that point was not deleted, asserting that there was a consensus to retain it is a tad disingenuous.

An uneasy peace was achieved after the article was moved to User:Halibutt's User space, and no further additions were made. Subsequent to the VfD closure on 22 June, Jimbo commented on Halibutt's Talk page that a "black book attack page" was unhelpful, and encouraged some sort of "friendly outreach/education page" instead.

Recently, the page was revived from its dormant state and copied to User:Witkacy's User space; several additional editors were added to the list there. Several editors–again including Jimbo ([2])–urged Witkacy to abandon the Black Book. The Black Book was renominated for deletion, presumably because it showed no sign of rehabilitation and remained an attack page. Further, Jimbo has now made his opinion of the page clear—information that wasn't available during the first VfD.

Renomination of articles for deletion is not forbidden by policy, though rapid renomination is often discouraged. In this case, the page was allowed an opportunity to improve and mature. More than a month passed since the closure of the first VfD, and the page's problems have not been resolved. It has come to light that Wikipedia's founder finds the page objectionable, too. Whether Witkacy likes it or not, there is no reason to speedily close or delete this VfD, and readding the speedy tag is inappropriate and disruptive. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

"Voting summary: Oppose/Keep: 6; Userfy: 10; Delete: 20 Nohat 17:40, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

the initiator of this new voting is User:TShilo12, see: [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8],

[9], [10], [11],

[12], [13], [14], [15]--Witkacy 17:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

How about scrolling up a few inches to this for precedent? P.S. Deletion policy allows renominations of pages for VfD. HKT ^talk 18:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I most certainly am not the initiator of "this new voting", User:-Ril- was. I can only assume that he found out about the page's existence because he got rather annoyed with the tone I took with him on a recent (utterly unrelated) VfD, and went on a little investigation of my talk page, which quickly led him to Witkacy's pet project (i.e., besmirching me). As far as Witkacy's assertion that the page is ineligible for "new voting" because it's had (?) "old voting", that's preposterous: no such clause is anywhere to be found anywhere at WP:VFD nor its related pages. There is, however, a clause that says that personal attacks, which this page unquestionably (despite its plaintive cries to the contrary), should be removed, even from user space, by anyone. The only reason I can imagine keeping this page is as evidence (although it really is but a single drop in an ocean) against Witkacy in an RfC or arfar, something several "keep" votes have used as a rationale for their votes. I believe the reason -Ril- nominated it for VfD (although you'd have to ask him to be sure) is because clearly, removing the comments from the page isn't doing any good, since Witkacy keeps putting them back. He has since copied the text from the top of the page into the VfD discussion, I can only imagine so that he can easily retrieve it in case the page is deleted. He's also copied the content to User talk:Witkacy. Tomer ^TALK 23:15, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Chuck0 (talk · contribs) / User:24.94.181.211

from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR

Three revert rule violation on Chuck Munson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Lifestyle anarchism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chuck0 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 19:28, August 5, 2005
• 1st revert: 19:28, August 5, 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:53, August 5, 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:57, August 5, 2005
• 4th revert: 22:07, August 5, 2005
• Also reverts 4-7: [16], [17], and [18]
• Also violated 3RR on Lifestyle anarchism.
• Reported by: Willmcw 22:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Comments:
• User has been warned about reverting, and failing to discuss changes. A couple of other users are involved. -Willmcw
• This user is cross-reported at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Hall Monitor 22:45, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I'm going to consoldiate this with the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism report and move the whole thing to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

These two users are most likely one in the same. Both are repeatedly blanking talk pages and removing information from Wikipedia without responding to requests for dialog and have violated the WP:3RR. Hall Monitor 22:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Perhaps someone should nominate this article for VfD. Based upon this diff, the article in conflict appears to be a vanity entry any how. Hall Monitor 22:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Based on user:24.94.181.211's first edit, December 6, 2004, and all subsequent edits, it appears certain that it is the IP used by user:Chuck0 (he who wants his privacy so much...). Actually the article didn't start as a vanity- user:Tothebarricades.tk, who started and did several edits to the article, is a different person (IMO). Yet it has become one, or would if the editor were given his choice. This is similar to the article on ROMATH/user:ROMATH. The subject of it didn't want her name or other basic info printed, though she didn't mind promoting her new website. In the end if was deleted entirely which satisfied her. I've suggested the same treatment for the Munson articles to the editor. However Munson is more notable than Romath so I'm not sure a VfD would succeed. Complicating the situation is the [past] involvement of Bill White (activist)/user:Baxter2/user:68.10.35.153. Should we move this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? -Willmcw 23:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Chuck Munson is a user here. Looking over the past few edits, I see Hall Monitor putting his home address and other information about him on a Chuck Munson page. Willmcw and Hall Monitor seem delighted they can harass him and post what may or may not be his home address for all to see, since they were able to obtain it he "deserves" it. Then an admin decides to ban Chuck from his attempts to remove this information - and that admin is Jayjg, what a surprise. This is simply harassment of a Wikipedia user by Hall Monitor and Willmcw. Ruy Lopez 06:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I see Hall Monitor putting his home address... Bullcrap. He's putting in basic biographical information -- which does NOT include his home address -- that Munson puts in his own blog. If you're looking for a club to beat people with, try something else. --Calton | Talk 10:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well of course Calton is lying[19] about this, and he also neglected to mention that three minutes before posting this he was trying to throw a Wikipedia user's personal information back up[20] in a campaign of harassment. Calton is engaging in a revert war to put personal information of a Wikipedia user up on the site in a vindicative campaign against a user. Ruy Lopez 10:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

That's the TALK page, you ninnyhammer. Is "intellectual honesty" a term found in any of your dictionaries? Why is telling the truth so difficult for you? --Calton | Talk 16:07, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Munson posted his mailing address here [21], and has referred to his area of residence numerous times in his blog. All we had in the article is what county he lives in - not exactly the same as posting his address. Why would there be a "vindictive" campaign against user:Chuck0? -Willmcw 19:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

FYI, the article about the subject is on VfD per Ruy Lopez. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Chuck Munson, and the voting is tending towards "keep". -Willmcw 06:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Gabrichidze (talk · contribs) is a self-proclaimed friend of the painter by the same name, and persists in adding the artwork of this rather unknown surrealist to articles where it may or may not belong, e.g. Plato, Mermaid and Surrealism. The key here is that all that art is copyvio. The user has been repeatedly informed of that, but doesn't particularly listen (nor does he listen to people removing his art from pages where they contend it does not belong). Elle20 (talk · contribs) and Ell90 (talk · contribs) are his sockpuppets that display the exact same behavior; I've blocked the latter two as they have no purpose other than to circumvent policy. Radiant_>|< 12:41, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

If he actually is a friend of the painter, maybe he has copyright permission. ~~ N (t/c) 19:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• That's true, but 'maybe' doesn't cut it, and so far he has been unable to prove it. In my experience, few artists (I am one of sorts) are willing to release their work to such a wide license as the GFDL. Radiant_>|< 07:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he had permission then it'd be promotional spam for an obscure artist... either way what the guy is doing just doesn't fly. DreamGuy 07:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#POV Pushing Guilds.

Heraclius refuses to apologise [22] for the personal attack in this edit in which he/she calls another user a "bastard". Does this therefore warrent a block for violating WP:NPA ? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:18, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

My first personal attack I have made warrants a block? I would say that's a bit harsh.Heraclius 15:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Because you refuse to withdraw it and apologise. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

As annoying as that may be, not apologizing for something is not a grounds for being blocked. Blocks are not punitive measures, they are tools to contain damage by disruptive editors. If Heraclius would be so kind as to not engage in further personal attacks, it would be appreciated. JRM · Talk 15:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I would have said that calling someone a "bastard" was a sufficiently offensive violation of WP:NPA for a 24hr block, whatever leniency may have been present being removed by the refusal to apologise. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

"Tricky little bastard", to be precise. Again: blocks are not punitive measures. I believe most people can be encouraged to refrain from unproductive behaviour by asking them to. If they persist despite being explained why what they're doing isn't working, a block is a technical measure to protect the wiki from their foolishness, or their deviousness. Commanding people to apologize, as you did on Heraclius' talk page, is an approach to problem solving that I think is more suited to kindergarten.

I have informed Heraclius on his talk page that he is kindly not to launch personal attacks again. JRM · Talk 16:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have no idea about this issue, but -Ril- cannot even talk about personal attacks. He has been doing the worst kind of personal attacks, including trolling, personal targeting, 3RRs, trying to make Wiki miserable, and he has been intentionally doing it for the last 2 weeks or more. He does it for revenge and to be mean. This is what it appears he is doing here. -Ril- can not be trusted on this issue, and furthermore, the only reason -Ril- has not been subject to an RfC is because one has not been written up . . . yet. --Noitall 16:01, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

• • Sorry, but calling someone a "bastard" this edit is a personal attack in most people's books. Do you disagree? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that, if there is a problem, JRM's approach is the correct approach. His approach is entirely different from yours -Ril-, which is revenge, neverending attacks and stalking. --Noitall 17:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. user:-Ril- is interfering in matters that are not of his business. Although Heraclius did use some disputable wording, he most certainly had reasons for it: that guy changed his comment. Also this kind of behaviour is not exemplary for Heraclius. So don't allow this kind of Wikipedia policy abuse please. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Calling another user a "bastard" is simply not acceptable under any circumstances. Wikipedia has a strict no-personal attack policy. Any user violating it should be denounced, by anyone who has noticed, for doing so. Do you disagree? Are you trying to claim that Heraclius's calling another a "bastard", a violation of WP:NPA which states that personal attacks should not be made under any circumstances, is in any way acceptable? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

we can't block for personal attacks. The policy failed Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old). Of course anyone who doesn't like this fact is free to repropose the policy.Geni 17:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are currently allowed to block people temporarily for a brief (i.e. less than 3 hour) "cooling down" period for personal attacks, if you are not involved. "Bastard" is a pretty strong personal attack though. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 18:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy doesn't seem to have anything in it suggesting this and if you watch a few flame wars you will find that "Bastard" is a pretty minor personal attack.Geni 19:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• (I don't have a "dog in this fight" so to speak (mine is staying safely on the porch), but WP:NPA does say In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial.) -- Essjay · Talk 19:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

In a neutral world, "Bastard" is a pretty huge personal attack. We should'nt be going "well, personal attacks are ok as long as no-one is worse than anyone else". We should be going "personal attacks are not acceptable. EVER". ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, be careful what you wish for. You will likely be up for an RfC soon on your continuing personal attacks, vengeful actions, stalking, and continuing bad faith behavior, for 100s of instances. I suppose a continuing block of you would not be in your best interests. --Noitall 19:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I have never, not even once, called another editor a "bastard" or similar slander. I have made 8000 edits (5000 in article space) without even an attempted RFC, neither have I been blocked (n.b. technically, I have been blocked, but they were lifted pretty quickly as they were deemed to have been inappropriate, and therefore in error). I would be surprised if you yourself managed to achieve that when you get to 8000 edits. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Your actions have been far far far more disruptive and vindictive. Does it make any difference if you have 8000 edits if 2000 of them are personal attacks against other editors? And you were just 3RRed are are about to be again (besides the RfC). --Noitall 19:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The difference it makes is that if my actions are disruptive and vindicitive, rather than that just being your opinion of them, then I would have been RFC'd by now, certainly before making 5000 article edits. In fact, I am one of the top 10 contributers to articles (discountig bots) - according to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits - for the period of June-July (rather than over total edits ever) - averaging 2000+ edits to articles per month (+numerous non-article edits). I haven't been RFC'd. And I haven't just been 3RR'd either. If I had, I wouldn't be able to be typing this, I would be blocked. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, you might want to check up on your facts, you are up for two 3RRs at one time, for two entirely separate pages, two entirely separate events, by two entirely separate editors (who were not involved in the other page) -- pretty tough to do, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. In the second, case it is for 13 Reverts! In that entire time, he did not edit a single word, he only reverted. In that entire time, he did not edit or revert a single edit other than mine. --Noitall 21:15, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, you are the one who added the second 3RR, it doesn't count - because it isn't valid - it covers 12 edits over 2 weeks, not 24 hours. There are not more than 3 reverts over any 24 hour period amongst the edits that you list, and you list one of the edits twice. And the first 3RR was by Germen, in retaliation to the 3RR against himself, and is also invalid. He hasn't specified which version was being "reverted to", infact such a version is the first "revert", making only 3 reverts + the original version, which isn't a violation either. As you will note, I have not been blocked for two allegations of 3RR violation, and am still editing, because neither is valid. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

restored comment deleted by Ril [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=20431308&oldid=20431276 dab (ᛏ) 21:27, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. I thought they would have sorted out the edit-conflict during section editing bug in Mediawiki 1.5 by now? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems this issue is finished, especially since Heraclius isn't going to use that word again. In any event, ~~~~ won't be back until next week, see User talk:-Ril- for more info. --Noitall 04:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I de-listed Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rainbowwarrior1977 from RfA this morning because it is clearly a bad faith nomination. (The user has less than 100 edits and has not been a contributor for long.) I also suspect that the nominator may be a sockpuppet. Anyhow, the user has relisted the RfA (apparently several times) and I am reluctant to continue to remove it without bringing up the issue. Am I within my perrogative as an admin to remove a bad-faith nomination at RfA? Should I have taken it to a b-crat instead (since RfA is their particular province)? I know admins can de-list at VfD, and I assume that this sort of thing falls under the same directive, but I want to make sure. Further, if the nomination is again de-listed and is replaced by the nominee, is a vandalism warning in order? My instinct says the whole affair is vandalism, but better to ask than to misjudge the situation. -- Essjay · Talk 18:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Action is being taken right now. Thanks for the heads-up. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'd still like to know for future reference if this is within the power of admins, or if b-crats are needed to remove nominations like this. (Don't want to make the same mistake twice.) -- Essjay · Talk 18:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Of course. In fact, it is not only within the power of admins and bueraucrats, but normal users as well. Make sure you state the reason why you are removing the RFA, and make sure that it's obvious that the nomination won't do anything besides make the person who got nominated look like a total ass (i.e., if the nominated editor has 10 oppose votes to two support votes, that means that thirty-eight support votes would be needed to create an 80% majority). You also did the right thing by reporting it here as well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:30, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. Zscout370 just added an applicable bit of policy [23] to the page itself. Overwhelmingly negative votes need to be removed early; like gory freeway accidents, they attract rubberneckers, and cause nothing but further problems. Removal can be done by anyone. Antandrus (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks all! I like to make sure and check these things, if for no other reason than to reassure myself that I'm not becoming one of those abusive admins all the vandals scream about. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 18:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The title "Abusive op" goes with the territory of being a good admin. Trust me on this one: most (emphasis on most) of the people who call you "abusive" are themselves either clueless newbies or trolls that don't like the fact that they are wrong, you are right. Even if your decisions look "borderline abusive", you should hold the title of abusive op with the highest esteem. It means you're doing your job right ;-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Amen. I'm not even an admin, but I've been around long enough editing contentious articles to know that people who yell "abusive!" are the abusers. Here's a rag </me proffers rag> to help you keep the mirrors clean of all the smoke. Tomer ^TALK 07:54, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

All I had to do is just post the policy that says we can remove it to prevent ill will, but it seems the vote is still going on. While I think it was good to remove it, a note should have been dropped at their user page to announce the removal before it happens. Though, no matter what we did, we still would have come here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

After looking over the user's other actions, I've filed an RFC. If you've been involved in this or other interacions, please consider commenting. -- Essjay · Talk 23:45, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Protection policy "Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page)." User:Jayjg has applied a protection to the Chip Berlet page that preserves a controversial revision by another editor with whom he is aligned despite being a participant in the talk page dispute less than 24 hours prior. Attempts to inform him of this violation and requests to remove the improper page protection have gone without response from Jayjg.

Evidence:

• [24] - Jayjg expresses his opinions on disputed matters at Talk:Chip Berlet, August 5, 2005
• [25] - User:FeloniousMonk reverts to a very controversial revision by User:SlimVirgin that is subject of multiple talk page disputes, 22:09 August 5, 2005
• [26] - Jayjg applies protection to preserve the SlimVirgin revision two minutes later at 22:11 August 5, 2005

- Rangerdude 19:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• Jayjg's only involvement was to mock your assertion of WP:POINT. He expressed no opinion about the article. But if it bothers you, I'll unprotect it and then protect it again myself, since I'm not involved at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Mockery or not, his comment also pertained directly to a dispute over whether WP:RS applied to Berlet, Horowitz, or both, and if so in what matter. It should also be noted that Jayjg participated extensively in a directly related discussion about the inclusion of the same material by Mr. Berlet on the Roots of anti-Semitism article, espousing the same position there. [27] [28] [29] Furthermore, Jayjg's action may be seen as having the purpose of preserving a controversial revision by SlimVirgin that had been removed several hours earlier pending consensus discussions on the talk page only to be reinserted two minutes prior to the protection. The purpose of Wikipedia's page protection policy is to avoid situations exactly of this nature in which an administrator with a personal interest and position in the discussion implements the page protection in a way that supports his position or the position of a friend. As such, simply removing the protection and replacing it yourself would do nothing to address the fact that Jayjg behaved inappropriately here while simultaneously giving sanction to his action. Rangerdude 20:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• According to the history [30], Jayjg has only edited the talk page once since it was created last year. Adding the protection notice was the only time he's ever edited the article page [31]. This doesn't look like a violation to me. Carbonite | Talk 19:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Carbonite - if you will take a moment to read the page protection policy, it does not require an administrator to have previously edited the page itself to apply. It only requires him to have taken a position on the talk page in a dispute, which Jayjg did. You should also take a moment to examine a directly related dispute on the same subject of using Berlet as a source on the Roots of anti-Semitism article, where Jayjg espoused the same position there only a day prior.[32] [33] [34] Given this history and his contribution on the talk page, Jayjg had already taken a position on the subject of the dispute at the time he protected the Chip Berlet article. As such he was already a participant in that dispute and was prohibited at this time from applying a protection. Rangerdude 20:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's absurd: there are about 500-600 admins, and only about 300 or so semi-active and only about 100 or so active totally. There are over 500,000 articles, of which about 1/3 are of decent quality (my estimate). So this means that 100 admins need to admin about 175,000 pages, of which any could have a content dispute. Admins can express an opinion on a page and still lock it while discussion is ongoing, though it's obviously not advisable. I really can't comment much more on this instance, however, as I haven't investigated. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg is a member of the arb com, parachuted into position by Jimbo Wales, who is also a supporter of Jayjg's behaviour so he/she can pretty much do what he/she wishes, sorry. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I can speak to someone not involved on this page but familiar with User:Jayjg's edits. User:Jayjg has modified my edits plenty of times, and quite frequently I have not agreed. Yet, although I am an opinionated editor, I have never once gotten in any serious dispute with him. I have not seen him abuse his position as an editor or admin. --Noitall 04:28, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall - I did not post this for notice to serve as a query about what other people's past experiences with Jayjg are. For all I know he may be a great administrator. I posted this notice because in the case I have directly linked to and outlined above Jayjg broke the rules on page protection and has declined to correct his error despite being asked to do so. What he's done in other past cases has no bearing on that fact. Rangerdude 04:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As with several other pages I protected that day, I am not familiar with the contents of the page in question, nor have I ever edited it, nor even commented on its content. I protected all of them because of on-going edit wars, and added them to the list of protected pages, as per policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Jay, as is documented above, you were indeed a talk page participant on the Chip Berlet article. You also participated extensively in a directly related discussion over the same dispute on the anti-semitism article. If you failed to realize this at the time I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt, however due notice of the fact that you had participated on the talk page was posted there and you did not respond. Rangerdude 07:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read my comment more carefully. I'll highlight one part for you, to help: "I am not familiar with the contents of the page in question, nor have I ever edited it, nor even commented on its content." Jayjg ^(talk) 07:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, we all have a reputation that follows us for good or ill. I said that I generally believe he has a good reputation. You said he might be a great admin. If we assume good faith, then I think it is appropriate to work things out without filing things on this page. --Noitall 06:50, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, the only gripe I really see here is that you are annoyed because it was Jayjg who did the page protection...not because it was protected, simply that it was Jayjg who did it. If you have a problem with him, the proper channels are open to you to create an RfC regarding him. That is not what this page is for, however. There is nothing about his actions that constitutes a violation of any policy, neither in letter nor in spirit. If you're unhappy with Jay's having been the one to lock the page, perhaps you should take more seriously jpgordon's proposal that he unlock it and then relock it himself. Or do you have a personal gripe against jpgordon as well? Tomer ^TALK 08:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer - you are incorrect about this complaint being inappropriate for this noticeboard. Per its opening paragraph, which you would be well served to revisit if you intend to comment on what is or is not appropriate here, "If you want to make an open informal complaint over the behaviour of an admin, you can do so here, but please only do either that, or file a RFC or RFAr, but not both." IOW, editors encounting a behavior incident have two options. One is here. The other is the RfC/RfAr process. As the complaint was easily summarized, easily documented and accordingly did not merit a full drawn out RfC, I opted to place the incident notice here. Rangerdude 21:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You've done that. Your comment has been read, and Rama has stated on Talk:Chip Berlet that he endorses the page protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:30, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Rangerdude, I see that by the editors lined up against you, that you will be the recipient of the usual hatred from this clique. Jayjg admits he has no knowledge or involvement on the subject but he flys-by and protects the page "to the last version by SlimVirgin". Typical contorversial form, from Wikipedia's most controversial editor. Rangerdude, you are in the right.69.217.120.221 02:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaking disagreements with hatred. I doubt anyone here hates anyone. Your comments are immoderate and unhelpful. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, certain cliquish editors have strong dislikes for others that don't share their views on topics they jealously guard POV on. A strong dislike is basically hatred. Jayjg did a fly-by page protect "to the last version by Slimvirgin. It's a sneaky cliquish move, nothing more.69.217.193.183 02:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I wish to report improper behavior on the part admin on the part of User:Proteus. He has violated the rules of Wikipedia:Requested moves and Wikipedia:Civility. The first action was when he called the article Fleet Admiral "nonsense" and "ridiculous" [35]. User next copied and pasted an article rather than use the page move option [36]. When this was reverted, user redid the paste move and then, when asked to use the page move feature [37] (in a polite manner, by the way), user responded with a nasty talk page message calling me ridiculous and saying not to lecture people [38]. User then rounded it off with a message that he was an admin and should not be talked to in an improper way [39]. This admin/user's behavior is uncalled for. I have been on this site for over a year and have been offered the admin job three times and turned it down. It is not a badge of purirty and, looking at this user's talk page and edit history, I see previous incidents of questionable admin conduct. I leave it to the Wikipedia higher-ups to deal with this. I find this user rude and offensive. -Husnock 19:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

User:144.139.227.89

Admins should be aware that banned user Skyring, blocked on Jimbo's orders, has reappeared yesterday as the above IP. That means his ban timing is reset and runs from yesterday. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Grow up, Jim! You're making an idiot of yourself. Can't you see he's tricking you into defending bad edits and reverting good edits? And if he's still doing it, I don't think he cares about Jimbo. (--anon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.191.194 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 August 2005

That is a personal attack. --AI 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. He only seems to make good edits, so I hope he continues to edit. Everyking 06:32, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe Jim Jtdirl can be regarded as being making an idiot of himself, as he has already made that ages ago, imo. He obviously is not able to learn any longer. Although his behavior is rather childish, and true children usually learn - apparently the childish do not. Naive repetition of some authority, be it a misunderstood policy or whatever, and hard urge to make enforcements... What's the problem with him? 217.140.193.123 20:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That also is a personal attack. --AI 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

He's banned for threats, abuse, POV edits and stalking users. Under Wikipedia rules the user is banned and cannot make any edits whatsoever on Wikipedia and is explicitly prohibited from using sockpuppets. As per policy he is to be banned on sight. Everyking's preferred appeasement policy of banned users is not Wikipedia policy, as numerous users have repeatedly pointed out to him on various pages. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Are you possibly confusing ban and block??? We must again ask, what is wrong with the guy if he confuses two separate terms. 217.140.193.123 21:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Everyone knows full well what games you are playing, but for the record, the user variously known as Skyring was banned, not blocked, for one month. A requirement in a ban is that a banned user cannot set foot on Wikipedia. They cannot change a letter, insert a full stop, nothing. Skyring, as you know, breached that rule. When he reappeared on Wikipedia at the end of his ban, Jimbo reimposed it, to give the ArbComm time to vote on a one year ban for his behaviour subsequent to the imposition of the original ban. Until they enforce their ban, admins have been authorised to block all Skyring attempts to edit this encyclopedia on sight. Until the expiry of the current ban and the one decided upon by ArbComm Skyring is not allowed to edit any articles on Wikipedia. Any edits are to be automatically reverted. All sockpuppets of his, as well you know, will be banned on sight. All their edits will be reverted and everytime he comes on as a sockpuppet the clock on the ban will restart again at that point. So if he is banned for a year, and uses a sockpuppet one month into the ban, the one year ban will restart and run from the time the sockpuppet sets foot on Wikipedia. If, one day before the expiry of the ban Skyring breaches its conditions and comes on to Wikipedia, the one year ban (or whatever length of time is decided on) will start again from that date. Issue closed. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

So, if he makes good edits, you're going to revert those changes on sight? Looks like all he's been doing to you is going around cleaning up your mess. 203.54.191.226 22:48, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Jtdirl, what makes you to imagine you are entitled to close the issue?? Poor guy. Btw,, I had the impression that the ArbCom has not yet imposed any further ban in that case. Would it be premature for YOU to decide such things? And, I am not aware, contrary to your stated belief above, that Skyring has breached that rule during his recent ban. Do you possibly have sufficient evidence, or is that allegation just one of your such? Then, I am not at all certain that Jimbo Wales has reimposed a ban. Rather, I heard that he made a week-long block. Of course, as I do not follow regularly any "New edicts from the management" lists, possibly I have missed such edict. I am sure that you Jtdirl can refer us all to read the precise wording of the reimposed "ban" you have cited. No offense to you, but I prefer to read such by myself and not to rely on your memory, as that thing is rumoredly not highly precise nor free of, how do we say it--- misrepresentations. Of course we all appreciate that you have felt yourself deeply disturbed, being the hugely advertised victim and all, but imo your behavior somehow also disrupts building an encyclopedia. I have detected some indications in your behavior that resemble witch hunt and also something that resembles a headless chicken running around making noises - see codeword hysteria. Remembering that you regard yourself as the victim, probably even you understand that in regular procedures, you will not be allowed to make judgements. You know, there are such concepts as conflict of interest and recusal. Is it commonplace to the person e.g shot at by another to be the jail-warden of the shooter when he is imprisoned? In what country? This all in your recent behavior remind many of us why it is mandatory to have the justice machinery kept impartial. 217.140.193.123 23:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That contains personal attacks. --AI 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

If he's making unquestionably good edits, and you're reverting them, can I go and revert to his version as a way of vouching or taking responsibility for his edit, so that it would then effectively be my edit and not his? I remember I think we had something like that with Michael, back when he was a vandal; you could restore an edit he made if you vouched for its accuracy. Everyking 02:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If they are banned they cannot edit on Wikipedia under any circumstances and that means no edits whatsoever. A ban is meaningless if someone banned actually isn't banned and can edit. A ban means no participation, no editing, nothing. A user can in their own name add in any edits. But simply reverting to a banned user's name using the rollback button is not valid. That was how banned users like DW and many others were dealt with. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are we putting up with this sarcastic abuse from 217.xxx as a matter of interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

My question is why admins do not follow WP:NPA. As Sam Spade suggested, it is being ignored. And in my case, when I apply it, I am "punished." --AI 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, children must play somewhere. Obviously he lost his crayons. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

And now Jtdirl, mounts a personal attack. --AI 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Jim, you make a rod for your own back with comments like the above. You seem to personally attack anybody who differs with you, and the truth is that a lot of your stuff needs tweaking, to be perfectly polite. Behaviour aside, you tend to cram too many concepts into the one sentence, or make silly mistakes. Nobody's denying your ability to be absolutely top notch in certain areas, but you aren't perfect in everything, and if someone comes along and copyedits your material, it's not personal hatred of you but love of Wikipedia that makes them act that way.

I used to patrol Recent Changes, and I'd fix a bit of vandalism here, catch a spelling error there. Little things, but I had to work pretty hard for it. Then I cast an eye over your edits, and it was like hitting the jackpot. Even if I knew nothing about the material, I'd generally find a lot of little stylistic details that needed work. Even the finest craftsman doesn't have to put the final polish on his masterpiece, you know what I mean?

A good point is that thing about the Irish Presidential inauguration. In the article, you said "The Irish Constitution makes it clear that a president's term of office expires on the day before the inauguration of their precedessor" and you even gave a reference. It was pretty clear that you meant to say successor rather than predecessor, and I fixed that, along with a comment saying why.[40]

Then you went and reverted it! It is instructive to go along the list of newer edits from the diff above and see the history, but the guts of it is that although you restored one of my corrections, where I changed "President of the United Kingdom" to the intended "President of the United States", it took a lot of to and fro before you accepted that you'd got the presidential term dead wrong. You knew you'd made a mistake, and your attempted correction to "The Irish Constitution makes it clear that a president's term of office expires on the day after the inauguration of their precedessor"[41] was a step in the right direction, but you still reverted it when I corrected it again. OK, perhaps it was wrong of me to make an edit comment saying "Correct increasingly incorrect garbage"[42] but I would hope that you can understand my frustration.

You weren't being stalked but polished, Jim.

I see a recent comment of yours about "the same ragbag of 'style crusaders' go ballistic and scream abuse"[43]

Just quietly, but one could make the same comment about your own behaviour, and frankly, this sort of unpleasantness, where you are at the centre of an ongoing storm of complaints and reverts, doesn't do a real lot to help foster the image of Wikipedia as a model of co-operative enterprise.

Sure, there are trolls and vandals and scum to be found here, but disagreeing with Jim Duffy over minor details doesn't make people evil.

May I ask that you calm down, accept criticism where justified, stop making so much work for the ArbComm, and give people a chance to have some faith in the system. Pete 23:42, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to "Wikipedia". "The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him." - Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopædia Britannica I imagine Jimbo Wales is proud of his product. --AI 22:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo has been mass reverting a single article that is disputed. Once someone contested his changes, he requested protection and has reverted the slightest edit done to it since. He was reported for violating 3RR, and admonished for threatening editors who disagree with his opinions with blocking them. Since then, the page was protected, he reverted it while it was protected, blocked the user who last reverted for weeks, and has undone any block placed on him by other administrators. This is a serious abuse of power. --TJive 00:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've reblocked Stevertigo for === Proposed resolution of the conflict ===

OK, i'll try to step back on some points in order to attempt to reach an agreement here.

1. Links to freesites that have a "twin" on the world wide web are out.
2. Links to freesites that contain propriatary licenced products (software, images, music, e-books) are out.
3. Links to freesites that (although not propriatary) are illegal in Florida, USA are out.
4. Links to freesites that only exist on freenet, are relevant to the article and don't fit any of the above criteria are in.

Please let me know what you think about that. Beta m (talk)

I am still skeptical about the usefulness of these links, but am willing to compromise. I would support this only if there is an attached disclaimer warning that the link can only be accessed through Freenet. I would prefer it if someone besides the editor adding the link (and not a sockpuppet of course) would be able to verify that it's relevant and useful, but that may be impractical. The disclaimer should still be attached, in any case. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 08:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I support this - Freenet links, while of limited usefulness, don't hurt. I've used Freenet for a long time, and would be willing to examine any proposed links. Just post them on my talk page. ~~ N (t/c) 08:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd have less problem with this if the Freenet links didn't take up five lines on a page. And if they need five lines, then maybe that's an argument against them. We don't have to spend five lines telling people what a book or newsgroup is, or how to access it. And we certainly don't need an entire subpage in the main namespace to tell people how to get a book, or download a newsreader. There will be very, very few cases in which the confusion and relative lack of verifiability is outweighed by the usefulness of the link. --Golbez 22:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I would add one more condition, or make an addendum to the first one. Freenet links whose purpose could be as easily accomplished by a different source via HTTP (or whose purpose is already served by an existing HTTP source) ought to be out. And of course Freenet links should be subject to all the same conditions as other links, but I suppose that goes without saying. Even with all this, I'm not sure Freenet links are a good thing for Wikipedia given Freenet's lack of widespread acceptance; basically everything else present or linked to on Wikipedia can be read by all major browsers 'out of the package', and this is a major deviation from that. Still, absent some broader consensus against the Freenet links, I won't go around removing them myself as long as they stay within these bounds. Aquillion 23:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)24 hours for violating the 3RR. I've warned him not to unblock himself again. Carbonite | Talk 00:40, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Already unblocked. --TJive 00:42, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've written up an RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo. Carbonite | Talk 00:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I just put the {{imposter}} tag on this page, didn't realize it said blocked on it. So if it is them, probably should be blocked. NAZISMISNTCOOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ∞Who?¿? 06:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nm, they were blocked : ∞Who?¿? 06:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I had blocked the cretin, but I took some time trying to remember what template I had to put. Nice work, team ! :) Rama 06:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin Carbonite blocked anonymous user 67.182.157.6 a few hours ago. He has come back under the anonymous IP 172.199.120.111 and has resumed his reverts and vandalism. For evidence that this is a sock puppet of his, see the RfC on his behavior here: [44] and the RfA about him here: [45] (See the section "DotSix".) You will see at the first of these that he frequently uses IPs in the range 172.19*.* (which are AOL IPs). Maybe it is not possible to block a whole range of IPs, but if it is, could you do so? (Assuming you find the evidence of sock-puppetry at the RfC convincing, of course.) Thanks. --Nate Ladd 06:37, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

We're happy to block specific AOL IP's for a short time (less than an hour, ideally) to stop a given vandal. Blocking AOL IP ranges, however, is a very bad idea, since an IP block also blocks all logged in users using it. Blocking an AOL IP range would block hundreds (possibly thousands) of legit editors who are AOL users (including admins) immediately. -- Essjay · Talk 18:41, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

That's correct. The only precedent I remember for shutting down an entire AOL range was during one or more of Mr. Treason's rampages, a year ago or so, during which (iirc) he programmed a vandalbot to make edits using a different AOL IP for each edit. That was a lovely time had by all. I wasn't an admin then, but I still remember it. Range blocks are really a last resort; the last time I did one I got a load of angry e-mail from legitimate users. Antandrus (talk)

They're also apparently incredibly hard to understand, as IP's don't work the way most people assume they do. (See M:Range blocks) For the most part, I think most administrators stay away from them. It's too easy to spot the same pattern of abuse and block the new IP.

Oh, and that raises a question for me: If we block a user's IP, they reset to get a new one, and return to vandalizing, should we then unblock the old IP? Is it likely that they could get the same IP address back, where a block would be needed? My understanding is that dynamic IPs use huge IP pools, and that the IPs are randomly assigned, so once we know a user is off a given IP, wouldn't it be a good idea to unblock it to prevent problems for good users? -- Essjay · Talk 19:43, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think the probability of getting your previously assigned dynamic IP back is quite remote, except in the case of small pools, but I admit I don't understand this completely. Long blocks of dynamically-assigned IPs aren't a good idea; once the vandal is blocked, he's probably not coming back on the same IP. If one of those addresses gets a long block inadvertently, it's probably smart to unblock. Regarding range blocks, here is a good netmask calculator so you don't have to do it yourself (put in the first and last IPs in the range you want to block, and it will give you what you need to put in for the range block) [46] Antandrus (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This user is reverting every edit I make, without providing a reason. He declines to respond to repeated requests for explanations. Can he be stopped from this conduct? Coqsportif 12:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

As can be seen here, he is systematically reverting every edit I have made. Can I have some explanation for this? Coqsportif 12:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Scroll up on this page a little bit, there's a section with your username on it as the heading. DreamGuy 12:49, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

And how does any of that justify reverting every single thing I've written, without basis. Simple answer: it doesn't. Coqsportif 12:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is already a strong incitation to ban you indefinitely for offensive language and improper behaviour. If I were you, I suppose that I would try to keep a low profile. Rama 13:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

See WP:AN/I#User:Coqsportif and WP:AN/3RR#User:Coqsportif SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

<copy from WP:AN> I'm finding the recent editing pattern at Elizabeth Morgan somewhat disturbing...a single user, obsessed with the article, is adding global positioning data and other stalkerish stuff. The same user, and the same article, has been a problem before. I've reverted to a version before the recent spate of multiple incremental edits, but I'm soliciting further input from others. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

OOh that's really creepy. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 12:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You haven't seen the half of it, by far. He's now babbling on about scalpels, blood and sex. He's literally scared away the other editors, he's just creeping everyone out. He spends hours and hours posting an endless conversation with himself that gets more and more eerie as it goes along. I don't know if he has a genuine problem, or if it's intentional to give him full control over the article so he can blank it as promised when his 24-hour deadline runs out, and not have to worry about it being restored. I suspect from what he put as his "take home message" here, it's intentional. Either way, he controls that article, now. He's just too eerie for anyone to mess with. Xaa 21:09, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's an actual problem, which means it's probably not something we can help. He either doesn't care or doesn't recognize how bizarre and inappropriate his comments are. When he switches from babbling on talk pages to actually editing, I suspect he'll be quickly reverted. He's certainly not in control of the article; he's barely in control of himself. It would be a favor to him and to Wikipedia if he could be blocked, but I don't think we have a procedure for that in place. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

</copy from WP:AN>

I wanted to seek a wider audience for this. User:Amorrow's edits to this article range from typo correction to outright vandalism to POV-pushing to well...whatever. The Talk: page is horrific, and the net result is that no-one can edit the article at present. He will presumably go-ahead and blank the page in a few hours time. It's easily enough reversed, but he's had trouble before (see User talk:Amorrow, where Raul654 tried valiantly but failed). Can this page (and it's talk) be protected for a couple days, or is this out-of-scope to WP:RFPP. If it is, maybe something stronger is in order? -Splash 22:30, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Facts of Reproduction. Could that be considered a threat on Amorrow's part? Zoe 19:42, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• That's nothing. You'll have to read the history to see his more unpleasant comments, now, he's in the process of "neatening it up" and dividing his comments into an imaginary "army" comprised of three wings (right, left and center), with himself as general (but other users are, of course, free to volunteer as 'lieutenants'). This goes back to his comment RE: surrounding Morgan, etc, etc. Quote from talk:Elizabeth Morgan:As Grant said when he was whuppin' da deep and very ignorant South, "We are gonna fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer!" Now, some of dem got the computer network privleges and stuff. Don't you worry about that at all. We can change out user names, IP address and whatever. You just listen to good 'ol Grant (remember: he won 'cause he was right. dat's all dat matters in de end)... Fun stuff.
  -- Xaa 21:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I think mr. Morrow is exhibiting behaviour that is atypical of Wikipedia editors and most likely incompatible. He is clearly intelligent, but he seems to have real issues with emotional involvement, in particular with the subjects of articles. He also seems to judge someone's actions as indicative of character or disposition towards himself, rather than on their own merits. He may acclimatize yet, though, if he can absorb WP:CIVIL. JRM · Talk 22:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Addendum. This thought processes are actually quite interesting, even if they're not very productive article-wise. Of course, being interesting is not what Wikipedia is for... JRM · Talk 22:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Remove him. --Golbez 22:29, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you feel it's that clear-cut, why don't you just do it? You have the ability. Otherwise start an RFAr if you prefer delegating. JRM · Talk 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Power outage took my comment. Was about to say, I have no dog in this fight, except that it appears Amorrow is somewhat insane. I was a little irked by the mention of may acclimatize. We coddle too much here. Once in a while, assume bad faith, excise the bad elements, and get on with making an encyclopedia. I don't believe there's any immediate grounds for me to remove him, which is why I suggest everyone to move on with it already and start proceedings. --Golbez 23:09, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I figured it the irking might have been a part of it. Contrast is fine. What we have in common is that neither of us is particularly moved to do anything about it at this point. I'd agree an RfC would be a good idea. I don't think assuming bad faith is necessary at all, though. The edits speak for themselves. And the "acclimatize" and "coddling" part: well, I wasn't suggesting we go out of our way to make him see the light, I was suggesting he'd go out of his way to see ours. JRM · Talk 23:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it out of the question to temporarily protect Elizabeth Morgan and Talk:Elizabeth Morgan since they seem to attract most of his ire? I've left a note on his talk page with some suggested reading links in, and a warning that today's contributions are tantamount to vandalism (which they are). If that note has about as much effect as I expect to, I suppose we will have to go to RfC and achieve about as much there as is usually achieved there... -Splash 14:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

And the beat goes on. Vandalism, and ignoring comments for him to stop because they haven't come from anyone he recognizes as being in authority. But I'm not sure anyone who is in authority can actually stop him, given his comments about changing user names and IP's and given that he's a software engineer in real life. I think that without serious action, he's likely going to become a permanent fixture of the wiki. And no, I am not kidding. Xaa 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

do you think we can block him under the dissruption clause?Geni 01:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok that was a a dirrect threat I've blocked User:Amorrow indefinitely.Geni 01:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I did mention he's a software engineer, right? [47][48][49] A simple block won't work, he just laughs at it. He's going to need something more serious, like asking his ISP to disallow connections to Wikipedia. He gives his information publicly on his original user page, nothing is hidden. E-mail (which gives his ISP), phone number, and his website has a copy of his resume, which gives his real name and address. Talking to his ISP is going to have to be where it starts, blocking his IP is never going to work. Sorry. =/ Xaa 06:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

nothing to do with being a software engineer. I could do a range block on him if I wanted to. I know earthlink's range. It's no different from someone comeing in from AOL. No special skills or knolwage required.Geni 09:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll have to take your word for that. Good luck! =) Xaa 10:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please find out the IP range Earthlink uses in his region & block that only. Blocking all of Earthlink would knock out a lot of people, including me. ~~ N (t/c) 10:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

although I haven't cheacked this past experence when dealing with anon IPs suggests that earthlink cycles through it's entire range for everyone although the IP will remain steady per session. I haven't seen any pattern suggesting that IPs are assigned per region. That is why I don't want to do a range block.Geni 10:24, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

He did pretty much the same thing at Linda Lovelace, doing independant research and being her protector. He also wrote tons of kooky stuff on the talk page and then would erase it. Very wierd. But I must say, my impression was perfectly harmless. Actually, once he lost two votes, he disappeared from the page. I think monitoring might be needed, but I don't see the need for drastic action. He also did not do anything threatening over there. So, my assessment: wierd and kooky, but less harmful than others I have run into. --Noitall 11:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

This user seems to be an admitted recreation of User:B1link82, who I believe to be banned due to voluntarily leeaving the Wikipedia shortly before his RfAr went to decision. If he's a reincarnation of a banned user, he should surely be banned too? Kiand 23:57, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, he was banned significantly before I eventually posted this. Remember, kids - never forget to hit Save Page before you go to the pub. 5 hour delays make reports useless :) --Kiand 01:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

He's emailed me saying, Hi, I came back to start over, I've been using the account for ages now and you suddenly block it forever, bit harsh! Please can you undo that, if I piss abotu then block me but I haev done a lot of good stuff so please reconsider, cheers, Mike. Seems odd to ask for reinstatement by lying; "I've been using the account for ages" rings untrue, since the first edit on it was Aug. 6. I'm inclined to ignore him entirely. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:59, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This user was indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales, who indicated on the mailing list he was banned. However, due to conflicting blocks, he ended up being unblocked by the software, and has been editing for some days already.

My question is: what should be done? Block him again? Ask Jimbo to take another look? Or something else?

--cesarb 00:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo > Software. Reblocked indefinitely. Snowspinner 01:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:

• 203.166.96.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail.

I need all your help! Please use the format:

• 13:30, 5 August 2005
  • Added abusive text to Ta bu shi da yu user page

We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.

If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).

Ta bu shi da yu 01:40, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The admin Sasquatch should be blocked for editing the protected page Ted Kennedy three times while protected. Instead of going with the last version, he has taken a POV position in a legitimate content dispute. I have tried to resolve the issue on his talk page first as required by the rules, and some of the communication is on my talk page. He appears well intentioned but clueless and is digging himself deeper into a hole. A 24 hour block is probably all that is needed.--Silverback 03:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Again, I have said this before on your talk page. No matter which version I revert to, some party will be angry. I simply reviewed what was written at the Talk Page and deicded that the current paragraph is heavily POVed again Ted Kennedy and needs to be taken into relevance. I simply followed the rules set out at WP:PPol saying: "Reverting to an old version of the page from a week or so before the controversy started if there is a clear point before the controversy." as the contrecery started when the so called "fatboy.cc" editor came back and added this section. This editor has had a past bias against Ted kennedy and reinserted the link. After review of the circumstances, I found that it should probably not be taken as totally good faith and was heavily POVed. Please see the Ted Kennedy for more details. If any other admins think that i acted incorectly, they are free to restore the content without any opposition from me. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 03:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that there was serious enough wrongdoing to warrant a block. The admin was trying to avoid a revert war, although he didn't have to kill the entire section(well it wasnt much anyway) and not leave any of its information. Still though, not that serious.Voice of All(MTG) 05:52, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't his job to try suddenly become interested in the content and edit in a compromise while the article is protected.--Silverback 05:58, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The proffered text had some problems but was as good or better a starting point than deleting the information. Keep in mind there was NO controversy about this passage, just a knee jerk revert war. The passage did not become controversial until we started discussing it afterward. It appears that only a relevancy objection was raised during the revert war. There now appears to be a consensus that some of it will get in as relevant, although trimmed down. Taking a POV position on a protected page by an admin, makes a mockery of the "wrong version" mocking. Obviously, there really is a wrong version and a right version.--Silverback 03:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I rolled back Vietnam War because User:Stevertigo reverted while it was locked. I sent him a quick note that it was poor form to do this. Then he blocked me!

This does appear to be an abuse of Admin priviledges. I am formally asking for him to be desysopped... however if this is not the correct way of going about it just let me know. Please also note he has been edit warring on Vietnam War.

Here is the entry in the block log: 12:59, 8 August 2005, Stevertigo blocked Ta bu shi da yu (expires 14:59, 8 August 2005) (contribs) (unblock) ( 1. Do not edit a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice.)

Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I am also noting this on WP:AN, WP:AN/I, User talk:Angela and User talk:Jimbo Wales. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo should definitely not have rolled the page back after it was locked; Ta bu shi da yu does not appear to have edited the article before, reverting that seems to be righting a wrong, and User:Stevertigo in particular seems the wrong person to be blocking for this. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Evidently he needs de-opped. Anyone who hasn't, see the Rfc. --TJive 03:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Let me just note that, hadn't TBSDY unblocked himself, I would have unblocked him. That block was an obvious case of WP:POINT. --cesarb 03:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I haven't really been following the Stevertigo thing, but this is deeply disturbing. Also, could we get some more administrator in put on the new template Stevertigo made and, um, awarded to Ta bu, Template:Block. It looks like he's just being vindictive: "Note to sysops: Unblocking yourself may be grounds for Arbitration." Dmcdevit·t 03:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Have no issue with the template, think it's a good idea. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you're right. It was the wording. I've played around with it, see what you think. And maybe we might start using this. Dmcdevit·t 03:55, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I, however, sent it to TFD. Way too flashy, and the "note to sysops" is just dumb — administrators are supposed to know that rule (and a lot of others) already. We didn't waste hours of our life pouring over the administrator's reading list after (or even before) we got the sysop flag for nothing. --cesarb 04:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Template "too flashy"? Send to TFD? Even if "I suppose your right" and "think it's a good idea? Not to sound off like a trol on this, but theres a serious problem if consensus says its OK, but still anyone can screw it up for a week with a VFD tag. -St|eve 04:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I too would have unblocked TBSDY had I encountered the block in time. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:17, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

And so would I have unblocked TBSDY. I would not have unblocked myself in the same position as TBSDY's; I would have posted an appeal on my talk page and maybe emailed a few admins about it. I'm not suggesting the TBSDY should be criticised for unblocking himself though.-gadfium 04:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

He added a note here almost immediately after unblocking himself, which is the standard way of asking for other people to review what he did. Had he been wrong, he'd simply get blocked by someone else. --cesarb 04:32, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Is the issue about the Ta bu block, but not the Ta bu unblock? the SV unblock but not the block? The RFC but not the RFAR? The 3RR but not the PP? The BDFL but not due process? Where does one go to get a little procedural consistency around here? -St|eve 04:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the issue is your running roughshod over policy, not Ta bu's attempts at damage control. --Calton | Talk 05:12, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

SV, I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. All or most of these appear to be issues. From the comments here, on your talk page, and your RfC, it would appear that most or all users (with the exception of you) have reached the following conclusions:

• TBSDY's block: clearly inappropriate
• TBSDY's unblock: might have been better for him to wait to be unblocked; however, he immediately reported his actions here for review and it is quite clear everyone else thinks the block is inappropriate and has not reblocked him
• SV block: clear violation of the three-revert rule; a 24-hour block was appropriate. Other side should have been blocked too.
• SV unblock: probably should not have unblocked for so clear a violation, and should have reported circumstances here for review. Definitely should not have repeatedly unblocked, especially after being blocked by four different administrators.
• RfC: Not sure what you're asking here. Some 25 editors have indicated they feel you are clearly abusing administrative powers.
• RFAr: Not sure what you are asking here.
• 3RR: both parties should have been blocked. The proper response to the one-sided blocking would be to edit your talk page, list the diffs that showed the other's repeated reverts, and ask for a block. Or, since you unblocked yourself, reporting it at WP:AN/3RR.
• PP: you should not have edited the page while it was under protection, especially as you were already involved in an edit war over it. TBSDY was correct to revert to the originally protected version
• BFDL: I am not familiar with this term.
• Due process: Is this an issue?

I hope I have correctly summarized current opinions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Youre pretty sharp, KS. Points: RFAR I applied when I felt ganged up on by CJK and TJive who felt no qualms with presenting a one-sided report of 3RR. 3RR: "Both parties should have been blocked." But they werent. Hence the block itself could be interpreted as an "abuse." How was it wrong to seek review? Everything seems a bit blown out of proportion ATP, but Im certain some good will come out of this. Besides the orgy of admonishment I mean. -St|eve 05:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Steve, despite your attempts to insinuate me into some sort of conspiracy against you, in that very 3RR report, which I did not initiate, I warned CJK very explicitly that he was likely to face a block as well: CJK is cruisin' for a bruisin' too though. If you would condescend to reading CJK's own talk page, you would see that I explained how the block set upon him was justified. Nevertheless, he has acted much more appropriately than you, who managed to break policy in the course of filing a specious arbitration request when you yourself were responsible for the most egregious violations of policy, not to mention generally uncivil behavior. Not only do you deserve your administrator powers taken away, but you should have been reblocked with the longer expiry date, increased with each successive attempt to evade the measure. --TJive 06:46, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• I have no problems with TBSDY unblocking himself, as it was clearly a bad block. However, having the ability to unblock oneself is questionable at least. If any sysop is blocked for whatever reason, they should not still have sysop abilities granted to them, and personally feel that this should be looked into. Although, as stated above, I see no fault in TBSDY's actions, just the fault in the system which gave him the ability. Blocked sysops should be unblocked by another sysop, checkuser or beurucrat (sp) only. ∞Who?¿? 07:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• • On purely technical grounds, the ability of a sysop to unblock himself is important. Absent this feature one sysop could stage a midnight putsch and essentially seize the entire wiki for himself (until a developer can be found). With this feature said maniac admin can still do lots of damage, but I think rather less. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:24, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

If we implemented software to stop an admin from unblocking themself, they could still unblock other admins. This solves the problem you refer to, which would only arise if a blocked admin was unable to access the unblock page.-gadfium 01:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello, all. Several anonymous users have vandalized the Nintendo NSider Forums page tonight. I have reverted the article three times, but cannot continue to do so without breaking the three revert rule. I have added the test template to the most repetitive of the vandals, but he continues. Could someone not currently involved in the reversions deal with this? Thank you. Zoe 07:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like the block has stopped it for the moment. Keep in mind that 3RR does not apply to vandal reversions. Dmcdevit·t 08:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't want to be disruptive on my first day back.  :) Zoe 08:08, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism is the opposite of disruption! :) You've made a good start. Welcome, welcome! Dmcdevit·t 08:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I blocked one of the vandals after the IRC channel was alerted. If the vandalism pops up again, Zoe, feel free to leave me a message and I'll block for you. -- Essjay · Talk 08:13, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Has just undergone a copy/paste move by an anon-user, which is going to need admin intervention to fix up histories, I believe. --Kiand 13:54, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Where was the move from/to? I need to know both pages to fix it. -- Essjay · Talk 14:00, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Handled. A check of the article's history showed the idenity of the anon-user, allowing a quick check of the user's edit history to locate the affected files. --Allen3 ^talk 19:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I should have thought of that. Cerebral flatulance on my part. ; - ) -- Essjay · Talk 02:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Beta m started actively adding links to articles at freenet. He also proposes a "campaign" for doing this, see User:Beta m/Freenet.

People cannot access these articles without establishing of p2p connectivity. Therefore I see promotion of this links as spamming in favor of the system.

Many people, including me, fear p2p for security reasons. I cannot determine the encyclopedicity of the links because I cannot see them, which violates the requirement of verifiability.

I suggest for this user to "cease and desist". mikka (t) 18:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is just upsetting, i have written this and more on the page you have sent me to, but the software has eaten it... so it seems. Crap like that just makes me want to stop with the whole wiki thing... damn. Oh, well, i'll survive. By the way please go and see my other contributions to wikipedia... you'll see that i don't spam... Beta m (talk)

Well, there is the freenet equivalent of an open proxy: public fproxy (the standard freenet web interface) sites, which allow anyone to look at freesites without having to install freenet themselves (it's just less anonymous). With them, you can determine if the links are encyclopedic or not, and even use them for usual browsing if you do not care much about being anonymous.

You just have to google for the title of the main fproxy page (which I cannot remember right now; it's been too long since I last tried to use freenet) and you will find them.

--cesarb 19:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

An additional concern against installing "freenet": "typical user may unknowingly host this sort of information (i.e., illegal, like child porno), which may potentially make them subject to severe civil and criminal penalties." mikka (t) 19:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

However, to this i must say that if you look at articles related to racism and white power movement they tend to have links with content illegal in many countries (France for example if i remember correctly). And while viewing content in Internet Explorer it will be chached on the hard drive of the viewer, thus violating the law. Beta m (talk)

Mikkalai, I disagree with your objection to these links. "fearing p2p for security reasons" is just FUD. Not all P2P software is insecure. This claim is especially incorrect when we're talking about Freenet, which is designed from the ground up for anonymity. Please learn more about Freenet and its goals before removing these links. Since Freenet is a not-for-profit research project, I find it unlikely that Beta m is "spamming" in favor of Freenet.

Although I think your reason for objecting is silly and detrimental to P2P projects, I still don't think we should aggressively add Freenet links into articles. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and Freenet is relatively unknown to a general readership. The only reason I'm against adding these links is because they would be useless to most people. Also, this discussion doesn't belong on the administrators' noticeboard. This is a content dispute, not a case of spamming. Please take it to the Village Pump or article talk pages, or make a general policy proposal. Rhobite 20:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I see it as case of promoting of a particular service, i.e., spamming. When I see the sticker, kind of "information free of censorship," more often than not this is a kind of Hyde Park place where everyone may uncontrollably babble whatever one wants. I am not questioning their rights to do so, but have grave concerns about encyclopedicity and verifiability of such sources. And this is not content dispute, since I cannot verify the content for the reasons I explained here. mikka (t) 20:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is a content dispute. You disagree with Beta m about the content of articles. Therefore it is a content dispute. The fact that you refuse to view the links does not turn this into "spamming" or a user conduct issue. Rhobite 20:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Everything disputed in wikipedia is about content of some article. I don't "refuse" to view the links. I am very curious, and I would very much like to, but I don't want someone storing porno at my PC when I subscribe to the service. I would be very much obliged if anyone convince me that I am paranoic. mikka (t) 21:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You are paranoid, as elaborated by my comments below. I'm not sure you can prevent your computer from being used to transfer porn, but you won't get in trouble for it. If you want, I can dig out my old Freenet install and open a public proxy for you to use. ~~ N (t/c) 21:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, your word ("no trouble") cannot be counted as legal advice; the issue was not tried yet, and I don't want to be the case which sets a legal precedent. mikka (t) 22:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC).

I'm not saying you'd win the case, but the fact that nobody has been sued yet is solace enough for me. I understand if it isn't for you. ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't really care about the presence of links to Freenet, as they are useful to those who can use them. (By the way, Mikkalai, Freenet has no known security risks (although its anonymity is imperfect, it can't compromise your system), and I know of nobody who has ever gotten in legal trouble for using it, at least outside of a dictatorial country (which category does NOT include the US).) However, I noticed that one of the links added, to Jackass (TV series), linked to a freesite with Jackass episodes for download. That has the risk of getting the project in big legal trouble. ~~ N (t/c) 20:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This is in support of my point: if a person tries to avoid legal troubles and does not use questionable arrangements, like me, he cannot verify the content of the link. As for "no known security risks," excuse me, but this is being discussed by "freenet" itself. mikka (t) 20:45, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand that sentence. What do you mean, "this is being discussed by 'freenet' itself"? You are just spreading FUD, stop it. Rhobite 20:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

So, dear lover of censorship-free information transfer, what you just did is shutting someone's mouth, label-slapping, and personal attack. As for "what do you mean," read yourserlf. mikka (t) 21:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying put up or shut up. You claimed that Freenet isn't secure, and that you "fear p2p for security reasons". Without any concrete evidence of Freenet's insecurity, this is pretty much the definition of FUD. And plus, the WWW isn't secure either - should we stop linking to external sites completely? Rhobite 00:27, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

You could be more specific, and AFAIK, all security concerns with Freenet relate to lack of anonymity. Again AFAIK, it has no known vulnerabilites that would actually compromise your system. Unless you're located in a repressive regime (again, the US doesn't count), you have nothing to fear by using Freenet. ~~ N (t/c) 21:56, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

He-he; "US doesn't count": do you mean it is repressive? . Anyway, I do live in the USA; repressive or not, the possibility of collecting information about a person is considered here a pretty serious threat to liberties, which may seem paranoical to people from countries with really grave liberty problems. mikka (t) 22:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I mean the US (where I too live) won't jail you for using Freenet. I don't deny it's on the road to repressiveness, but that's a whole other issue. ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, if we do keep the links we should be careful about linking to sites with illegal content. To those who respond "what's the point, then?" Freenet is also a tool for free speech without fear of political reprisal or libel lawsuits. There are conceivable reasons to link to Freenet content. Rhobite 20:40, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't think freenet links are approprate. Wikipedia is supposed to be a useful reference source, not a place to push new things; and Freenet is most definately a "new" thing, something that lacks widespread recognition. The primary effect of placing Freenet links in these articles is therefore not to provide the user with more information, but to advertise for Freenet.

Additionally, remember that Wikipedia itself can get in trouble for linking to banned and illegal materials; in other words, we can't link to anything that would actually require Freenet anyway. Therefore there is no reason to ever place a Freenet link in a wikipedia article, except perhaps as an example in the Wikipedia entry on Freenet itself.

The "Freenet project" and the links that have already been placed look to me like they're more intended to spread awareness of Freenet than anything else. Some of the opinions posted above seem to support this; people acknowledge that we can't link to illegal or banned materials on Freenet anyway, making the links redundant as references, then defend their use by saying that Freenet itself is a good thing and ought to be encouraged. Well, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be used for encouraging or discouraging anything. In my opinion, the Freenet links ought to be removed on those grounds. Anything we can link to under Wikipedia policy can be more easily accessed outside of Freenet. Aquillion 21:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of the stuff linked to in Freenet isn't illegal or banned. The links from childlove movement, for instance, contain no porn and look as if they might be interesting. ~~ N (t/c) 21:24, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If something linked to in Freenet isn't illegal or banned, then chances are it is available outside of Freenet... As a case in point, look at the link article you just linked to. Of the two Freenet links on that page, the first one was easily found from a non-freenet source (and I have replaced it); using Freenet for things that can be found more easily via HTTP serves no purpose but to advertise Freenet itself. The second was essentially a personal blog; while slightly interesting, it gave no more information than the already-numerous, far simpler HTTP links above it. Possibly if such a page on Freenet was the only source of information for an article then it would make sense to link to it; but in a case like this, with twelve HTTP links already in place, it was clearly unnecessary. Aquillion 21:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You know, you're entirely right. For instance, the "Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Anarchism" freesite linked to from anarchism is also on the regular WWW. That's one of the things I never understood about Freenet - the mirroring of already-widely-available, legal content. ~~ N (t/c) 22:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

This part is easy to understand: an attempt do draw attention; perfectly in line with what was the cause why I started this discussion. It looks like there is not enough geniune "uncensored information." mikka (t) 23:08, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

About the particular case of Dune (computer game), I see no reason whatsoever for "secure" or "anonymous" links; While I don't oppose such links for touchy subjects, where information is harmless such links should be considered spam, useful or no, as they are advertising a service (free or no, it's still advertising). ^wS;✉ 21:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Once again we can compare issue of books to this one. If i would have placed a refference to out of print book on the same page, nobody would say "There is no reason for that since there are webpages that deal with that game". Let the reader decide what is reasonable and what is not. Beta m (talk) 15:35, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

That's hardly my point. No video game in the Dune series is controversial or subject of potential censorship, and enough information is provided from simple internet searches. You are simply advertising a service which is of no interest for the vast majority of internet users that would visit the said page. Also, if there was a book, even out of print, just the fact of it being a book based on a video game would still justify its inclusion and the lack of printed copies in the market does not mean the book can't be obtained from personal sellers (Dune: Spice Opera, the music CD of the first game had a short print that make it only very tough to find even in ebay, and has its own article). ^wS;✉ 19:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't like these links from an aesthetic sense; many links were inserted into articles without any context whatsoever, and for 99.9% of editors, these remain unverifiable, as we refuse to install the special software to view them. Also, it adds four or five lines to an article for one link that may or may not be notable. I'm not blanket deleting these, only deleting them where notability is not established in the link; but honestly, I can't see why we should allow these. An encyclopedia is about verifiability. 100% of our readers can click an http link and read an article; a good portion can look up a book we have; very very few should be expected to install a new, possibly insecure program by people they've never heard of to verify our content. Being relevant to a topic is not the only criteria for addition to an article.

I find Beta's remark - about ISBNs - incorrect. No, not everyone can buy a book - but everyone can click the link and look up information on it. We have no such luxury with freenet, no intermediary like Amazon to tell us what's in that mysterious 127.0.0.1 link. I think these should be removed except where absolutely necessary - and I can think of very few cases for that. --Golbez 21:49, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to try to reply on this page again. Last two times i've attempted this the software wouldn't let me. First, the fact that there is not Amazon for freesites doesn't make a link unverifyable. There are books that are not on Amazon, there are even some published by independent publishing companies without websites, that does not make those books unverifyable. It is not impossible to check what's on those freesites, you just don't want to go through the trouble, and that's a very different story.

Also, i would like to make a request. It's an unofficial one. Please when you talk to people remain calm. From the beginning of the whole thing people who for some reason have some axe to grind against anything which can't be googled have been talking in (although not insulting) but very agressive fashion. Rather than attempting to resolve the problem one on one i was automatically began to be reverted and placed on Administrators' noticeboard, i was told to "cease and desist" without actually being told what am i to cease to do: adding more links, editing my user namespace page calling for others to join in with me, you have told me on the Talk:Freenet/Ways to view a freesite#Move that the page must be moved without explaining where, and once again the tone seemed to have been chosen to get me to lose my cool. Of course if that would have happen and i would go adding porn freesite links to articles about the Pope i would probably get banned and (as far as you would be conserned) problem would get solved. However, my dear friends, i'm not about to do that. Peace. Beta m (talk)

It's not all about you. If you think my words were picked to deliberately "get you to lose your cool", then there are bigger problems at work here than freenet spamming. --Golbez 22:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

My dear fellow wikipedian, please consider these points:

1. This section was called spamming and listed, User:Beta_m as the spammer. While "not all is about [me]" this section here sort of is.
2. No resolution has been attempted before listing me and my actions on this noticeboard. The first comment on my talk page relating to this was to inform me about existance of this "incident".
3. Your comment on the talk page wasn't rude, and i have admitted that, however, it was by no way neutral (although it was better then the comment above this one). But i'll just say Om mani padme hum and let it all go.
4. While i have conseded some edits (Dune (computer game) for example) not to start edit wars, i did not perceive this sort of reaction from the other side. Note It is very much possible that i have misinterpreted this particular point, (and in fact all of them), but this is just my pov.
5. As you can see below in the "from mikka talk page" subsection, the first thing that i have done was to attempt to release some tention ("please don't take it personally"), than i have given the reasons for my actions... and even provided a resolution process which i would think would bring everybody to consensus. Many wikipedians don't even know about this page (i didn't untill this "incident") but they do know about VfD and TfD, thus more people could actually comment on this issue. This however, is not beneficial when the consensus is not what you are looking for, but simply want to win.
6. When i've been asked to do something (which i didn't really care to do), such as write up a "How to guide for viewing of Freesites", i have done so almost immediately (falsely believing that this would (at least partially) sattisfy the <sarcasm>"delete them all and let the god sort them out"</sarcasm> side of the argument). What did that bring me? No resolution of the conflict, just more problems.

So is this all about me? No of course it's not. But it is about the knowing more pages to report somebody to either. It is about the readers of this encyclopedia, the only one what attempts to have a NPOV and always include both sides of the argument. Beta m (talk)

I don't object to the addition of freesite links that are legal and useful, but it looks like most of those you added don't satisfy both criteria. The anarchism ones (and probably many more) are available on the regular Web, and the ones offering downloads of software/music could put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Even if it is abandonware (as the Dune site says), it's best to avoid any infringement, don't you think? ~~ N (t/c) 23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

My difficulty with these links is really that it requires people to install software to view them, software that is not produced by Wikipedia. Discounting the responsibility angle, it just somehow goes against the grain to actually make it more difficult for people to get information if it is actually already available legally on the web, and if it is not, then the legal ramifications of providing links to non-legal content set in. I don't see how such links are more useful than any other, just because of anonymity, which in the majority of cases, is not an issue. --khaosworks (talk• contribs) 23:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mikka says "I cannot determine the encyclopedicity of the links because I cannot see them, which violates the requirement of verifiability." What about links to books that occur throughout Wikipedia? I can not determine the encylopedicity of these links unless I go to the bookstore or library and ask for these books. It is a lot easier to download a p2p program and check out links. As far as security, I am more concerned about the government using the Patriot Act then running some p2p program. I'm not really sure what Mikka means by security - I wrote my own p2p program once, I know it is secure because I wrote it. I do not know what the Patriot Act is doing to my library checkouts. Mikka's arguments in this regard do not make sense.

I think a total ban on Freenet links makes little sense. For example, on the Freenet page, I don't see why a Freenet link shouldn't be posted. Or on one of the other p2p pages. Or a Freenet link to pages that for one reason or another are not on the web - maybe they're from some political group that doesn't have a web page for some reason. I mean, if I go to [[50]], there is a straight NNTP link, and there are many such links around Wikipedia. I think the appropriateness of the links are determined by the individual case. I would tend to be more lenient. Mikka might be unwilling to verify something, just like I might not want to go to the library, or get an NNTP browser and whatnot, but that's his choice. Ruy Lopez 19:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ruy, can you please give an example of an NNTP link in the main namespace, in an article outside of ones about newsgroups, instead of on a Wikipedia: article where such arguments are irrelevant? --Golbez 22:23, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hello, please don't take it personally, but i have reverted your removal of the Freenet links. I've never seen any policy of Wikipedia that stated that only World Wide Web articles can be reffenced. If your argument was that not all users have Freenet installed, than you also must go and remove any ISBN refferences, since not every person has ability to buy a particular book. If you wish to create a precident, rather than removing links one at the time i would suggest placing Template:Freenet links on vote for deletion or something, so that everybody can just talk it out rather than start revert wars.

Also please note that all the freesites that were addes were in fact relevant to the particular toppics, and thus can be useful to a person who is doing the research about a topic, if that person just happen to have an access to a freenode. Thank you for your time. Beta m (talk)

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

• 1st revert:

19:20, August 4, 2005

• 2nd revert:

09:17, August 5, 2005

• 3rd revert:

12:26, August 5, 2005

• Following my notice to User:Wyss on the #Talk:Elvis Presley# Personal insults I posted a notice that she had now reverted three times. User:Wyss tried to elicit help from User talk:Hoary without success then obviously elicited via e-mail User:EQuintan who made a massive edit with nothing more than the comment “Condensation” 16:25, August 5, 2005 EQuintan (condensation). This huge edit deleted most all of the things User:Wyss had reverted on their three previous reverting edits. User Wyss then did seven (7) more separate edits to restucture the page. I reverted (my third) this collaboration with User:Wyss and noted it on the Talk:Elvis Presley page advising User:EQuintan to justify the deletions done for User:Wyss.

• 4th revert:

18:10, August 5, 2005

Please note that User:Wyss has a history of this type of conduct. She recently had a Wikipedia:Three-revert rule warning from Administrator User:Mel Etitis (see User talk:Wyss) and is the subject of a Request for mediation by User:Onefortyone for similar reverting conduct. See: - Accurate contributions This is scheduled to be heard by Mediator JCarriker when his imposed truce expires tomorrow.

Reported by: Ted Wilkes 23:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Response: I haven't broken 3rr. I haven't engaged in pesonal attacks. I've been trying to find a way to resolve a citation problem. Other editors have also been involved in reverts. I asked Hoary to have a look at the talk page, hoping he might have some constructive advice but he doesn't seem to have been editing at all since I left the message for him. Please see the Elvis Presley talk page for the details on this.

Ted Wilkes initiated contact with me repeatedly via private email on the User:Onefortyone incident, which he was also deeply involved in (User:Onefortyone repeatedly accused us of being sockpuppets of the same user). Ted Wilkes claimed User:Onefortyone is a specific WP admin (whom he named). Ted Wilkes offered me what I interpreted as Ted Wilkes' full support in that matter, including many unsolicited "tips" on how to handle the mediation. Ted Wilkes also complimented me on what he called my "integrity." Sadly, I seem to have really pissed off Ted Wilkes over my insistance on citations for three or four specific assertions he has made in the Elvis Presley article. Wyss 02:11, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Stevertigo (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 22:12 August 5, 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:40, August 5, 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:49, August 5, 2005
• 4th revert: 23:04, August 5, 2005
• 5th revert: 23:20, August 5, 2005
• 6th revert: 23:52, August 5, 2005
• 7th revert: 24:32, August 5, 2005
• 8th revert: 1:06, August 6, 2005
• 9th revert: 1:41, August 6, 2005
• 10th revert: 2:48, August 6, 2005
• 11th revert: 3:20, August 6, 2005
• 12th revert: 15:58, August 6, 2005

Reported by: User:CJK August 5, 2005

Comments

There was a minor edit in between. Not sure if this applies to admin. CJK 5 August 2005

Please note this user is an administrator who is threatening to block users he disagrees with:

POV pro-U.S. nonsense. Ive a good mind to block you for good measure. -St|eve 22:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I admonished him for it so he threatened the same to me:

No, of course not. Did I? But IAC, temp removing unhelpful third party commentors can be useful though. -St|eve 23:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC) --TJive 00:13, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he has requested page protection and wishes to revert with impunity until it is done. Note that he is fully aware of what he is doing:

I was one of the first to support 3RR back when it was a failing proposal, and I know its merits as well as its shortcomings. It would appear that you and CJK have conspired to revert the article and to label my unreverts as violation of policy.

--TJive 01:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

CJK is cruisin' for a bruisin' too though. --TJive 02:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Eh? CJK 6 August 2005

You've got several reverts of your own. --TJive 02:18, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going over. At least not 6 times over... CJK 6 August 2005

This is still ongoing. Something needs done. --TJive 02:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

That makes 11; is anyone paying attention? --TJive 03:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Now its 12... CJK 6 August 2005

Well, User:Thryduulf protected the page -- after which, it appears, that Stevertigo went into the protected page and reverted to the version he wanted. Not quite kosher, if you ask me. --Calton | Talk 16:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

User has been blocked for 24 hours.Geni 17:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 12:45 6 August 2005
• 1st revert: 14:03 6 August 2005 (n.b. includes other edits)
• 2nd revert: 14:07 6 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:47 6 August 2005
• 4th revert: 15:35 6 August 2005
• 5th revert: 16:56 6 August 2005 (also includes other edits - themselves violating 3RR over other sections)

Reported by: ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 15:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment

I did not revert, just added new information which was subsequently vandalised by Ril. As you can see from each alleged revert, I did not destroy the text by Ril, but added references and new texts. I did remove non-relevant informatuin, like Ril's rants about the alleged crimes of Crusdader kings, which belong in another article.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:15, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you will note that each of Germen's edits listed above constitutes a revert of the passage in question. There are equally 4 reverts of other passages in the time period, but in different edits, totalling 4 reverts of the entire article between them. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Religious conflict and Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). -Ril- (talk · contribs): Reverts four times, removes 18 resources, even after I put them back again and again. I did not revert more than 2 times, unless to readd resources which were removed by Ril. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 17:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• 1st revert:[51]
• 2nd revert:[52]
• 3rd revert:[53]
• 4th revert:[54]

and several others. He does not mark reverts as such and does not observe Wikipedia citation policy, even after repeatedly warned, both public and private.

Doesn't count, sorry, you have to point out the version that was reverted to. Oh, those are also versions of the article, not diffs. YOU MUST SUPPLY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF DIFFS and you must specify the time of each "revert" - see the way I have formatted the listing against you, or the template below. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 17:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

For any admin to act on this report, you'll need to include diffs of the reverts and the version(s) reverted to. Carbonite | Talk 17:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Ril, you need to realize that just because someone else reverts 4 times, doesn't give you the right to revert back each of those 4 times, unless it is clear vandalism, which this was not.

prev version: [55]

• 1st revert: 15:49, 6 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:29, 6 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:31, 6 August 2005
• 4th revert: 14:11, 6 August 2005
• 5th revert: 14:09, 6 August 2005
• 6th revert: 11:08, 6 August 2005

-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 02:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

BMIComp, None of those show any diffs, they all show only zero change. You must supply evidence of actual reverting, i.e. that I reverted someone's edits. Other edits, such as re-arranging, putting in text, fixing typos, etc. do not count, and you must make it clear that the text is being reverted. If you check out what was going on, you will see that the above 6 applies to different sections, not the same one. You will note that each time, Germen reverted a section 3 times (over a span of 10 or so consecutive edits), I reverted it back 3 times, warning Germen about 3RR on the 3rd. You will note that after this warning, Germen then reverted a different section 3 times (again over a span of 10 or so edits), and again I reverted it back 3 times. No-one part of the text was reverted by either of us more than 3 times. This repeated for various parts of the text until eventually, Germen actually reverted a piece of the text for its fourth time, so I listed the 3RR violation here. Note that I list 4 reverts, not 20 or so that is actually the number of times that sections were re-changed by Germen, as it is only 4 times that any single piece of the text was reverted. If 3RR applied to reverting the page in any way whatsoever, i.e. those 6 actions actually counting as 3RR violations, then I would have listed Germen's 3RR violations much earlier (i.e. instead of my edit marked "Cleanup" at mid-day-ish). 81.156.176.160 08:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I endorse this summary in as much as a clear inspection of the above diffs indicate no reverts. Agriculture 02:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

User talk:67.182.157.6 is now at 6 reverts on Truth with that IP, one with the IP 172.197.72.66 and two with the IP 172.199.120.111, within a nine hour period.

5:(cur) (last) xx:31, August 6, 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6 (Yur side has already had three reverts. That's all you get.)

4:(cur) (last) 17:45, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6 (Your side has already had your three reverts. That's all you get.)

3:(cur) (last) 17:35, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6

2:(cur) (last) 17:34, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6

1:(cur) (last) 17:32, 6 August 2005 User talk:67.182.157.6

0:(cur) (last) 20:57, 4 August 2005 DotSix' predilection shows as early as 12 July 2005

First appearance of true dab ref by DotSix, June 22, 2005

This evidence will go on 3RR and on the RFAr. Ancheta Wis 19:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Added fifth revert to Truth --BaronLarf 22:47, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thirteen revert rule violation on The Bible and history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). User-multi error: "~~~~" is not a valid project or language code (help).:

1st time around

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time] (reason -Ril- gives)
• 1st revert: 21:33, July 23, 2005 (revert version by Notail to version by Mel Etitis - please don't POV the article anymore than it is already)
• 2nd revert: 22:39, July 23, 2005 (This article should be discussed on this article's talk page. That is why it is there. R.v. to Mel Etitis.)
• 3rd revert: 08:06, July 24, 2005 (r.v. to Mel Etitis. Please do not POV)
• 4th revert: 03:06, July 25, 2005 (r.v. POV by Noitall to version by Mel Etitis)
• 5th revert: 08:39, July 25, 2005 (r.v. POV by Noitall to version by Mel Etitis)
• 6th revert: 15:10, July 26, 2005 (r.v. POV by Noitall to version by Mel Etitis)
• 7th revert: 05:20, July 27, 2005 (rv POV by Noitall to last version by kdbuffalo)
• 8th revert: 06:40, July 27, 2005 (rv POV by Noitall to last version by kdbuffalo)
• 9th revert: 15:49, July 27, 2005 (rv POV by Noitall to last version by kdbuffalo)

--> Jayjg suggests change 03:50, August 5, 2005 (Historicity of Christian beliefs - better paragraph from Jesus)

-Ril- goes right back to reverting, the latest -->the paragraph headers and much of the wording is the same, with Jayjg's edits:

• 10th revert: 05:02, August 5, 2005 (→New Testament/Greek Bible - remove POV reinserted by Noitall)
• 11th revert: 07:00, August 6, 2005 (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
• 12th revert: 07:00, August 6, 2005 (re-remove POV re-re-inserted by Noitall)
• 13th revert: 16:58, August 6, 2005 (re-re-remove POV re-re-reinserted by Noitall. Noitall I only have 2 prior reverts in the last 24 hours - check the history - you have 3)

-->Finally (maybe), Mel Etitis, reverts -Ril-:20:01, August 6, 2005 (rv to better-balanced (and written) version)

Reported by: Noitall 20:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, -Ril- reverts some more after this 3RR was filed:

• 14th revert: 07:12, August 7, 2005 (re-remove POV by Noitall)

Reported by: Noitall 23:34, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, edit 12=edit 11, both are claimed by you to occur at 7:00 August 6, edit 14 is 24 hours and 12 minutes later, i.e. over 24 hours, so can't count as 3RR. And anyway, it only counts as the 3rd edit since edit 10 not the 4th as edit 11=edit 12. Indeed, since edit 10 is over 48 hours ago, I could quite legitimately make a 15th right now if necessary without breaking 3RR. I strongly suggest you read the opening sentence of WP:3RR that makes clear this applies to 24 hour periods not to 2 week periods. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This page only addresses a small part of -Ril-'s stalking and bad faith behavior (which counts possibly more than 100 bad faith actions, which could be construed as personal attacks since they were intentionally meant to cause trouble, disrupt and were for the purposes of revenge (of what, I do not know, other than personal dislike). In this entire time, he did not edit a single word, he only reverted. In this entire time, he did not edit or revert a single edit other than mine. --Noitall 20:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Noitall, 3RR applies to 24 hour periods, not reverts over several days. As you can clearly see above there is not a violation of 3RR here - read WP:3RR. This is a bad faith posting. You are discrediting yourself by posting this. Oh, and inaccurately claiming the times of the diffs you provide (check them) doesn't help your case either. Nor does listing the same edit twice - 11 and 12 are identical - they are the same edit. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 23:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---->You want accuracy, here is the correct No. 11, at 06:51, August 6, 2005 [56]. As usual, you focus on 1 of your 14 bad faith actions, rather than correcting your bad behavior. --Noitall 15:05, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a 3RR violation. However, slow edit wars and gaming the 3RR are frowned upon. I would recommend that the disputants in this edit war seek mediation or some other dispute resolution, rather than continuing this pointless slow edit war. Kelly Martin 14:35, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• He was gaming the system not for an edit but to cause as much trouble as possible. Mediation with him has been attempted. Here is a cut and past from before:

Wesley, please be my guest. Two other editors have tried to intercede to no avail. The problem is that -Ril- does not have an edit dispute, he has targeted me. He has done so on about 40 pages so far as he trolls my edits. I keep threatening to do an RfC, but it seems like such a waste of time and effort when I would prefer to be editing. Bottom line, ignoring for the moment his personal vendetta against me, he says "POV" about 100 times without ever once stating what is POV. Jayjg suggested a change to the edit and made it and it was fine. -Ril- even reverted that thinking that I made the edit. Wesley, if you want to stroll into -Ril-world, you are welcome to try. Note his stuborness and crazy disputes on his talk page, as we speak. In fact, I will follow whatever recommendation you make. --Noitall 05:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

--Noitall 14:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is a cut from -Ril-'s talk page:

I am blocking you for 72 hours due to your 3RR violation on The Bible and history.

Your fourth edit was 24 hours and nineteen21 minutes after your first. That's close enough for me, and here's why:

• You are making sterile reverts with no discussion on the talk page and no attempt at compromise in wording.
• You do not appear to be discussing your reverts with the other users on their talk pages or at any other location at Wikipedia.
• Both the edit summaries and the timing of your reverts make it clear that you feel that 3 reverts a day is an entitlement, when it's not.
• You appear to be engaging in sterile reverts on several other pages as well.
• I note that you have already been blocked twice in the past month for 3RR violations and therefore I have blocked you for 72 hours rather than the customary 24 hours.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• I believe this listing is misleading. There is no 5-day 13RR. And no set of 3 of his edits cited as evidence were within the same 24 hour period. It is true that Ril was revert-warring excessively, and that is bad, but it is not 3RR, and listing as 3RR and treating it as if it were 3RR despite the fact it's clearly not is somewhat misleading, when the issue is problematic behavior (but not violation of this particular rule). Perhaps you want to propose a change of the 3RR policy or a new rule to include a massive number of reverts over a longer period of time? --Mysidia 16:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I blocked based on 34 reverts in 24 hours and 21 minutes, not for 13 reverts in 5 days. I believe that there is, and should be, enough elasticity in the 3RR to cover such obvious attempts to game the system. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

All the same, I would like to know... which 4 reverts were within the same 24 hour +/- 20 minute period? I assume you mean 4, since if he performed only 3 reverts in that time period, then he would not have been in violation of 3RR. Had he waited 24 hours and 21 minutes, it seems a clear demonstration that he had made a good effort to follow the 3RR policy. Reverts over 24 hours later are not what 3RR is about, the important thing about those reverts turning out to be so close to 24 hours apart is that he is not simply ignoring the rule, 3RR. There may indeed be gaming of the system attempted, he may merit blocking for a reason by some other name. Just like with other edit wars, doesn't Wikipedia have a dispute resolution process which would be more appropriate? --Mysidia 06:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. There were 4 reverts, not 3. I have a list of them at User_talk:-Ril- and most of the discussion is there as well. I dislike 3RR blocks because of the mechanical nature of the rule, and only apply them when there is evidence of an ongoing problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There is now a (co-signed) RFC against UninvitedCompany as a result of his/her actions - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks like that clue-by-four was ineffective. --Calton | Talk 21:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 13:58
• 1st revert: 14:13
• 2nd revert: 14:30
• 3rd revert: 15:09
• 4th revert: 15:18
• 5th revert: 15:37
• 6th revert: 15:49

Reported by: --Silverback 08:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I've waited long enough. This is an admin, so I expected him to turn himself in, but he hasn't. This is a page he is an editor of and not a neutral observer. He also had the nerve to put a 3RR block himself on an anon user who was involved in the war, even though that user only has a total of two edits to his credit. Whatever this anon user deserves, it isn't a 3RR block, and certainly not from an admin who was a party to the dispute, who obviously beleives in the 3RR (not a given you know). Appended is the block log entry:

15:38, August 6, 2005 Jpgordon blocked "User:81.115.31.217" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr)

Note, this text was hardly causing an emergency, it is the type of text that has been accepted on many articles. There was plenty of time for others in a possibly objecting consensus to participate, or to call a neutral admin. This was not an obvious case of vandalism, although I suspect there may have been sock puppetry, or spoofing of IPs on some, but not all the edits.--Silverback 08:25, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Blocking this editor at this point would not serve the purpose of the 3RR as the edits are nearly 24 hours old anyway and the article is currently protected. Please note that the purpose of the 3RR is as a tripwire to stop edit warring; it is not punitive. I therefore recommend against blocking him. Kelly Martin 14:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I learn something new each time an admin violates the 3RR, this time that it is not punitive, and if the rule is violated just before the article is protected, then a block is unneeded. Apparently we need the ability to block for 3RR on only one article, so that the block does not give the false impression of being punitive, and the rule should be edited to eliminate the expression of "regret" provision, since that also suggests punitiveness. This interpretationa also has the logical hole, that if friends of the blocked individual can continue an edit war and get the page protected, then they can get their friend's blocked released. How consistently is a block released BTW, once the page has been protected? Or is this a novel interpretation?--Silverback 21:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Admins have discretion in applying the 3RR; they can refuse to block or block for less than 24 hours if the admin feels that a lesser block will be sufficient to meet the goal of the 3RR, which is to curtail an ongoing edit war. In this case, the edit war has been terminated by page protection, so there's no need to block. The conclusion that 3RR blocks are not punitive is a direct consequence of the fact that none of Wikipedia policy is punitive; all of our policy exists to further the end of writing an encyclopedia. Blocks are used when an editor's conduct are interfering with that goal, not because we wish to punish someone for breaking a rule. Kelly Martin 00:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I also oppose a block on this editor. He did nothing more than get a little overzealous reverting a troll who was using multiple IPs to avoid the 3RR and engaging in personal attacks against other users. Gamaliel 17:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What's overzealous? There's no 3RR violation when reverting a 3RR-evading sockpuppet account -- and the account I blocked was so obviously a sockpuppet of the fatboy anon that there was no reason to waste any time by providing rope. I'm glad, though, that the anon finally has a champion who has the guts to establish an account; hopefully, Silverback will carefully follow the history of the fatboy dispute (most of the discussion is still on Talk:Ted Kennedy) and understand that this has more to do with appropriate Wikipedia behaviour than any content of the Ted Kennedy article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

For most of the reverts, the fatboy link was not the issue, and these reverts did not involve the simple vandalism exception, the text is still being discussed on its merits. Since this was not simple vandalism, and was not responded to as if it was sock puppetry, it is analogous to the police officer who starts shooting randomly during a dispute involving this own neighbors when he had plenty of time to call for backup instead. There was no necessity to violate the 3RR rule.--Silverback 21:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

There was no simple vandalism involved, then, when User:Sasquatch protected the page and then added the contraversial text, yet you don't seem bent out of shape regarding violation of THAT rule. But then, it was done to get the "right" version, so presumably it's okay in this case. --Calton | Talk 21:26, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

You have the facts wrong, he reverted to what he thought was a correct version, then protected, then reconsidered his violation of the rule and rectified that by adding the controversial text. The end result is close to a correct interpretation of the rules, although a crooked path was taken.--Silverback 21:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 02:38 July 25
• 1st revert: 02:34 August 7
• 2nd revert: 03:34 Aug 7
• 3rd revert: 08:08 Aug 7
• 4th revert: 11:56 Aug 7

Reported by: SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• To make this easier to follow, here's a section he kept reverting to: "A mass of previously unremarked materials collectively known as the VENONA project was declassified by the U.S. government in 1995. Among these were Army decryptions of Soviet cables which revealed there to be some number of American citizens involved in espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union."

• Coqsportif is pretending to be a new user, but clearly isn't, and has been reported for disruption at WP:AN/I#User:Coqsportif. I've blocked him for 24 hours for the 3RR violation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:08, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: 10:47, August 7, 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:15, August 7, 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:32, August 7, 2005
• 4th revert: 14:45, August 7, 2005

Reported by: User:Instantnood 14:52, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• What?? What kind of nomination is this?--Huaiwei 15:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• One where someone with a history of being on the edge of the rule sits right on the edge again.Geni 15:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • May I draw attention to the talk page of LRT. Think it explains whats going on here, and no, my latest edit was preciely what was described in the talk page. I tought that was the best way to stop the edit warring.--Huaiwei 15:29, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Special Air Service (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Houghone (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 13:01, August 7, 2005
• 1st revert: 16:01, August 7, 2005
• 2nd revert: 16:46, August 7, 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:15, August 7, 2005
• 4th revert: 17:23, August 7, 2005

Houghone (talk · contribs) aka 84.65.183.7 (talk · contribs) is clearly a reincarnation of banned vandal B1link82 (talk · contribs) (same obsession with the SAS, same fondness for profanity). An old hand at both vandalism and 3RR, having been blocked several times over as both 84.65.183.7 and B1link82. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 6 August 2005
• 1st revert: 14:01, 7 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:19, 7 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:12, 7 August 2005
• 4th revert: 18:38, 7 August 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The single diffs disguise the fact that each revert is done in stages of up to eleven edits, for some reason. I've placed the article at RfC, but Germen seems disinclined to wait at the last consensus version of the page for other editors to comment (though it's true that no-one has turned up yet — outside comments would be helpful). His edits started as a simple attempt to add what he calls "Islamofascist" groups to the article, and that is clearly still his main focus. I warned him of 3RR, but he reverted again anyway.
  

I was certain that I hadn't violated 3RR myself, but the history seems to show that I have; it was inadvertent, and I'd revert myself if I could, but Germen's too quick for me. Whatever happens, I'm leaving the article alone now for a day or two, as the edit-warring was getting silly, so it would be even more useful if other editors could offer an opinion at Talk:Supremacism as to the long list of groups that Germen insists on adding. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:59, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• • Errare humanum est. Nevertheless, you repeated refusal to constructively incorporate my additions, of which several groups are qualified supremacist groups cannot be qualified as a mistake. In contrast, I did not remove any of your additions, just I added my information. My actions cannot be classified as reverts. So we have a problem: you accuse other users of breaking the 3RR rule without proof and you break this rule yourself. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy and meanwhile try to check whether your interpretatio of supremacism matches the definition in the article.--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:21, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Mel's statement is exactly the way Wiki is supposed to work. I too have gotten caught up in edit wars (am trying to reduce them) and it seems an acknowledgement that both parties went too far and are taking a step back. I see no abusive behavior by either party here so I hope a 3RR is unnecessary on either party. --Noitall 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

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

Reported by: --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• Previous version reverted to: 16:13, 6 August 2005
• 1st revert: 17:33, 7 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 16:50, 7 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:26, 7 August 2005
• 4th revert: 18:24, 6 August 2005

Comments:

• User seems to be unaware of his own indiscretions and does not motivate his reverts and edits. User refuses to motivate his rude and uncooperative deletions.

--Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I agree that it is four reverts in 24 hours. I am more than hesitant to block Mel, as blocking him would have a far worse effect than not doing so. I therefore shall warn him, and remind him to be careful when reverting. Germen, it would help if you put times on your report. [[smoddy]] 18:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I am busy adding the times here. Warning Mel Etitis is OK with me (I don't liek excessive blockings of users) and I hope he will be more careful in the future. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Update: Times added. I do not report users for 3RR often, as this is IMHO no fair play so I have no routine. But if people accuse me unfairly, I reserve the right to take corrective action. --Germen (Talk | Contribs ) 18:37, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Mel Etitis is /very/ respectable and knowledgeable member of Wikipedia. If this nomination is found to be done in bad faith the proposer should not be left to harras people freely. Pavel Vozenilek 22:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• My comments on issue above regarding User:Germen.--Noitall 02:30, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Microstate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 68.123.207.17 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 21:56, 7 August 2005
• 1st revert: 23:06, 7 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:43, 7 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:12, 8 August 2005
• 4th revert: 01:33, 8 August 2005

Reported by: Samboy 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This person is also adding content concerning his micronation, Dominion of Melchizedek, to other articles, such as Malpelo Island, Clipperton Island, Bokak Atoll, Rotuma, Antarctica, Microstate, Dominion, and Melchizedek Samboy 02:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• This user is scourge of Wikipedia. He (he uses several IP addresses) pust a nonsense on these pages over and over. I strongly recommend long block- there seems no way to deal rationally with him. Pavel Vozenilek 22:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Could someone please immediately attend to this? Thanks in advance. El_C 03:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Maria_al-Qibtiyya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [57]
• 1st revert: 04:02, 8 August 2005
• 2nd revert: 04:54, 8 August 2005
• 3rd revert: 05:18, 8 August 2005
• 4th revert: 05:33, 8 August 2005

Reported by: Heraclius 05:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User has broken the 3RR before [58]. (Unsigned edit by User:Heraclius)

• The first revert is clearly unrelated to the next three. This is therefore not 3RR. Heraclius's accusations that I have violated 3RR before are also false, as the record demonstrates that I have never been blocked for 3RR violation. --Zeno of Elea 05:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Zeno's first revert was a revert of vandalism, from a user who wanted to delete all the content of this page and replace it with a copy/paste copyvio, from this page [59]. The 3rr doesn't apply to vandalism, so I don't think that it has been broken. I also note that Heraclius has so far failed to explain, why he insist on adding the {{TotallyDisputed}} tag, despite Zeno's efforts on the articles talk page. -- Karl Meier 06:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

• Previous version reverted to: 19:29, August 6, 2005
• 1st revert: 08:24, August 7, 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:33, August 7, 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:14, August 7, 2005
• 4th revert: 07:07, August 8, 2005
• 5th revert: 07:30, August 8, 2005
• 6th revert: 12:07, August 8, 2005

Reported by: TJive 11:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User keeps deleting and changing the same passage of the "Politics" section. He technically violated 3RR yesterday already, but rather than report him I warned him about doing so, and this is the answer in return. --TJive 11:18, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • User continues to violate policy. --TJive 17:45, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Blocked for 24 hours. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)