Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive23

Contents: May 16, 2005 - May 19, 2005

Abortion

Abortion has just been removed to Abortion (medical term) without prior discussion by Nauseam. I strongly don't think this is right without discussion. Can an admin please change it back? then maybe we can hacvve a discussion. Abortion is a very POV charged article, and thi strikes me as too drastic an action be taken unilaaterally and without prior discussion --SqueakBox 00:41, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved it back, but this doesn't require an administrator to do. You could have done this yourself.-gadfium 00:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think the database credits me with the move because gadfium and I clicked on the move link at the same time, only I was a millisecond faster. But, the system currently prevents users who have recently registered their accounts to move pages. But since SqueakBox has been here a while, I agree he could have done it himself. 10qwerty 00:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought I would muddle up the histories if i tried, and that only an admin could. Next time I will try myself. Cheers for the speedy response, --SqueakBox 01:03, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

User:KapilTagore

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

• 1st revert: 23:37, 15 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:16, 16 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:36, 16 May 2005
• 4th revert: 09:50, 16 May 2005
• 5th revert: 10:02, 16 May 2005

Reported by: Mark¹ 03:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User was warned on talk page. Also please revert to the last version before his ([1]), as I'm already up to 3 reverts trying to deal with this. Mark¹ 03:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
• Blocked KapilTagore for 24 hours, his last revet seemed to be for the spole purpose of getting himself and Mark blocked--nixie 03:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Indo-European languages

I'd love to use the template, but I believe that an admin has to have a look for himself at Indo-European languages. Someone appears to be using several IP addresses, and one account, in order to avoid the 3RR.--Wiglaf 07:18, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Please remove these posts when this has been done.--Wiglaf 07:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Molloy

Three revert rule violation on New Zealand National Front (history·watch). Molloy (talk ·contributions).

• 1st revert 03:05, 16 May 2005
• 2nd revert 04:05, 16 May 2005
• 3rd revert 04:09, 16 May 2005
• 4th revert 04:22, 16 May 2005

Reported by: El_C 08:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User was warned and had in fact warned myself not to violate 3RR only to then do so mere moments later. El_C 08:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Has he been blocked yet? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That's a negative. El_C 21:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I see. Well, that oversight has been remedied. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I bet you enjoyed that Jayjg, nothing quite like dealing one to your religious & racial enemies. - Molloy 02:10, 21 May 2005

User:Yuber (I)

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

• 1st revert: 07:22, 15 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:26, 15 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 01:02, 16 May 2005
• 4th revert: 01:29, 16 May 2005

Reported by: Stereotek 09:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Yuber has been insisting on adding a specific picture to the Golan Heights article, and has reverted the article 4 times within 24 hrs. to archive that goal. Stereotek 09:25, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Stereotek, some of your times are wrong in the diffs you've given. I'll take a look though, and if he has violated 3RR, I'm going to block him, as he's been warned many times. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:32, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Similar behavior on Jizyah. Yuber is very quick with those reverts. Klonimus 02:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

NPOV/BCE-CE Proposal Depate

Gene Nygaard first added material to my proposal (I do not mean he added comments in the discussion section, or caste his vote, I mean he changed the text of my proposal); then he retitled my proposal "A proposal re BCE-CE Debate." I think this is uncalled for — it is my proposal, and I followed all protocals. Worse, the consequence of his doing this is that the page is totally screwed up, with hundreds of kilobytes duplicated, sections mixed up. This may be unintentional, but the effect is vandalism. I have spent an hour trying to fix it and all my fixes authomatically revert to the messed up state it was in.

• I'd like people to consider some sort of reprimand or discipline for Nygaard.
• I am putting a block on the article until I can fix it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You should have put an explicit notice on the page that the proposal was not to be edited, and any discussions for change should be taken to the talk page. Instead you put up (apparently, correct me if I'm misreading the edit history): "If people think they can rephrase what I have written to make it more eloquent, by all means do so. But I think any discussion should follow the proposal." Don't be surprised if people jump on such an invitation and run off with it to places you didn't want it to go.

By default, every page is editable unless someone explicitly asks to please not do it (which is then generally respected). It's true that there is an unwritten rule that proposals "belong" to the proposer and changes can only be made after discussion on the talk page, and this is why I invented Wikipedia:Edit this proposal for Wikipedia:Countdown deletion to explicitly demolish this rule. There is, to my knowledge, no explicit notice in the policy drafting guidelines that says you definitely shouldn't edit (and if there is, it isn't prominent enough).

Nygaard is the victim of a well known bug that duplicates sections when there is an edit conflict; rather than reporting the conflict, MediaWiki may instead happily duplicate the entire section, one version with the edit, one without. When Benedict XVI was on the front page, many people did nothing else but fix the continuous duplication caused by innocent edits.

As far as "reprimandes" and "disciplines" go: Wikipedia does not operate a punitive system, despite common opinion and sometimes appearances; the primary angle is to discourage unproductivity (vandalism, revert warring, POV pushing) and encourage cooperation. "Disciplining" Nygaard would do nothing to that effect, as I seriously doubt he was acting in bad faith. You're better off explaining why what he did seriously messed up your day—politely. Assume good faith, and Hanlon's Razor. JRM · Talk 16:00, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I removed the protection and the duplicated section.Geni 16:31, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you removed more than the duplicated section (or someone did; I can't make out the history). I hit three edit conflicts, and after the third, the section to which I was trying to add my comment was gone with all its contents. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me be clear about the problem. I made it explicitly clear that if anyone could improve ths style of the proposal, they should, but that if they had comments (pro or con) they were to go below the proposal. This is not an article, which as a collaborative project anyone can work on. It is a proposal I am proposing. Gene Nygaard is opposed to the proposal. He has that right. There is a section in which anyone can express their criticisms of the proposal, and a section in which anyone can vote against the proposal. And the Talk page. But this is not an article "about" something, it is my proposal. Gene Nygaard's actions are simply vandalism.

My proposal hinges on an NPOV argument, it is the very essense" of the proposal. Nygard does not agree. Fine, he can explain why in the discussion section and vote no. But instead, he created a duplicate article in order to remove "NPOV" from the title. He changed the text of the proposal, with the effect that it was now proposing something that I was not proposing. These are acts of vandalism. Wikipedia is not a punitive culture, but we often block people from articles and in this case there is good reason. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what has gone on, but it doesn't seem reasonable for me for someone who is opposed to this measure to be re-wording the argument of those who support it. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Chronic reversion of Static Shock et al

User:Bishonen asked me to bring this here from WP:VIP.

I've been struggling with a user who chronically reverts others' work on Static Shock (history) and several other (mostly related) pages he has an interest in, to his versions. Although I'm fairly certain of his identity (see User talk:Mare-Silverus), lately he's been editing anonymously and every session comes from a different IP, most recently 84.65.70.122 (talk · contribs) and 84.64.55.238 (talk · contribs). Some way of preventing these wholesale reverts would be very helpful. (And if there's a dispute-resolution process for dealing with non-communicative users, I'd love to try it. {sigh}) Tverbeek 18:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Update: 81.77.106.201 (talk · contribs) Tverbeek 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mare-Silverus engaged in a very brief exchange with me (acknowledging that this has been him), and now seems to be editing a little more cooperatively 81.79.196.99 (talk · contribs). Feel free to disregard this for now. Tverbeek 19:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Hamidifar at WP:VIP

Hamidifar (talk · contribs) has posted accusations on WP:VIP that a whole VFD vote constituted "vandalism". Mindspillage closed the vote, so she's a vandal, among many others. After there had been an extended discussions, right there on VIP, and a lot of firendly considerate explanations to the newbie (= POV warrior) why the VFD wasn't vandalism and why his screed shouldn't be on VIP, I removed it and placed it on his talkpage, with a note. He's put it back several times, and has had it removed by others. Nobody's bitten him, but people's tempers are beginning to fray a little, as he himself is Jaws. I've warned him on his talkpage that he'll get blocked if he puts the nonsense back on VIP yet again. He just did. I'm in two minds whether to block. As long as that's all he does, I suppose we might just leave it there. It sure is lowering the tone of VIP, though. Could people help me keep an eye on him? --Bishonen | talk 19:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I also threatened him with blocking if he removed the vfd message from an article again (i.e., for a sixth time!), but the article was protected before he got the opportunity to. He's walking a pretty thin line. Grutness...wha? 01:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he was the one who requested protection. I guess he thought that it would be protected without the VfD notice, or protected from deletion, or something. Then he listed me as a vandal for protecting it. Rhobite 01:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I sent a reply to Hamidifar that what he describes isn't vandalism, and suggested he go through the dispute resolution process. I'm not sure if that's feeding the troll, but going through dispute resolution might be good for him. --Deathphoenix 13:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Good for him, very frazzling for everyone else. Anyway, I think a cooling-off period would be even better—he just reinserted his misplaced and aggressive text yet again on VIF, by his own count for the 7th time, with yet another insulting edit summary. I've blocked for 24 hours. --Bishonen | talk 14:31, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

True enough. Good to know. Maybe this will give him time to cool off, maybe not. --Deathphoenix 21:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne (I)

Three revert rule violation on Ross McKitrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Note: JG is subject to a 1-revert per day limit on article related to global warming, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne. Note further that JG has had repeated 3RR bans in the past.

JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 02:05, 16 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:24, 16 May 2005

Reported by: William M. Connolley 19:59, 16 May 2005

Comments:

• Note that the article *is* indeed related to global warming (almost the entire contents of the page are about a dispute over a time series by MBH, which is related to GW), and indeed the very second sentence of the article mentions the GW relevance. Despite his, JG has attempted to assert that his parole does not apply (and my revert here is the same as everyone else's - edit comment to second revert) (William M. Connolley 19:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC))
  • I agree. Blocked for 24h. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 20:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

This was clearly inappropriate since the Ross McKitrick article is clearly not in the Climate Change category as you both could easily have discovered if you'd bothered to check! Shame on both of you for failing to do so... --JonGwynne 22:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 16:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)) Read your arbcomm decision properly and stop timewasting. Your decision says nothing about cat:clch: it specifies related to GW.

There's no category for "Global Warming" and since "Climate Change" is the closest to it, that is good enough - given how careless the admins were who came up with the decision in the first place, I'm not surprised they fluffed this... But, even so, how you can relate an article about an economist to global warming is pretty amusing. But then that's just another example of you trying to stifle criticism of your extreme views. --JonGwynne 04:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 (I)

Could someone stop him please? He provoking edit wars and using a Wikibot (reverts). [2] --Witkacy 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I am enforcing community consensus as per Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Witkacy insists on having Polish only names for polish places, even though there was a large majority for double naming. Also, I am not using a bot. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

There is also a large majority for not duble naming. For what is the German name in articles like that Law and Justice ?!? And by the way, a consensus was not reached, the voting is invalid.

I am not using a bot

You reverted very fast... its not possible without a bot... (about 50 reverts in 3,5 minutes)--Witkacy 23:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it's possible without a bot. Chris is an Administrator. That means he has a rollback button, and can do reverts pretty quickly. 50 in several minutes is fast, but far from impossible. Isomorphic 01:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 is going far beyond the implications of Talk:Gdansk/Vote and is apparently on a quest to add German names to every single article on Wikipedia that uses a name of certain Polish cities. I find his activity deeply disturbing, as he is an Administrator on Wikipedia and here seems to be abusing his powers and the trust that the community has put in him.

Here is an example: Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, an article about a women's basketball team in Szczecin which Chris 73 feels must include the German name Stettin in its very first sentence.

Reading Talk:Gdansk/Vote it is clear to me that such an article does not fall under the results of the vote as (going item by item):

• 1. It is not even about Gdansk!!!
• 2. It has nothing to do with the history of Szczecin.
• 3. It is not a biography article.
• 4. It is not an article about a location.

Chris 73, please stop. Revert wars are one of the downsides of Wikipedia, and you are encouraging them. Balcer 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy was removing names at pretty much every article, despite a strong majority for double naming. Many english speakers still know the city under its german name, and having the second name in brackets DOES help users of wikipedia. Of course, Polish people don't need the double name, but please understand that many others do! If Witkacy knowingly goes against community consensus, I will revert him, and the fault lies with him. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:13, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The community concensus it NOT what you are claiming, at least from my reading of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote discussion. First of all, that vote was about Gdansk. There was nothing in the vote which extended its ruling to other Polish cities. There were good reasons for this: the history of Gdansk is quite unique. If you were to hold a vote on Using both German and Polish names for cities in Poland, and a concensus was established for some set of rules, that would be a different matter. In fact, given the ongoing controversies, I would welcome such a vote.

Sorry, indeed I missed the vote on Cross-Naming General. But the comments below remain valid. Balcer 07:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Continuing, in Talk:Gdansk/Vote it was decided that for certain classes of articles, carefully enumerated, both names should be mentioned. These are articles involving history, biography, as well as articles on specific placenames. Now, where does an article about a basketball team fit in here? Balcer 06:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Because the vote language clearly says location (general case), not article (specific). --Calton | Talk 07:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Read again: Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Cross-Naming_General:

The proposal is accepted. For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Seems straightforward: it even uses as its example the very city you use in your claim. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, for me at least history is the operative word here. I agree that in any article which deals with history of Szczecin, the German name Stettin should be plentifully mentioned. I would be the last to try to hide that city's German past. That to me was the spirit behind the Gdansk vote, a desire to establish some concensus for writing about the history of Gdansk and other cities like it. However, the attempt to insert the German name at every single mention of a given Polish city name anywhere in Wikipedia, even if the article has nothing to do with history whatsoever, seems to me a distortion of what the vote established. Balcer 07:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

"History" is NOT the subject, it's the modifier, part of the relative defining clause that IS the subject of the sentence ("locations that share a history between Germany and Poland"). Redefining the plain English-language meaning of the sentence by picking out a single word to suit your ends is at best mistaken and at worst dishonest, as is your attempt to reinterpret an already-settled issue by mind-reading.

I am trying to appeal to common sense here. Yes, of course, the sentence as voted on does imply that any user can now pick any article at all with the name Szczecin in it, add the German name Stettin, and then use the results of the vote to enforce his view. That to me is unfortunate, if done for articles completely disconnected from the German history of the places. However, the vote does not mean that this must be done. Note the key expression on the top of the vote page is in case of disputes. In particular, the vote does not require that users now must search for even obscure articles and carry out this change. Therefore, if any given user, and especially an Admin, begins to violate common sense and make edits that seem unjustified and even weird, I will complain. The results of Talk:Gdansk/Vote are not a license to abandon all judgement and blindly enforce a rule. Balcer 08:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to appeal to common sense here. You are doing no such thing. The sentence doesn't "imply" users can add double references -- it says explicitly that they can do so.. Common sense is that generally for locations that historically have had two or more names, clarity demands both references -- and NO reasonable circumstance justifies prohibition of double references or their reversion. No one is required to change all references to include both names, but you don't have a single leg to stand on in complaining when it IS done, either by asserting editors "violate common sense" -- when they maifestly don't --- or "make edits that seem unjustified" -- when they manifestly ARE justified. --Calton | Talk 15:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I will grant this to you: the literal meaning of the sentence is what you claim. However, I think that using this sentence as a justification for some of the recent edits of User:Chris 73 violates the spirit in which those rules were voted on. The vast majority of discussion during the vote involved the use of names in historical contexts. I believe most of the people who voted would be disturbed by the way in which User:Chris 73 is attempting to use the concensus that was then established to now edit large numbers of articles which have nothing to do with history. I am not alone on this, please see the current discussion in Talk:Gdansk. Balcer 17:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Note also that reverting attempts to circumvent this concensus are explicitly exempt from the 3RR rule (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results on VOTE: Enforcement), so any "edit war" would be very short-lived. --Calton | Talk 07:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

given the ongoing controversies, I would welcome such a vote. Well, we have such a vote, especially since there was a long ongoing controversy (as you said). This was the main reason that I started the vote, to end edit wars like this. More than 2/3rd of the voters supported dual naming, with a turnout of about 100 voters (pretty high for wikipedia standards). You don't have to like the outcome, but, for the sake of avoiding edit wars, please accept it. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 07:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I think that vote, far from resolving the issue, instead barely scratched the surface of the problem, as illustrated by the disputes and revert wars being fought as we speak. The historical connection between Poland and Germany (and also Austria-Hungary) is quite deep. One-third of current Polish territory belonged to Germany before 1945. More than half was part of Germany or Austria-Hungary before 1918. Even more strikingly, 100% (sic!) of current Polish territory was either in Prussia or Habsburg Austria for a short period between 1795 and 1807. (see map illustrating the Partitions of Poland). Hence all Polish cities can be said to have a "shared history" with either Germany or Austria.

1795

Thus, according to the letter of the Gdansk vote result, every single article in the whole of Wikipedia that mentions a name of any Polish city must have the German name also prominently given, if any user so insists. Now is this practical? I do not think so. If anyone really tried to carry this out, the edit wars would be endless, regardless of any revert rules that you might devise.Balcer 08:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Your attempts to denigrate it by hyperbole notwithstanding, yes, the "letter of the Gdansk vote" -- and its spirit, philosphy, and consensus -- means that any editor who works on an article concerning or mentioning a Polish city with a shared German history must use the German name to conform with consensus. And, as I've pointed out, reverting attempts to circumvent this concensus are explicitly exempt from the 3RR rule (see Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results on VOTE: Enforcement), so any "edit war" that you claim to be worried about would be cut off immediately. As for the lack of practicality that you claim -- well, that's what bots are for, aren't they? --Calton | Talk 15:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is a sample of recent problematic edits by User:Chris 73: Szczecin-Zalom (just one article of about 20 about Szczecin municipal neighbourhoods that were edited), Islands of Gdansk (suburb of Gdansk), Szczecin Scientific Society (established in 1950s),Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, Pogon Szczecin, Football in Poland (sports articles), List of major corporations in Gdansk, List of basilicas,Pier (lists of various places). Now do you really believe that these edits agree with the spirit of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote? More importantly, do you really believe that they are reasonable, concensus or not? Balcer 18:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: I did NOT add these references, but I noticed other users mass-removing any mentioning of alternative names across the board on 40+ different articles (see Witkacy (talk · contribs)). Hence i rolled back these edits. While in some instances the additional name may not have been 100% necessary, I believe most cases benefit from the mentioning. I would have never noticed except for the few articles I have on my watchlist. What is the problem with having an additional name that is still used in english on an article? -- Chris 73 Talk 19:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is obvious, at least to me: endless revert wars with Polish users who have an emotional reaction to seeing the German name mentioned every time the Polish name is mentioned, especially if it is their home town and they have put a lot of effort into creating articles of local interest about it. (Note: this is not my reaction, and I do try to avoid participating in these revert wars myself). In return for all this aggrevation, the gain in additional information is very small (after all users can just click on the Szczecin link and immediately see the German name, which will be mentioned there prominently). Taxman is right, let's wrap up this discussion. Balcer 20:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Guys, give it up already. Having two names, even if slightly annoying, is not worth this much wasted arguing. The consensus is clearly in Chris73's favor in this case, so let it go. - Taxman 20:01, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

And nobody mentioned m:How to deal with Poles yet? --Pjacobi 20:20, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Just to note, if anyone has provoked an edit war it is the user who started this thread - Witkacy, who I believe is the reincarnation of User:Caius2ga, User:Gdansk, User:Szczecin, User:Grand Duke of Poznan, User:PolishPoliticians, and User:Emax. This user has a tendency to show up under a new name, make a lot of trouble about Polish geography pages, stir up other Polish users about the issue, and then disappear. As soon as things quiet down again, he shows up again with a new name. john k 14:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, im also Batman and Mister Incredible. My dirty secret is out ! :) Chris and his fellows provoked this edit war, see his contributions (last three days). --Witkacy 15:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I see you don't deny it. As to who started it, it would actually appear that it was User:Juntung who started adding the double names (which are, btw, completely justified by current policy) two days ago. john k 17:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Let me add, though, that I don't really think we should have to list "Danzig" at every mention of the city in non-historical contexts, and I don't think that there was really a consensus that we should actually do this. john k 03:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)"

"The Bialystok thing is just ridiculous, since the German name is "Bialystok" which is, more or less, the same as the Polish name (yeah, I know there's that weird diacritical, but that doesn't seem good enough to me to qualify as a separate name.) john k 04:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)"

.... how fast you change your opinion ...--Witkacy 18:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Page protection request

Is it possible to get James Branch Cabell protected so that a copyvio-ing bits can be removed, or should the page just have {{copyvio}} put on it a temp version worked on? Alphax ^τεχ 01:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Just add the {copyvio} tag and work on the text elsewhere. Page protection is not really appropriate, and in any case this is not the right place to request it. -- Viajero 01:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:LevelCheck and his "Wikipedia Death Penalty" page

LevelCheck (talk · contribs) recently created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Death Penalty -- a page promoting that "All edits made by users under a Wikipedia Death Penalty will be immediately reverted by the community, regardless of their content". One might think this was either a joke, or perhaps a random bit of disruption, but LevelCheck has introduced this BS by sequentially reverting a number of my edits with the simple reason of "rv netoholic" (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).

His "proposal" is up for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia Death Penalty. I'd like to ask administrators to keep an eye out for any more vandalism on his part against anyone else, until the predictable end of his Arbitration case. -- Netoholic @ 02:23, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

• First of all, I have the right to make up to three reverts a day to each article. Reversion is not vandalism. Secondly, you of all people have no right to complain about attempts to force failed policy proposals into being, given the actions surrounding your own Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates. If the community allows your actions to stand, but not mine, it will only showcase a hypocrisy not known since the Pharisees. LevelCheck 02:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not trying to force that page into policy, only try and convince quarrelsome users like yourself to listen to the good direction given us by the primary database developer. Even still, don't listen to me if you don't like me, make your judgements based on the words of that highly respected person. And don't be intentionally disruptive just to prove your point. -- Netoholic @ 02:37, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

  • Trolling is not permissible in any context, nor is disruption to make a point. Stop, please. — Dan | Talk 02:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

You say "I have the right to make up to three reverts a day to each article." No you don't. To assume this would be a very, very big mistake. Go back and read The Three Revert Rule. Very carefully. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What right would you say he has, then? Everyking 02:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again! :) El_C 03:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Drink! (Complaint!) --Calton | Talk 03:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what your problem is. Apparently I can't say anything. Everyking 03:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Drink (Bitter hyperbolic strawman!) --Calton | Talk 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Under the Intent of the policy section of Three-revert rule,

"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; the 3RR is intended as a means to stop edit wars. It does not grant users an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours or endorse reverts as an editing technique. Persistent reversion remains strongly discouraged and is unlikely to constitute working properly with others."

The three-revert rule doesn't confer rights, it specifically restricts them as a way of creating a speed bump in edit wars. If I were go go around and revert every one of Calton's edits (for example), I would expect to be sanctioned even if it amounted to making only one revert per page. The three-revert rule isn't the only policy on Wikipedia that governs the use of reverts, though unfortunately that's a popular misconception in some circles. WP:POINT, WP:Wikiquette, and many others can also apply. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I have to say is that I think it's silly that we're always talking about the 3RR on one hand, but then when someone makes the obvious interpretation that it's a right, someone yells at them that it's not a right. Probably we need to develop more clear and objective standards and policies, so that we can apply things equally to everyone and enable everyone to easily see what their rights are. Everyking 04:08, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If the wording on Three-revert rule needs to be clarified, I'm sure that your suggestions would be welcome. I think that the "not an entitlement" passage is pretty explicit, but perhaps it should appear more prominently in the policy...? I presume it's not your intention to suggest that three reverts per article per day should be an entitlement. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any great solutions, but yeah, to just talk about the issue in general terms, I think editors basically should have an infinite entitlement to revert, so long as they don't do so in defiance of some sort of general opinion held by other editors. I'm pretty strongly in favor of page protections and very stridently opposed to user blocks in most of these kinds of cases. But that's just my opinion; I suppose there's nothing much that can realistically be done about it now. Everyking 05:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The reason for the three-revert rule in the first place is because the "infinite entitlement to revert" manifestly did not work, and a way of controlling sterile edit wars and/or stubborn individual editors was needed. Considering that you got into trouble for believing yourself entitled to control some articles by continual reversions -- and manifestly in defiance of general opinion held by other editors, despite your continual denial of it happening -- I find your opinion here to be more than a little self-serving. --Calton | Talk 06:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In that dispute I was the one trying to keep things from getting into revert warring, and to keep the revert warring from continuing through compromise, so your point is meaningless. I'm going to start having a Drink! every time you make some attack on me based on nothing more than a ridiculous personality feud (which, I might add, you started, and I have repeatedly tried to be conciliatory, only to get yet more bitter sarcasm in response). Everyking 06:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Two outright falsehoods, one complete misreading (to give the benefit of the doubt), and two examples of psychological projection/hypocrisy -- in that order -- all in one short paragraph. That certainly takes talent. --Calton | Talk 14:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

(Losing indent.) Seems to me the comments are all a little off focus here. The worst part of LevelCheck's actions isn't reverting any particular articles, or even general trolling and disruption. It's the harrassment and taunting of one particular user, especially one in a vulnerable position like Netoholic, who is currently on probation under a mentorship system. LevelCheck appears to be well aware of this and taking advantage of it ("you of all people have no right to complain"). Netoholic shouldn't have to wait for the end of arbitration for this outrageous behavior to stop. Can somebody please tell me some blocking policy that applies? --Bishonen | talk 04:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

His template:tfd edits were clearly disruptive, and deleting Netoholic's comments is unacceptable. I don't have a problem blocking him if he continues to make disruptive edits. Rhobite 05:02, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with applying the Wikipedia Death Penalty to him. --Carnildo 06:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Me neither. He could be tempblocked for disruption. Permablocked if it's proven he's a sock (since he'd then be a disruptive sock). --Deathphoenix 13:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It'd be perfecly acceptable to block him for disruption, in my opinion. Proteus (Talk) 14:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Is LevelCheck an extraordinarily clever satirist of Wikipedia mores, or is he just behaving obnoxiously for the hell of it? —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the user from any other context, but the implications here seem to me more that he's behaving obnoxiously because he hates Netoholic. Thanks for the input, guys. I've warned LevelCheck that I will block him immediately if he reverts Netoholic just once more without offering even a semblance of a good-faith reason.--Bishonen | talk 14:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, he's hardly the only one to harass Netoholic since the arbitration case was closed; he's just going a bit further than anyone else. That was what tipped me off; a read of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/LevelCheck/Evidence was illuminating as well. He seems to be deliberately parodying certain all-too-common behaviors; I think he's testing how far someone can go with these sorts of things before he gets blocked or banned. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He is indeed not the only one, but I'm not sure what your point is, Mirv—for myself, I think that makes LevelCheck's actions worse, not better. I don't have any sense of humor about it at all. It's not open season on Netoholic because others are already harrassing him.--Bishonen | talk 22:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't mean to suggest that his behavior is acceptable. My point was that his behavior is just holding up an ugly mirror to the behavior of other, better-established users—which, I suspect, was the intent of this action, along with all the others detailed on the arbitration evidence page. I'm still not sure whether it's meant as biting social criticism or jerkness for the sake of jerkness, though. —Charles P. (Mirv) 00:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to emphasise this point. Netoholic doesn't have a target painted on him, and treating him like he does is not acceptable behaviour.

The only question to my mind re: LevelCheck is who it's a sock of. They're smart enough not to be easily checkable - David Gerard 22:40, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

LevelCheck is now under an ArbCom temporary injunction:

For demonstrated disruptive editing habits, LevelCheck is prohibited from editing outside his userspace and pages related to this case for the duration of the case.

Mind you, I predict this sock is played out and the sockpuppeteer will never use it again - David Gerard 23:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Cantus

Cantus is now using IPs like 200.83.181.18 to go around his one-revert limit (see Developed country, Terri Schiavo, Template:Europe etc.). Perhaps it is time to invoke the full one-week block provided by the Arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus_vs._Guanaco#Remedies), in addition to blocking those IPs. NoPuzzleStranger 06:18, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Since it's an arbitration related matter, I can check and can confirm that's Cantus and no-one else on a static IP. I've blocked him for 24 hours (IP and username) myself - David Gerard 08:16, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

note: I would have made it the full week if there wasn't a request for arbitration currently up against him - David Gerard 08:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I note, btw, that you violated it yourself on Template:Europe. I haven't blocked because it was too long ago IMO, but you really have to watch yourself too and not be goaded - David Gerard 08:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wik. I thought you were hard banned. Don't you ever learn? (Lir) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.223.216.169 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 17 May 2005

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason

moved from WP:AN

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, who I understand to be a valued member of the community who has contributed much to Wikipedia, and who is also an administrator, appears to have embarked on a deletion rampage. He is trying to erase all trace of himself from Wikipedia, presumably as a prelude to faking his own death and adopting a new identity. I believe he is within his rights to delete his own user page (although this is highly confusing for everyone else, and it would be better if he just replaced it with a note to say he'd left), but he has also deleted his talk page (repeatedly), instead of just archiving it to preserve discussions. However, it goes well beyond that. He appears to be deleting any talk page he has commented on where he feels he can get away with it, including talk pages of anonymous users where he has left messages either welcoming them or warning them for vandalism, and (it appears) a few talk pages where others have commented, thus performing wholesale deletions of their comments and his own. The erstwhile vandal-hunter, it appears, has turned vandal himself. There have been instances of him deleting his comments from talk pages so as to render subsequent comments without context, such as this, where the user who has written "another welcome" is made to appear stupid, as theirs is now the first welcome on the page. Worst of all, he is removing content he has contributed from the article space. Little Belt Bridge used to have a picture towards the bottom of the page, but now there's just a missing image message, because of Ævar's deletion of Image:The_Little_Belt_Bridge_(1935)_(Scaffold_-_02).jpeg. The same goes for Image:XChat.png on X-Chat These image deletions are particularly egregious, because unlike page deletions they can't be restored. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ævar is a developer, in which case if he wanted to remove his name from Wikipedia surely he would be able to reassign all his edits to a pseudonymous account. To delete what he thinks he can get away with here and there seems pointless, as his name will still be in countless places on talk pages and in article histories. I could go on, but I'd recommend looking at Special:Contributions/Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and the deletion logs for the full story. I trust that all his unauthorized deletions will be restored somehow, and perhaps, this user will need to lose his sysop status to stop him from going round deleting them again. His image deletions can presumably be restored from Wikipedia mirrors. Thanks for taking the time to read my complaint. - Moshe (217.44.22.199), a long-time reader and observer of Wikipedia, 14:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed this looks strange. See his recent deletions, and, as Moshe pointed out, his contribs. I don't have time to investigate further, but so far I don't like at all what I see (someone unilaterally removing all images he published (under the GFDL) on wikipedia). Can someone else take a close look? Lupo 14:29, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the Little Belt Bridge picture from an old dump I have. I can restore old pictures but nothing recent. Rhobite 16:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

He deleted a whole bunch of images - any chance you (or anyone else who has a dump) could restore more of them? Noel (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I feel comfortable restoring images which were never used as content. Technically they're GFDL but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until someone gets to the bottom of this. Are there other images which were used in articles? I'm going to re-upload the Xchat one, and I think I found one other image which was removed from an article. Rhobite 19:30, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

could a developer speed-de-admin him, please? this would qualify as rogue admin behaviour, even if restricted to his own uploads, such is the GFDL. dab (ᛏ) 16:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He's temporarily desysopped until WTF is going on is known. silsor 16:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what's up, but note that while Avar is active in MediaWiki software development he doesn't have an account on the servers and could not "reassign all his edits to a pseudonymous account" or whathaveyou. --Brion 17:41, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is really bizarre. I was thinking for a moment that possibly someone guessed the password, and was vandalizing, but looking at the deletion list that seems unlikely. Looks like AEvar's decided he's upset at Wikipedia and wants to remove traces of his association - we've certainly seen other people do that before. Noel (talk) 19:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, any work that a user (legally) contributes to Wikipedia is once and forever licensed under the GFDL; removing it is now no longer legally possible to force through. You can't rescind the GFDL.

James F. (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In case this happens again, is there any way to have a time delay on the deletion of images, so that whilst they are instantly hidden from normal users an admin can restore them for (say) 24 hours afterwards, after which they are automatically actually deleted? Proteus (Talk) 19:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, make deleting images wholly wiki-like (in as much as deleting anything is wiki-like) and keeping hold of them indefinitely, excepting purging...

James F. (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

From User talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason, it appears that Ævar deleted the images because he wasn't satisfied with the quality. Should have gone through IFD first of course. IMO many of the images are sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes, and should not be deleted. I undeleted these images: Image:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg, Image:Xchat.png, Image:TCA Himalayan cat - front.jpeg, Image:TCA Himalayan cat - side.jpeg, Image:Solar Eclipse in Iceland - Staring at the sun.jpeg, Image:Pier.jpeg, Image:Lillebælt in the Twilight - Denmark - 03.jpeg, Image:Lillebælt - Denmark.jpeg, and Image:Church in Kolding - Denmark.jpeg. Please let me know if any other images were used in articles. Ævar, feel free to list them on IFD. Rhobite 20:03, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deleting unused images you uploaded yourself is fine, but the images which were used in articles should have gone through ifd. And I don't understand why he deleted Image:Solar Eclipse in Iceland - Staring at the sun.jpeg or Image:The Little Belt Bridge (1935) (Scaffold - 02).jpeg, both of which are very nice images. Thue | talk 20:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In light of the many other deletions, including of his comments and of various user pages, including his own, his claim that he deleted these images because they were "low quality" seems dubious. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:21, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone else has mentioned this, but it may be possible to recover some of the lost images from Google cache or mirrors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I just reuploaded about half of the images he deleted, but not some of the more recent ones. Rhobite apparently has access to backups of some more recently uploaded images, though, judging by some of the ones they restored. If they could get the ones I missed, that would be great. ✏ OvenFresh² 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record these (97) are the deletions directly related to the matter at hand.

I'm sorry for the distruption this has caused, it's self-evident from the reaction of various rational individuals that have commented here that I was out of line, and for what it's worth I apologize for wasting everyones time on this. True, I should have listed most of that on VFD/IFD and some of it probably shouldn't have been deleted at all.

What I removed were images from my – now deleted – image gallery which contained what I felt were various sub-par images which I uploaded in my early days with this project, I felt most of them didn't really belong on the pages of this project, examples include this, this, this, and this. Most of them weren't being used in articles. Note that I didn't removed all of them as I felt some were actually useful (e.g. the ones on Little Belt Bridge).

Furthermore I removed some old welcome messages of mine to anonymous like Nice work on William Farr School, You might want to create an account to get all the benefits of registered users and Quite impressive work on Rudy LaRusso you might want to create an account to get all the benefits of a logged in user. as well as old ban messages like You are blocked for the next 24hrs for repeted vandalism on Richard Stallman. And finally, I deleted some old cruft from my userspace, like my list of all codepoints Unicode. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason May 20, 2005 17:16 (GMT)

I see. Why did you delete your User and User:Talk pages as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 (II)

On Gdansk. Yesterday warned by Gentgeen [3]

• 1. 11:20, 16 May 2005, [4]
• 2. 20:38, 16 May 2005 [5]
• 3. 22:50, 16 May 2005 [6]
• 4. 06:33, 17 May 2005 [7]
• 5. 06:45, 17 May 2005 [8]
• 6. 06:57, 17 May 2005 [9]

--Witkacy 14:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Chris 73 is merely enforcing the vote that was taken and ratified at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice: [10] As you'll note, two of the agreed upon conventions include
    1. Reverts to confirm with community consensus are excluded from the 3RR rule. Only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. Please use descriptive edit summaries.
    2. Persistent reverts against community consensus despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism. In case of doubt, assume good faith and do not bite newcomers.
  • Jayjg ^(talk) 18:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

reverts to "comunity cosensus" are not excluded from the 3RR. If there really is community consenus then you should be able to find someone else to revert for you.Geni 19:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This was specifically agreed to for this case; that is what the whole huge vote was for in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I know but I can't remeber if the final vote issue went throughGeni 20:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

It was passed, and a couple of months later User:Halibutt decided to re-write history. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The voting was about the "Gdansk/Danzig " issue, not about the content of the Gdansk article. Chris reverted this sentence: "and an important German-speaking Hanse city". He is trying to use the results of the voting as "carte blange" for every revert--Witkacy 21:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And by the way, a voting about Gdansk dont change the 3RR rule - otherwise everyone could organize a voting and change all (wikipedia) rules...--Witkacy 22:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

In the case of name changes of Gdansk to Danzig (or vice versa) which went against the consensus, they were to be treated as vandalism allowing unlimited reverts. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention about such exception on the 3RR page (official policy on Wikipedia) and the results are also not binding for those who don't participated in the voting. See my talk with John: [11] --Witkacy 22:50, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

considering the size of the vote and the narrowness of it's effect I think it is safe to say that there in consensus that inforceing the result of the vote does not count towards the three revert rule.Geni 22:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, Chris reverted 6 times not in the name issue.--Witkacy 22:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

And BTW 44 (for) to 28 (against) votes is not a clear consensus.--Witkacy 23:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

That's 44-28 on the unlimited revert provision (or 61% in favor) -- and it's clear that many voting against were uncomfortable/offended by reference to "vandalism" in describing violations of the clear consensus of the actual decision (between 73% and 80% in favor). So, to recap, you're wrong on the consensus and wrong on the applicability of the 3RR rule, and all the spinning doesn't change that. Sorry, no do-overs. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

And it appears to me that whenever you ran out of reverts, an anonymous IP editor 70.81.119.154 showed up to revert for you. How lucky is that!!! Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmm???? What do you mean? On which article? Gdansk? Do you take a look on the history? [12] .... --Witkacy 23:10, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

How lucky is Chris! I have reported his 3rr on 14:46, and until now he was not blocked. Hallibutt: 18:12 blocked on 19:54. :)--Witkacy 23:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

becuase there was no violation. There were only three reverts on the Hanse followed by three reverts that don't count due the result of the poll. If you don't think there is consensus on that final result make a proposal to change the policy.Geni 00:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Is NoPuzzleStranger Wik?

148.223.216.169 (talk · contribs) (Lir) has made numberous accusations that NoPuzzleStranger (talk · contribs) is hard-banned user Wik/Gzornenplatz. Taking a look, I do see similarities, including an obsession with diacritic markings and English transliteration on place names (Ubeda and Gdansk). Also, this user from the start (first edits Feb 2005, but starting in earnest on March 20) seems extremely familiar with Wikipedia processes, culture, and people. Welcome more input on this. -- Netoholic @ 16:03, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

I don't see the characteristic IP evidence for Wik/Gzornenplatz, but that doesn't prove no link, of course. Perhaps someone could ask NoPuzzleStranger nicely if they are Wik/Gzornenplatz. Wik/Gzornenplatz is still welcome to appeal the last AC ruling, as our decision on Gz fairly screams at him to actually do ... - David Gerard 16:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

If banned users enjoy continuing to stalk each other, couldn't they at least find some other wiki where they're not banned to do it on? --Michael Snow 17:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

How do you know that 148.223.216.169 is Lir? If he is, the ID should be blocked, as Lir is hard banned. RickK 19:58, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Self-admitted. -- Netoholic @ 20:07, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

That's just a claim. OTOH, imitating a banned user is likely to lead to similar treatment - David Gerard 16:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

User:67.123.246.214 / User:23x

Three revert rule violation on Anarchism (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.123.246.214 (talk · contribs)/23x (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 22:17
• 2nd revert: 22:57
• 3rd revert: 23:58
• 4th revert:23:59
• 5th revert:00:17
• 6th revert:1:01
• 7th revert:1:17
• 8th revert:1:34
• 9th revert:1:48
• 10th revert:2:22

Reported by: Nat Krause 17:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Anon user User:67.123.246.214 is very clearly the same as newly-registered User:23x. Also edit-warring at anarcho-capitalism, although I haven't counted his reverts there yet. - Nat Krause 18:30, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of the times you've given don't seem quite right, Nat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:47, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:67.123.246.214 is blocked for 24 hours and User:23x is blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet created to violate policy. However, if the anon wants 23x to be his new account instead of posting anonymously, then I'll unblock it when the 3RR block expires. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:35, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

128.252.121.153

Hi, as an unlogged-in user from 128.252.121.153, I made a bunch of changes to fungus-related articles, changing their category from Category:Mycology to Category:Fungi. I thought (for reasons I explained at CFD) that would be okay sans community discussion, but, apparently, I was wrong; and the vote at CFD was to keep both categories. They've asked me to revert all my changes. Fine; but it'll be a lot easier (for me!) if an admin could roll them back instead. The chnages in question are all the chnages made by that IP address between 13:29, 10 May 2005 and 13:49, 10 May 2005. Again, if someone could roll these back, I'd appreciate it. —msh210 17:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. --Michael Snow 18:06, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. —msh210 18:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo Revolution

Can an admin please move GC2 to Nintendo Revolution please. The page for some unknown reason was moved from "Project Revolution" to GC2. The official name is Nintendo Revolution as confirmed by Nintendo about 30 minutes ago. I don't know where else to get someone to do this. K1Bond007 17:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Done, by User:Tony Sidaway. Noel (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Halibutt

Three revert rule violation on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice (edit | [[Talk:Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Halibutt (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:11, 17 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:33, 17 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:21, 17 May 2005
• 4th revert: 14:18, 17 May 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Was given the opportunity to self-revert the last reversion:[13] Jayjg ^(talk) 18:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

As you gave him the chance to self-revert and he didn't take it, I've blocked him for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Given the Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice and User:Halibutt great contributions so far, I think we should be more lenient here - yes, he broke 3RR, but I think it is a first time he did it, and he has a good point that the disputed vote results are affected by an unofficial and disutable policy. Both he and others involved should be reprimanted for using reverts instead of talk, but it was Halibutt who started the discussion in talk - a strong evidence for his good intentions, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 08:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Sam Spade

I've just left a message on his Talk page after a complaint from User:FeloniousMonk. My guess is that it will do no good; could someone with influence with him advise him to behave more sensibly? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

He immediately deleted my message of course, and left me this [14], so my appeal to others becomes more urgent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I would appreciate not being harassed by popularity contest winning nube admins who have no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it. It what way does any of this foolishness qualify as an "incident"? Sam Spade 23:11, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Since the template was removed, i will continue to advise a review of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader by those who are ignorant of it. Sam Spade 23:27, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade, if you had won the ArbCom election you would have won a "popularity contest". So I don't see how Wikipedia elections being popularity contests is relevant. In addition, I don't recognize the term "nube". Perhaps you meant "newbie"? Since you registered as a member of Inquiry, I encourage you to not use such brash generalizations like describing Mel Etitis as someone "who has no knowledge of policy, nor shame for their violations of it." In fact, I would expect any member of Inquiry to behave responsibly and calmly without describing these situations as "foolishness", even if that description may be accurate. Moreover, you should cite sources to aid your defense as Inquiry researchers must do for Wikipedia articles. Adraeus 01:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Note: I'm no longer associated with Sam Spade's "Inquiry" thing. The real Inquiry project is being re-established offsite. Adraeus 14:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

It's an incident not just because you've once again violated WP:Civility by publicly calling me a bastard (and El C as well), [15] but because you've deleted every warning to desist without acknowlegement or any indication that you do not intend to carry on: [16] [17] [18] and you've gone on to insult an admin as a "popularity contest winning nube admin." I hope your pizzas are not as tepid and bland as the insults you deliver. FeloniousMonk 23:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I (very briefly) was engaging in a collegial polemic on FM's talk page, I certainly insulted no one, nor was any offence directed against Ungtss — s/he certainly did not give an indication of being offended. In fact, as per represnenting his/her worldview, I actually found Ungtss' responses to have been quite eloquent (that I disagree with them strongly, is besides the point). Significantly, it is rather easy to observe that at no point was User:Sam Spade involved in this pronouncedly calm discussion. El_C 23:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Questionable Username

While looking at the history of Gallery of national flags and I came upon this user: User:Mloester. Personally, this name sounds very close to molester, with a letter in the wrong spot. I was wondering what do you think about it. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Harmless.Geni 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. That person's real name could be Mike Loester, or something like that. --Deathphoenix 13:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I was sent an email about this situation. I would like to apologize to Mloester for this. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Yuber (II)

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

• 1st revert: 23:02, 17 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:07, 17 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:11, 17 May 2005
• 4th revert: 23:14, 17 May 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Just got over a previous 3RR block. Reverting the opening phrase The imposition of jizyah on non-Muslims is mandated by Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an to The word itself comes from the root jaza which means compensation, though it is unclear if the Qur'an refers to a monetary one [19]. The word jizya is taken from Sura 9.29 of the Qur'an, and re-ordering the article to move other definitions out of the Definition section into the Commentary section. He has been doing this for days now, but keeps gaming the system by doing Complex reverts; making other small changes in order to avoid being dinged for 3RR. Has had this explained to him, and been asked by several users to voluntarily revert himself, but refuses: see Talk:Jizyah#4th_revert. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a false allegation. The first "revert" was actually an edit. Although similar to the version a few days ago, it was not a revert. Besides, Jayjg has just gotten one of his friends to revert the article for him, so there's no harm done here.Yuber^(talk) 01:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • "Similar to the version a few days ago" = "Complex revert". That's the game you play; you leave in other changes, or make minor ones of your own, in order to game the revert rule. And I haven't gotten anyone to revert for me; in fact, Klonimus reverted some of my edits too when he did that, and I've reverted his on this article as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Jay, the first revert at 23:02, where is the version this was a revert to? Sorry if I'm being dense, but I can't see it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, here is a comparison to an earlier version [20]. He's reverted to this specific wording of the opening, and the order he prefers, many, many times; for example [21] [22] [23] etc. He generally leaves in various additional pieces other editors had added, and makes a minor change or two of his own to throw people off the scent, but he has still, for example, reverted the opening line of the "Sources" section, and re-organized the sections to put the definitions into the commentary section. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I just found it myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to think that I helped solve this mystery. El_C 02:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

El Cl, lest anyone try to steal the credit from you, you most certainly did. ;-p Thank you. It would be helpful if editors could supply a link to the version that the first revert reverted to, because it can be hard to find if you haven't been involved in editing the article, especially if it's a complex revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted and chastised. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Noted, good; chastised not intended. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:The truth about hephaestos

I've permablocked this account for obvious reasons, but I figure I should note that it alleges that Hephaestos and Mike Garcia are the same user. Since Mike uses AOL there's no real way to track that, but it might be worth seeing if The truth about hephaestos is a sock of someone too. Or not. Whatev. Snowspinner 05:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. I guess I once again have to complain and get abused for it. But I don't see how this is valid. A) The user had made a few good edits to articles. B) We don't know if the user was telling the truth or being a troll. C) Even if the user was a troll, there's no policy allowing an admin to block that user outright. The only thing I can think is that maybe it qualifies as a personal attack. But it's an allegation; if it's true, it couldn't be a personal attack, I wouldn't think. Everyking 05:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree. This user didn't do anything wrong, really (aside from the unconventional choice of username). I'm also not convinced that his allegations truly qualify as a personal attack; and even if they are, there are still no grounds to unilaterally block this account indefinitely. Please correct me if I am mistaken. – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

If he continues to harass other users, however, he may earn that block. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The only surprise is that he wasn't blocked before this. Allowing someone to choose a name that is a deliberate harassment of another user is hardly the way to build a hospitable editing environment. If he wants to contribute, the next name he chooses won't be inflammatory. - Nunh-huh 05:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to agree here. Check if the user is willing to change his username before blocking is the best way to nurture a productive WP environment. Mgm|^(talk) 08:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Definitely the user name shouldn't be exist. But the user didn't appear particularly combative to me and would in all likelihood have changed his user name on request (or simply left). If the user did not take advantage of a generous window of opportunity to change the name and continued to edit under it, then I could perhaps see a block as being reasonable. Everyking 08:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice several warnings against vandalism on User_talk:The_truth_about_hephaestos. Seems to me a block was in order. Radiant_* 10:02, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

He only vandalized one "article" (actually it was a redirect), and that was his very first edit (to be fair, he may not have understood the distinction between the redirect he was vandalizing and userspace). After that he made two article contributions which look constructive, and the rest of his edits are just talk page/user page stuff. Everyking 10:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well despite the action I (eventually) took wrt to the imposter & also, as here, 1-edit vandal, EricI234 (who to my knowledge has not retunred; though that was impersonation, not criticism of a user within a username name), I do think that, generally, these users are more trouble than they're worth. How far should we play psychologists (in a social experiment?) ? I wager that, on average, cost/benefit-wise, etc., such practices deter from rather than contribute to the encyclopedia. And, really, is it asking so much for editors who are straightforward; editors who, if they have grievences, can express them directly, without these games. As a matter of policy, it needs to be strongly discouraged. And it isn't draconian. If this (or other such) user(s) wish to be unblocked, with the promise of editing under a new, legitimate username, there are easy enough options —the mailing list is that-a-way— and s/he would almost certainly be granted this with very little effort on his/her part. Let them take the first step though. El_C 10:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. Abusive usernames, particularly those targeting another user, should be blocked indefinitely per username policy. Leave a note on the talk page to email you about it so you can unblock the IP when they've picked a better name. This procedure works fine and gets their attention quickly - David Gerard 14:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Further on this point: it should be blindingly obvious that if it isn't Michael, it's someone trying to stir trouble between Michael and Hephaestos. Either way, it's an entirely unsuitable username for any use whatsoever. I've dropped a line to User:Danny pointing out it's (good case) someone trying to make trouble, or (bad case) it's Michael having a bad day - David Gerard 14:48, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My best guess would be the former (the "good" case). When he was harassing people, Michael's approach was fairly crude, and this is a more sophisticated if transparent attempt at generating FUD. --Michael Snow 22:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

You people are kidding, right? This person comes in making personal attacks on another User and he hasn't done anything wrong? He's trying to claim that a User in good standing, Hephaestos, is not only Mike Garcia, but the vandal Bird? And you're trying to claim this is a good User? The name alone is bannable. RickK 16:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Rick and David on this one, and I'm somewhat puzzled that there's even a debate over this (not that I'm against debate, mind you). Anyone who begins their Wikipedia career with personal attacks–personal attacks which demonstrate a decent familiarity with Wikipedia's internal politics–should be blocked. No need to edit under such a name. Mackensen (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly, we can't play social-worker with people who start their WP existence in this disruptive way. It's a recepy for (I would'nt say disaster, but) abuse and tying up resources unproducitvely. They have grievences, let them be straight-forward about them. End of story. El_C 01:16, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

From the Login page: "Avoid choosing a username that is the name of a celebrity, or a political, military, or religious figure or event or known Wikipedia user." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I spoke to Danny (who is mentoring Mike) on IRC about this; he agrees it's not Mike, but a particularly odious troll trying to make trouble - David Gerard 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC

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

• 1st revert: 07:50, 18 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:09, 18 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:49, 18 May 2005
• 4th revert: 13:22, 18 May 2005

Reported by: Mark¹ 06:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• More fun on Fidel Castro. TDC has not specifically been warned this time, but he is an enthusiastic repeat offender. With minor variations, the version reverted to is [24]. Mark¹ 06:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• I will drop him a note suggesting that he put the steam down a little bit. Rama 08:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Rama, I blocked him before I saw your post. By all means unblock if you feel a warning is more appropriate. I prefer to warn first too, but in this case, TDC and Trey Stone seem to have acted in concert, both have been blocked many times for 3RR before, and there's no indication that either of them reverted the fourth time in error. But if you feel differently, I won't challenge you. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:52, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Also, see my whining below. El_C 08:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: this is quite all right, I just wanted to be absolutely sure not to be too rough. I still am trying to get accustomed to adminship, so I try to be cautious; the lead of experienced admins, especially from people for whom I have come to grow a particular confidence, is a good example in this regard. Rama 09:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel exactly the same as you, Rama, and I'm not an experienced admin at all, which is why I generally prefer to warn, but looking at their histories, it felt just a little superfluous. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to feel that blocking people for a few hours is a warning.Geni 11:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a better idea. Maybe blocking them for three hours or so would be more effective. Thanks, Geni. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone

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

• 1st revert: 09:39, 18 May 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:47, 18 May 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:54, 18 May 2005
• 4th revert: 14:36, 18 May 2005

Reported by: Mark¹ 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• With minor variations, the version reverted to is [25]. Mark¹ 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• The 4th revert indicates that Trey has the incorrect belief that the 3RR only applies to identical reverts. In fact, it applies to reverts to the same article, whether they are reverts of the same or of different material. Firebug 07:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• It's worse then just a 3RR, I asked everyone (in a new subsection) to keep my minor fixes, making sure the first footnote was 1 and not 5, and other purely technical fixes, TDC ignored that in his revert. I respond with: PLEASE READ THE EDIT SUMMARY tdc, and Trey Stone in his next edit summary tell me to watch the language (how else can I get attention in such an edit war), and after that proceeds to revert, ignoring all my minor fixes. I point this out to him, and he fixes some of them, but the first footnote remains 5 and not 1 with his last revert (of WebLuis, who also ignored my pleas). Never would I have imagined that fixing a footnote would prove such an insurmoutable feat. El_C 08:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. Although there are minor differences, he reverted to communist state from socialist state four times. No need for a warning in this case as he's been blocked for 3RR three times in the last eight days. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

User:JonGwynne (II)

Three revert rule (ArbCom-imposed 1RR) violation on The Skeptical Environmentalist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JonGwynne (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 05:20, 18 May 2005 Initial (in the time period) deletion by GW (though itself a "complex revert")
• 2nd revert: 23:18, 18 May 2005 Re-deletion, substantially an unlabelled revert
• 3rd revert: 05:05, 19 May 2005 Re-deletion, substantially another unlabelled revert

Reported by: Alai 08:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• JonGwynne is subject to an ArbCom decision limiting him to one revert per day on articles related to global warming, which clearly this is; the above are clearly two, and arguably three such reverts, in substance (the removal of several paragraphs in each case). Alai 08:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I see that three days ago 16:34, 16 May 2005 Smoddy blocked "User:JonGwynne" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne -- two reverts on global warming related page) — blocked for 24 hours. El_C 09:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Separate incident, though. (See section above, relating to another article, Ross McKitrick.) Alai 09:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Powertranz: possible vandal and sockpuppet

I've had my patience tested and surpassed by Powertranz over the last couple of weeks over changes to "Developed country". We've been revert warring over the latter's claim that the whole of the European Union's member states should be considered "developed countries". I object to those claims, with evidence from the United Nations, the World Bank, the OECD, the CIA World Factbook and the IMF, that show that while many of the 25 member states of the EU are developed, some are not. I have tried to establish a dialog with Powertranz, leaving messages on his talk page and on the article's talk page, but have never received a response, only more reverts and even deletion of my messages [26]. I would like to note that Powertranz's contributions to Wikipedia from his very first edit have consisted almost entirely in reversions to the aforementioned article. He has also called me a "retard" [27], a "moron" and a "jackass" [28]. I ask for the administrators' help in this case. I believe I'm on the right side here and have no wish to prolong this silent revert war any longer. Thank you. —Cantus…☎ 06:07, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Attack accounts (or more Amerinese/DINGBAT socks?)

ZscoutGAYboy (talk · contribs) was created presumably as a sort of attack against User:Zscout370. --MarkSweep 06:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC) Mybooboo (talk · contribs) appears to be directed against User:Mababa. See the history of First Taiwan Strait Crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). --MarkSweep 06:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Blocked both as impersonation/attack accounts. There was also User:ZSCOUT370 who was blocked as an impersonation. Checked and both of these are the same person - David Gerard 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

While we're at it: CarneDeJintao (talk · contribs) is new here and jumped right into several controversial topics. --MarkSweep 07:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the same person as the above. (No positive match with Amerinese or anyone at CUNY, by the way.) Other accounts include Mabooboo and CommunismSUCKS. Have blocked the lot, with a note to email me - David Gerard 13:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How about FreedomFighter228 (talk · contribs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiang (talk • contribs) 05:09, 20 May 2005

Did it post anything but troll support and personal attacks?! Blocked as personal attack account - David Gerard 15:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

And DownUnder555 (talk · contribs). Perhaps these guys have finished school for the semester and went home. --Jiang 00:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Another one: NANKINGwasFUN (talk · contribs) (offensive edits and offensive name, presumably referring to the Rape of Nanking). His step-twin HUJINTAOSUCKS (talk · contribs) has already been blocked. I'm beginning to wonder if they are related to the "Wikipedia is Communism" vandal. 50Stars (a DINGBAT sock) also had a beef with Hu Jintao, as shown in this diff. --MarkSweep 04:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

NANKINGwasFUN and HUJINTAOSUCKS are the same person, coming from dynamic rcsntx.swbell.net DSL IPs. DownUnder555 appears to be someone else entirely - David Gerard 23:10, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Not an attack account, but an old-fashioned vandal: KobeBeef (talk · contribs). --MarkSweep 02:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Supervandal" 207.141.19.46

207.141.19.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is a very problematic case; he makes dozens of edits per day, usually minor edits to year articles (18xx, 19xx, etc), adding birth and death dates of famous personalities. He also messes with categories, and refuses to use edit summaries. There have been numerous attemps to contact him[29], but he hasn't yet responded. User:Pavel Vozenilek put his IP on WP:ViP, labelling him a "Supervandal". I didn't really know how to deal with this; on one hand he seems to do his edits in good faith, on the other his edit pattern is rather disruptive. So I've blocked him for 12 hours in hope of getting his attention, and I've put this message on his talk page:

Hello, this to inform you that you have been blocked for 12 hours. It saddens me to be forced to take such a drastic measure to get your attention; most of your numerous contributions to Wikipedia are undoubtedly great, but this is a collaborative project. We have to cope with a lot of vandalism, and people have to look through hundreds of edits every day to check them for vandalism. It would be very helpful if you could start cooperating with other users: I suggest you register an account, and start using edit summaries to clarify the object of each of your edits, as well as reply to users who use your talk page. If you use an automated script ("bot") to make some of your edits, please make this clear on your talk page or via edit summaries. Note that I will unblock you as soon as you demonstrate you have read this and are ready to respond to our concerns. You may also contact any other administrator. Cheers. Phils 08:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I just wanted to give other administrators a heads-up, because I'm rather new and I don't feel 100% right about this block either; the user really hasn't done much wrong, but it's obvious he can't keep editing in this fashion either. Feel free to unblock him/correct anything I've done wrong. Phils 09:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I must be missing something. You mean to say he adds information that is knowingly false (or has such a disastrously high error rate that he's a problem) and won't stop? Because if the information is correct I don't understand what the complaint against him is. But if he's adding false information, either knowingly or with an error rate that can't be properly attributed to good faith, that's definitely grounds for blocking and/or for reverting all his edits unconditionally until he starts talking. Everyking 09:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

If all else fails and some of his edits are good, some are bad, revert it all until he starts talking. Its pretty drastic, but it's called long term damage control. :) 158.36.174.52 09:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

And that was me. Somebody stole my cookie :/ Inter\^Echo 10:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I randomly checked several of this IP's edits, and all of them seem good. Can someone point out which are erroneous, vandalism, or otherwise bad? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked the IP; I just went through about 100 of his edits and I can't find the "supervandalism" referred to on WP:ViP. I feel so ashamed; that will teach me to blindly believe what I see on ViP. Sorry for disrupting and wasting your time. Phils 15:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

How can it wrong, did the nominator mistype the IP# or something? *continues assuming WP:FAITH* Master Thief Garrett^Talk 15:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think because the IP is making a large number of sweeping, unsummarized edits that sometimes involve small deletions (e.g. [30]). At first glance this would seem to be vandalism, but removing superfluous text and links does make sense, to me. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Phils, no need to apologize. Even with this data in hand, your message was not unreasonable. Wikipedia:Edit summary says:

Always fill the summary field.

(emphasis in the original), which this person isn't doing. They are also making mistakes with duplicate categories, etc. All of this, together with complete unwillingness to communicate (which is really crucial) is not "business as usual". Noel (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

large number of sweeping, unsummarized edits Adding one or two death/birth entries or adding nationalities to existing entries is so far from being "sweeping" that it's ludicrous, and calling this editor a vandal -- let alone a "supervandal" -- is borderline slanderous and blocking this IP for making good a lot of good minor edits is an bureaucratic overreaction, in my view. --Calton | Talk 00:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It will never happen again. Phils 12:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear to me that Phils was acting in good faith here. I'm more interested to know why the anon doesn't use edit summaries despite all efforts to communicate with him, and why he was reported to ViP by Pavel Vozenilek when it appears that none of his edits were vandalism. Blame can attributed to three people here, but really, there's no harm done as far as I can see. The guy is unblocked and free to continue editing. Phils was not really at fault here. He said in his message to the anon that the main reason for the block was his failure to cooperate in order to make life easier for those who have to check for vandalism. Just look at the anon's talk page and you'll see a total failure to play by the rules, even after having his errors pointed out to him numerous times by several very considerate and helpful users. Vandalism or not, his reticence makes dealing with this guy so difficult that we'd save ourselves a lot of trouble by just blocking him. He has been instructed to use edit summaries, and has chosen to ignore the wishes of the community. Sometimes we are a little too tolerant of disruptive behaviour. — Trilobite (Talk) 17:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If he is making good edits it is inconsequential whether he writes edit summaries or not. It would be nice if he did, but you can't expect everything from people. I'm pretty slack about it myself. Everyking 04:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Zivinbudas

Vilnius University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

• 1 14:45, 18 May 2005
• 2 14:56, 18 May 2005
• 3 15:32, 18 May 2005
• 4 09:40, 19 May 2005
• 5 11:02, 19 May 2005
• 6 13:30, 19 May 2005

Reported by: --Witkacy 13:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked for 24. I'm really tired of these repeat 3RR violators; they seem to think they have a "right" to revert. I personally consider getting into repeated edit wars to be disruption, and am very tempted to hand out the penalty allowed for same. Noel (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

He reverted again the Vilnius University article (anon IP) 85.206.192.203 (talk · contribs) [31] --Witkacy 17:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I placed a range block on 85.206.192.0/22 (covers 85.206.192 - 85.206.195) for 24 hours, since this user seems to be able to use just about any address in that range (see filings above). Noel (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

IPs appear to come from Lithuanian Telecom.Geni 18:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

This is not the first time this user (or his anon proxies) are here (atm he has another entry still not archived here), they have also visited Vandalism in Progress at least once. I had to deal with him for over a month or many pages (see Talk:Vilnus and Talk:Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for just a few examples. I have suggested and I propose again the implementation of a range ban. I have yet to see a good anon editing from this range, and a month or two ban could, perhaps, get us finally rid of this troll. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: archived previous encounters with this person: try Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive20#User:Zivinbudas/ User:85.206.193.250 and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive20#User:Zivinbudas, his anon ids and his false POV edits (archived at 17:08, 11 May 2005 and 18:32, 11 May 2005, respectively.) Upping the duration of the blocks is certainly something I will not argue against! There is a report (see above) of them coming in from another range - if you detect such, let us know, and we can block that too. Noel (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

he's got an rfc on his hands now (but refuses to comment). I consider myself party to this dispute, but refusing to reply to your rfc, but happily continue revert-warring instead in my view is far enough out of line to be considered disruption. We'll need to take him to the arbcom, eventually, to get an official ruling, but I don't think we should be requested to be sheepishly indulgent of such behaviour, so I would think it only fair if you invoke the disruption clause. dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

---

New 3RR violation by Zavinbudas Vilnius region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); Zivinbudas (talk · contribs):

• 1 - [32]
• 2 - [33]
• 3 - [34]
• 4 - [35]
• 5 - [36]

Reported by: --Witkacy 22:03, 20 May 2005

3RR violation on Vilnius University as anon IP [37] --Witkacy 08:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Garcia

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike Garcia (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 15:06, 18 May
• 2nd revert: 16:36, 18 May
• 3rd revert: 11:56, 19 May
• 4th revert: 13:03, 19 May
• 5th revert: 13:26, 19 May

Reported by: Kingturtle 21:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree: Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:33, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that Mike Garcia be blocked for 24 hours. I am requesting that an admin who is not involved in this article investigate Mike's actions. Kingturtle 21:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I can only find 3 outright revertsGeni 21:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Really? Every one of those edits by Mike involves the addition of a specific set of users to the list... --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:46, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

probably but there were enough changes by other people wich he left in to keep him donw to three straight reverts.Geni 10:09, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As an uninvolved admin, I've gone ahead and blocked him for 24 hours. →Raul654 21:45, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

You are allowed to make 3 reverts.Geni 19:06, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

He made more than 3. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:17, May 21, 2005 (UTC)