Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive29

Contents: June 13, 2005 - June 15, 2005

User:66.72.80.214

Three revert rule violation on Wal-Mart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 66.72.80.214 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:08 13 June 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:11 13 June 2005
• 3rd revert: 01:13 13 June 2005
• 4th revert: 01:21 13 June 2005

Reported by: JYolkowski // talk 01:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: POV pushing. Has been warned. There's also a revert at 01:05 that I haven't listed. I would block him myself but I've been one of the ones reverting him (User:RexNL and myself have reverted thrice each). JYolkowski // talk 01:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours for vandalism of WP:VIP and this page. JYolkowski // talk 01:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's using open proxies now, someone uninvolved may have to protect the page for a while. --W(t) 02:14, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Page now protected. Noel (talk) 04:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:gbambino

Three revert rule violation on Monarchist League of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). gbambino (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 20:25, 12 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:49, 12 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:21, 13 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 02:42, 13 Jun 2005

Reported by: AndyL 02:54, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• POV pushingAndyL 02:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR. Inter\^Echo 14:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mike Rosoft

Three revert rule violation on User:Again (edit | [[Talk:User:Again|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 20:55, 11 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:38, 11 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:48, 11 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 20:53, 11 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 20:55, 11 Jun 2005
• 6th revert: 20:56, 11 Jun 2005
• 7th revert: 20:59, 11 Jun 2005
• 8th revert: 21:07, 11 Jun 2005
• 9th revert: 21:56, 11 Jun 2005
• 10th revert: 22:07, 11 Jun 2005

Reported by: -- Norvy (talk) 15:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User page is nominated for VfD. Mike has taken it upon himself to unilaterally remove the email address from a user page. Removing an email address from a user page does not fit the description of reverting Wikipedia:Simple vandalism.
• One of Again's edit summaries of the page says it best: "mike rosoft has violated 3 revert rule. And no, e-mail adress isn't illegal."
• Also see here, where Mike Rosoft says he intends to violate 3rr. -- Norvy (talk) 03:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you know we never did decide if the 3 revert rule applied to user pages.Geni 16:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The text of the rule seems pretty straightforward: "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." Was there a discussion that user pages should be exempt? -- Norvy (talk) 19:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a fair bit it's probably in the archives somewhere.Geni 21:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think I found what you mentioned here. I would argue that policy is clear on the matter, by specifying "any page." Anecdotal evidence that "you find people repeatedly arguing that the 3RR does not apply to pages in the user namespace" is not persuasive. -- Norvy (talk) 03:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of power and taking sides by some admins

Hello all,

After a long absense, due to frustration with Wikipedia because of some admins taking side on issues and mischievously backing up their "side", I decided to return to Wikipedia today and checkup on the old articles. Not surprisingly, the following articles had been restored to pathetic religious pamphlets for the Bahá'í Faith. I reverted only twice (after an almost immediate revert by one of the Bahai watchdogs here in Wikipedia) and almost immediately one of the ops by the ID of Tony Sidaway who made me leave Wikipedia in the first place, put a ban on me. I had not done ANYTHING to justify a ban. This same admin had personal issues with me before and after a long absense, as soon as I return, he immediately puts and unjustified ban on me. Shouldn't he lose his badge? Please review these pages and their history, and ask this admin what was his excuse for banning me. Bahá'í Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, Bahá'u'lláh's family. Also, there is a perfectly normal and authentic and acceptable photo of Bahaullah available, but these guys do not allow the photo to appear on the articles about him, because, frankly, he looks bad. Their excuse is that this photo can be potentially offensive to the Bahai visitors of the Wikipedia. Everytime I have tried to use logic with them, they say let's take a vote in the TALK page. Well, guess what? The majority of people to watch those pages are Bahais (and their numerous sockpuppets. So how can one win in such a "democracy" ?!! Besides, since when encyclopedia articles are decided by taking votes, as opposed to hard facts and evidence and facts? This is really lame.

Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.4.42 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 Jun 2005 / — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 13 Jun 2005

while you are here could you please resond to your RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000.Geni 16:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree with you on the issue of the photo. However, your conduct has been appalling and has no doubt alienated people who would otherwise support your stance. Instead of pursuing the normal channels of discussion and dispute resolution, you choose sockpuppets and vulgar insults. And now you try to seek the protection of the rules which you flagrantly violated? Gamaliel 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, i violated those rules precisely because of the bad admins like this idiot and Geni who has CLEARLY been taking sides on the Bahai related pages. If admins abuse people, people will also react, and besides, when I am unfairly banned what can i do other than creatig other ID's or use proxies? It is EXTREMELY important that the admins do not abuse their power or not take sides, otherwise, you can't expect "good citizenship" just as you can't expect that in a real city if the authorities were abusive and dishonest. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 13 Jun 2005

That doesn't justify antisocial behaviour though. It's like saying it's okay to commit crimes just because some cops are corrupt. See WP:POINT. --khaosworks 17:27, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Tony Sidaway keeps a personal admin log justifying his admin actions, though it hasn't been updated in a while. His user page says's he's on a break. -- Longhair | Talk 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I discontinued it a while ago. I'm trying to go on wikibreak, but it's harder than I thought. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just like in real life, here you can't take the law into your own hands. Reporting the alleged abuse should have been your first step, not one taken well after a campaign of your own abuse. Gamaliel 17:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm allowed to take sides. Admins do so all the time. I did not abuse my admin powers at any point in the conflict.Geni 17:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO, as an admin you are entitled to have your personal opinion and choices, but you are not allowed to take sides (as an admin). You have been taking sides (and lending obvious and not-so-obvious) support to the Bahai group who disallow any facts which they don't approved to be contributed to the Bahai-related articles. For example, Bahaullah is a man, Wikipedia is in possession of some AUTHENTIC photos of this man, there is NOTHING WRONG with the photos (other than the fact that the man looks like crap of course), yet, you have been either completely depriving the related articles from his photo, or only in one case, you have agreed to his photo to be placed at the bottom of a very long article. Even then, you disallowed a note on top of the article to warn the people who supposedly get "offended and hurt" by seeing his phto, that there is a photo of this man at the bottom, be careful not to accidentally see it. So you are a wikipedia admin, and your actions work against Wikipedia interest. Instead of helping Wikipedia improve and enhance, you try to cripple wikipedia articles based on your personal preferences. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 13 Jun 2005

That's only because he disagrees with you. If he was taking your side, you'd likely be lauding him for his wisdom and encouraging him. --khaosworks 18:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote above before jumping in to make a fool of yourself? There is no justification for crippling Wikipedia articles from perfectly authentic and legitimate photographs that are 100% related to the articles. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 13 Jun 2005

Of course I did. I am not taking sides on that issue - my comment was directed purely at your abusive edit summaries and childish whining when you're not getting your way. --khaosworks 18:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Geni, I reverted your abuse of the Bahai articles because you are CRIPPLING Wikipedia articles from 100% pertinent, legal and useful information and data. If you want to deprive those articles from the photo of the man about which the articles are written, then explain here, not to me, but to your fellow admins, what is your justification and excuse to doing this. Also, why should we only do that to one article? Why not do the EXACT SAME THING to many other articles? Please discuss it right here in fron of all admins instead of taking action all on your own. Just because you are an admin doesn't mean you can make all decisions here all by yourself. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.111.244.210 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 Jun 2005

my full reasoning can be found on Talk:Bahá'u'lláh and it's various archives. As an editor I am free to take sides in a conflict.Geni 21:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

man, admins can take sides all they like. They just cannot use their admin powers in cases where they do take sides. If you did no harm, and suddenly an admin with a personal grudge against you jumps on you out of the blue and blocks you, why, you simply open an rfc against that admin, citing the relevant evidence, and there are plenty of people here you will be only too happy to jump all over the offending admin. Admins may not be perfect little Salomons at all times, but they are not "above the law" either. If an admin fucks up, people will give him hell. People are very sensitive about "rogue admins". If you are just frustrated that you didn't get your way in a content dispute, however, your best bet will be to draw the community's attention to the content of the dispute. The more immaculate your behaviour in your dispute, the more likely will you arouse sympathy. dab (ᛏ) 19:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When an admin takes sides in a dispute, often the non-admins get intimidated. Also many other admins when they see an admin is involved, they tend to avoid conflicts with other admins and they seem to have an attitude of "why risking a clash with an admin?" -- Therefore, how can anybody in his right mind honestly believe that "admins can take sides all they want"? At any rate, Tony Sideways didn't even have enough respect for other admins to explain here why he put a ban on a user unjustifiedly. I had only reverted twice, and not used any bad language, and not done any vandalism. His arrogance is disgusting. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.248.129 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 Jun 2005

ok, I just realized that Martin is only putting the image into the Bahai Faith intro to annoy Bahais (the man is not even ugly, it's just that Bahais are not supposed to view the image). Clearly, the image does not belong on the article on the Faith, while it does belong on Bahá'u'lláh (even if you're Bahai, if you view an article on the person, you may reasonably expect that there will also be an image of that person). dab (ᛏ) 19:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a longstanding compromise on Bahá'u'lláh, to put the photograph at the foot of the article therefore giving Bahais time to prepare. Martin keeps moving it to the top and claims that there's some rule or other that says it mustn't be at the bottom. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the REAL reason for putting the photo at the bottom of the article was so that visiting Bahais do not accidentally see the photo, and Bahaullah Forbid, "accidentally" see that photo, then they would not have removed a notice at the very top of the article once which warned the reader about the fact that "be careful, the photo is at the bottom". The ONLY reason they want to treat this article exceptionally is because that photo being where it belongs is not a good "advertisement" for their cult. Also, on the article about Bahaullah's Family, Bahaullah's own photograph most certainly belongs there. As a Wikipedia admin, one of your obligations is to ensure Wikipedia articles are not crippled or deprived from useful, pertinent and authentid information and data; and that includes photographs. Martin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.248.129 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 Jun 2005

Note the use of the purjorative "cult" from mister NPOV -- Christian Edward Gruber 01:25, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

You appear to be in violation of assume good faith. meanwhile would someone protect the relivant pages please the revert rate is getting silly again.Geni 01:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I find quite darkly humorous is Martin's use of phrases like "abuse" or "crippling" to refer to the re-organization of information to allow for a religious sensitivity. The information (the picture) is not being removed, censored, altered, or in any ways "crippled". There is a prominent link near the top to go down to the bottom. Far from crippling wikipedia, the table-of-contents feature is actively being used to call out the picture's existance. This both notifies interested people, and warns people who might find its presence disturbing. Everyone seems to win... except Martin for some reason. Actually for not reason. This has moved beyond reason. I have read the entire history log of Baha'i, Baha'u'llah, and Baha'i Faith and cannot see why Martin continues to "cripple" Wikipedia by going against a consensus that blends the opinions of Baha'is, opponents of the Baha'i Faith, and other third-parties. Breaking consensus, 3RR, sockpuppet use, and flagrant verbal assault - these cripple Wikipedia, as they drive honest high-minded people away and leave wiki in the hands of article-vandals, or at least highly prejudiced and antagonistic contributors. -- Christian Edward Gruber 01:23, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

The anonymous ID who made the above edits which were signed as Martin2000 has just made the following two edits:

Bahá'u'lláh's family: Go get fucked sideways, and shove your badge up your lame wide ass, stupid ugly bastard.)

Bahá'u'lláh ("Manifestation OF God" my ass. He was a man and we have his photo. It belongs right here. Even if there was a real and authentic Photo of Jesus available, it belonged to the article about Jesus.)

I have blocked him for 24 hours. RickK 01:47, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

past expeirence suggests that page protection is the only effective measure.Geni 01:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both pages are protected. Martin doesn't seem to understand there are two different issues here: the picture issue and the conduct issue. Given his outrageous behavior I don't think anything will convince him of the difference. Banning seems to be the only solution. Gamaliel 02:21, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

arbcom cases require effort.Geni 02:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:204.56.7.1 (I)

Three revert rule violation on Albert Einstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 09:33, 13 June 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:42, 13 June 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:46, 13 June 2005
• 4th revert: 09:50, 13 June 2005

Reported by: Fastfission 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User has been hard-set on changing the main photo and adding an infobox. Then user adds little bits of information. So when people try to revert the large changes to the photo and the infobox, some information is at first "removed" though clearly not on purpose. User then uses this as an excuse to revert. Trying to game the system, in my assessment, has ignored many pleas to discuss these changes on the talk page before making them or reverting. --Fastfission 16:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oops, I reported her too. Anyway, I certify the above... William M. Connolley 17:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
• User has been reverting additional times since these were reporting -- must be up to half a dozen by now. Could somebody please block this user? They are being highly disruptive. --Fastfission 19:09, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• (William M. Connolley 22:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)) Plea renewed. The reverts appear quite straightforward - why is this tricky?

User:204.56.7.1 (II)

Anon user (on Albert Einstein) insists on inserting an infobox without coming to any consensus on the talk page first, as asked directly by a number of editors. Has broken the 3RR in the process (already reported, not yet blocked). Is also "gaming the system" -- adding the infobox in one edit, then making small changes elsewhere, then when the page is reverted back to a pre-infobox state, uses any of the small changes not transferred over as an excuse to protest "removal of content" and rv again. (because of the nature of the infobox changes, it is hard to easily do this by hand. I've done it twice but I'm getting pretty frustrated). Now is insisting that if the article doesn't have an infobox, it shouldn't have a main picture at all. I'm all out of reverts for one day, I can't attend to this, would really appreciate an admin 1. blocking this user for 24 hours at least (for the 3RR if not general accusations of vandalism and gaming the system), and 2. reverting it back to one of the edits in the non-infobox state (there needs to be some discussion over this first, and for the moment the non-infobox state is a lot easier to edit without this "removal of content" problem). If someone could take a look over there I'd really appreciate it, I'm getting pretty frustrated here by this anon user's refusal to discuss difficult-to-carefully-revert changes before making them. --Fastfission 17:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody please take a look at this? It has been almost two hours now, the User has continued to be highly disruptive, has violated the 3RR almost twice over, and I feel like I'm talking to myself here. --Fastfission 19:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks more like a content dispute more than any vandalism. Might want to put this up on requests for page protection. But I agree that Anon IP has violated the 3RR. I'll leave a note warning him and if he does it again, I'll block for 24 hours. --khaosworks 19:13, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat

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

• 1st revert: 22:24, 12 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:24, 13 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:42, 13 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 19:11, 13 Jun 2005

Reported by: Stereotek 17:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat has been insisting on adding a personal attack "GO SCREW yourselves" to his talkpage. Stereotek 17:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

In general, he can revert your additions to his own user page until the cows come home. Not covered by 3RR in accepted usage - David Gerard 18:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Really? I actually read the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule article just before reporting this, and as I understood it the general rule was: "Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours." The exceptions mentioned was simple vandalism, self-reverts and "reverts intended to perform maintenance—such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox". I can't see that reverts on talk pages should be mentioned as an exception anywhere there? Stereotek 18:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Generally editors are exempt from the 3RR in their own User space—in practice, if not explicitly in policy. That said, an argument can be made that there is an issue with respect to WP:NPA. The simmering edit war among User:Stereotek, User:Davenbelle, and User:Coolcat on User talk:Coolcat really ought to be resolved somehow. There is an (as-yet-uncertified) RfC related to this issue, as well. I'd hate to see this end up at ArbCom. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ozdusters

Could someone try whacking some sense into (Ozdusters (talk · contribs))? He insists on creating sub-substubs even after bein repeatedly warned. --W(t) 17:40, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Actually, given his knowledge of templates it's probably a returning troublemaker. --W(t) 17:41, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with substubs, so I think it's fine. I only looked at a few edits but they seem to be legit topics. As long as the article imparts some bit of info, I think that's sufficient. Everyking 17:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I went with an alternate tack - a friendly hello and a few quick suggestions for someone who looks like they're editing in good faith, but don't quite get it yet. I wish I'd gotten to this new user before his/her initial nasty introduction to Wikipedia. CDC (talk) 17:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A little encouragement rather than a 'whack' goes a long way. Remember, don't bite the newcomers. -- Longhair | Talk 17:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not a newcomer, newcomer's don't know all the templates, nor do they edit that fast. He's now editing as Sealpupsarecute by the way. --W(t) 18:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Sometimes newbies learn how to do it before plunging in. Assume good faith, man. Why not try a bit more Wikilove and a bit less "whacking"? Grace Note 07:00, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a problem with this idea that newcomers are all totally ignorant about things. I had been reading lots of stuff in the Wikipedia namespace and observing VfD debates for probably two months before I started my account. So I'm always skeptical when someone shouts "sockpuppet" whenever they see a newcomer who appears to be knowledgeable about things. Everyking 07:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• He's created about a dozen of oneliner articles on topics that, at first glance, seem interesting and expandable. I don't really see a problem here, but I've kindly asked him if he would enlighten us by expanding the topics. Radiant_>|< 08:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation revisited

After blocking impersonations of SlimVirgin and Anilocra (using I instead of L), Anilocra informed me User:MacGvverMagic had registered and copied my user and user talk page (note the v instead of the y). I'd never seen this letter substitution before, so be on the look out. I'm sure impersonators share their tricks. Mgm|^(talk) 18:34, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

They might, but giving out little tips on impersonation by telling the community here is worse. The impersonators can learn of these little tricks from seemingly harmless posts like this one. More caution is needed! You don't want to be sharing one impersonator's tricks with another one, do you? JMBell° 19:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tips for impersonators:

• Any vowel can be replaced by a vowel with an accent mark. This works best with a lower-case "i"
• "I", "l", "1", "!", "i", and "|" are all interchangable
• "j" and "i" can be swapped
• "m" and "n" can be swapped
• "O", "0", and "Q" are interchangable
• "S" and "5" can be switched
• "t" and "+" can be swapped
• "U" and "V" can be exchanged
• "u", "v", and "y" are interchangable
• "W" and "VV" are interchangable, as are "w" and "vv"
• "z", "s", and "c" can sometimes be switched, if the resulting word sounds the same
• Unicode and high-ANSI offer even more options: letters like ç and ł, ligatures such as æ, and cyrillic letters like А and Е

Come on! It's not like there are any super-s3krit techniques here! Impersonation is a well-established tradition on MMORPGs and many BBSs, and the techinques for impersonation and spotting impersonation are well-established. --Carnildo 20:49, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spaces can also be added or removed (John Smith vs JohnSmith), or nicknames employed (Jimbo Wales vs Jimmy Wales). Nickptar 21:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And let's not forget varying capitalisation. I think we've got enough for a fairly basic stub here. :-) --W(t) 21:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

• Besides, anybody can look through VIP/Long term alerts and see the tricks made by the "DoppeIganger" vandal to see how that person impersonates users. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Commodore Sloat

Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) is acting as an attack dog for BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs); continually reinserting personal attacks into Talk:Jihad (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Jihad|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in violation of Wikipedia policy on Remove Personal Attacks.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8

Reported by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.130.8 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 Jun 2005

Comments:

• I have initiated a mediation intervention here. Let's see if that leads anywhere. Just fyi. Inter\^Echo 19:44, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Yuber is now serially reverting the talk page; User:Weyes seems to be assisting. Yuber is up to four reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.175.189.222 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 13 Jun 2005

User:ScapegoatVandal

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

• 1st revert: 16:57, 2005 Jun 13
• 2nd revert: 17:18, 2005 Jun 13
• 3rd revert: 17:21, 2005 Jun 13
• 4th revert: 20:03, 2005 Jun 13

Reported by: --W(t) 20:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

Comments:

• The user keeps inserting POV material. The fourth revert isn't a byte-perfect revert but merely reinserting the same material in a different section violates the spirit of the rule and I think most admins will block for this, right? --W(t) 20:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

has anyone had a word with him about his user name?Geni 21:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I not only warned him about the 3RR rule, but also asked him on his Talk page not to mark every one of his edits as "minor". This then appeared on his Talk page. He also appears to be in the middle of a current revert war with Tuohirulla at John Morton (politician); IMHO, he needs a time out until he cools down. -- llywrch 22:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 01:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You want to help me out, or shut me out? ScapegoatVandal 17:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actions made by Argyrosargyrou

After talking to some admins, it was suggested that I bring my issues here. User:Argyrosargyrou has been making unilateral changes to a series of articles connected to the Cyprus dispute. While attempting to talk to him, and restore the original content pending discussions, he attacked me and several other users (see ChrisO, RickK, Kiand and a whole bunch of others for confirmation). I'd like to request that he be blocked pending a resolution to the RfAr against him. Thank you for your time. --Scimitar 22:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's already temporarily blocked (for 24 hrs) for repeatedly deleting other users' comments on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul despite being warned not to. If I read you correctly, are you asking for an injunction against Argyrosargyrou, presumably barring him from editing articles about Turkey and Cyprus until his RfAr is resolved? If so, that would have to be a decision for the Arbitration Committee. -- ChrisO 22:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually yes I was, but I wasn't sure about correct procedure. The 24-hr block (so I don't have to sit here and watch my user page, and a dozen cyprus-related pages) should be good for now. --Scimitar 22:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please do continue to watch those pages, as he's previously used open proxies, mostly in the Far East, to avoid previous blocks. I think this is his third block, or possibly his fourth, in only six weeks of editing - that tells you someting about his style of working on Wikipedia... -- ChrisO 22:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Argyrosargyrou has a new sockpuppet, SaintJerome (talk · contribs). This ID is making the same biased edits that Argyrosargyrou has been making, and I have warned him that if does not desist, I will block him, as well. RickK 01:48, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

And now CaptainJack (talk · contribs). RickK 05:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Your attention please

I forward the case of User:Weyes to the committee for review. While this character is, in my estimation acting in good faith, he/she/it appears to have an agenda which may be contrary to the interests of the community at large (namely repeated and continuing reversions in contrary to existing and commonly established protocls). While I do not necessarily believe that remedial action need be taken at this stage, this case should be forwarded to you for review. -- Marmot 22:48, 13 June 2005

Please be more specific. --khaosworks 22:57, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

In response to the request specified

-Has made unsanctioned remarks outside the remit of a non-administrative user

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=User_talk:HolyWarrior

-The use of talk pages to preclude free speech and rational debate

http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/64.62.161.12

-Obfuscation

I believe this character (who calls himself Steven) would be best served by this committee, given his generally positive contribution to the community, and hence my referral to you as opposed to here whose main remit is with the common delinquents and vandals. I hope you will consider an appropriate measure(s).

We encourage users to combat vandalism, and Weyes seems to do a good job of it. It is entirely appropriate for him to ask a user to refrain from vandalism or to participate in a RfC without being an administrator. Indeed, we expect users to do this sort of thing before we will consider them as suitable candidates to become an administrator.-gadfium 19:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Weyes' edits you have outlined look like excellent examples of the kind of behavior we would like to encourage. He appears to be doing a good job of following policy. If you have any issues, try signing in as a username and sign your posts with four tilde's ~~~~. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 20:53, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Looks perfectly respectable to me. You don't have to be a sysop to warn someone they might be blocked if they keep putting in nonsense - it's just that if they're not a sysop, they won't have the ability to do the blocking. Also, participating in an RfC is not the exclusive province of sysops. These examples actually reinforce my feeling that supporting Weye's self-nomination for admin status is the correct decision. --khaosworks 22:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not misconstrue what I am saying here. I think Steven is acting in good faith, however I do not believe a non-administrator should threaten a ban. It is of course appropriate to warn against vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.96.42 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 15 Jun 2005

I think it's fine and desirable for non-administrators to use {{test1}}–{{test3}}. I certainly did before I became an administrator. I don't think a non-administrator should use {{test4}} if one cannot actually follow up and block someone, and of course {{test5}} should only be used by an administrator who blocks someone (or by someone else if an admin blocks and doesn't leave a message). This comment is generic and is not intended toward User:Weyes specifically. — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. With this in mind, I refer you to the case of 'rookie' member Ozdusters. - Marmot

What are you after here? It was rude behavior and he knows it now. And again, please sign your posts properly. - Taxman ^Talk 12:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to get into this discussion again, but I would like to make it very clear that I have never referred to myself as steven, nor do I intend to. --W(t) 12:20, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

User:Eyeon and sockpuppet check

I need a sockpuppet check to be performed. Namely, could a developer compare the following users:

• User:Eyeon Contributions
• User:Fecologist Contributions
• User:Niglet contributions
• User:70.177.90.39 contributions

I believe User:Fecologist is a sockpuppet for User:Eyeon because:

• He has only made four contributions to the Wikipedia
• Two of those contributions were towards a revert war currently going on on Feces; one of them was to vote for a poll at Talk:Feces
• HIs fourth contribution was to deny being a sockpuppet on Talk:Feces

I believe User:Niglet to be a sockpuppet for User:Eyeon because:

• User:Niglet appeared on the Wikipedia around the same time as User:Eyeon
• User:Niglet has the same fascination with human solid waste as User:Eyeon
• User:Niglet has supported User:Eyeon in the revert war on Feces
• User:Niglet has made disruptive edits on other pages, some involving human waste: [1]

[2]

I believe User:70.177.90.39 to be a sockpuppet for User:Eyeon because:

• User:70.177.90.39 has the same position as User:Eyeon in the ongoing revery war in Feces
• User:70.177.90.39 has had the same position as User:Eyeon concerning other disruptive edits: [3]

Thank you for your time. Samboy 23:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am user 70.177.90.39, and I have never claimed otherwise. When I forget to log in, my edits are stamped with my IP. I have gone back and replaced those IP numbers with my Eyeon userid. But no, I AM NOT FECOLOGIST OR NIGLET AND I DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION AND EXONERATION FROM THESE CHARGES. Eyeon 22:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:70.177.90.39 is definitely Eyeon, because it made an edit that Eyeon signed. I don't have the diff to hand but remember it clearly. I've blocked Niglet and Fecologist. I also blocked Eyeon for violating 3RR at Feces using a sockpuppet. However, I'm now getting angry e-mails from her (a woman's name) insisting that the other accounts are not connected to her, and requesting an IP check. I'm not sure it's worth it, as she might have asked a friend to make the edits for her, which would still make the account a sockpuppet. So I'm not sure whether to assume good faith and unblock Eyeon, or stick with the 3RR block. Any advice from others would be appreciated. See WP:AN/3RR for more details on Eyeon. She is a troublesome editor; what I would call a troll. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Keep blocked, as a wise man once said, we put up with far too much nonsense as it is. --W(t) 02:02, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

I agree, keep the accounts blocked. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Eyeon_and_User:70.177.90.39 for more evidence of naughty activity (forging votes, sockpuppet use, etc.). And, I'll bet you "she" is really a "he" pretending to be a girl. Samboy 02:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's get an IP check on this matter before doing anything extreme like blocking, and also let's avoid throwing around insults like "trolling" which tend to just fan the flames. Everyking 03:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is the right place to request a check from David, is that right? As I said, I'm not sure it's worth David spending his time on, as she could have had a friend make the edits. It's highly unlikely that two new users turned up and independently thought of dashing to Feces to revert to a picture of a human turd. As for the trolling, I agree with Everyking that the term shouldn't be thrown around lightly, but if you look through Eyeon's edits, it's not a bad fit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:37, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that there's good reason to expect that it's the same person under the circumstances...if we got an IP check, and it was positive, though, then there would be no issue about the block, and we could be sure it was fair. If it was negative, then maybe it's something like you said, like she got some friends to edit for her...and I'm personally not at all sure that could be defined as sockpuppetry, if they're different people. Nevertheless I think that in either case putting an offensive image in an article deliberately against consensus is problematic and could be an arbitration issue if it keeps up. In my view this is actually (ideally) the kind of thing we shouldn't need to go to arbitration for; if somebody edits in direct defiance of a clear consensus that should be grounds for blocking right there. But I haven't looked at this case myself (not least to avoid having to see the images), so I can't say whether there is a solid consensus or not. Everyking 03:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The prevailing opinion is to INCLUDE the image. SlimVirgin's actions are in CLEAR DEFIANCE of the opinions of the vast majority of editors. SlimVirgin should be the one blocked. Eyeon 22:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to leave the block in place unless a consensus develops that I should unblock. Eyeon's already been blocked twice for 3RR on that page recently, so this is characteristic. When I last blocked her, she wrote to me insisting there had only been three reverts, not four, so I had to write up all the diffs for WP:AN/3RR so others could check them, and email her with details - more work. Eventually, she said what she meant by saying there were only three reverts was that, when she reverted for the fourth time, she had slightly reduced the size of the photograph, and so felt that ought not to count. This is the kind of time-wasting she engages people in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I did not 'slightly reduce the size of the photograph', I CHANGED THE PHOTO. Check the image history of the turd. Eyeon 22:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not the only time User:Eyeon has lied. E.G.: [4] [5] [6] [7], stuffed ballot boxes: [8] [9] (this second one is a legit vote, of course), and hiding evidence presented against him: [10] Samboy 04:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

READ THOSE CITATIONS! Samboy is lying. Changing excrete to merge made sense when the next sentence by the voter was the photos should be merged. How else would you tally the vote? CHECK EVERY FOOTNOTE SAMBOY GIVES, he's apparently counting on people glossing over the list of numbers. Eyeon 22:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See also this ArbCom ruling, "For the purpose of dispute resolution when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.". Radiant_>|< 10:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, well I don't think that makes much sense (theoretically I, or anybody, could get banned for being somebody's sock just because an accuser thinks we have similar editing habits), but in this case the bad behavior is clear regardless of whether there are any sockpuppets. Everyking 11:25, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The bad behavior is NOT clear. If it were, go to RfC. Eyeon 22:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • That policy was enforced against CheeseDreams when she got her friend (whose ID I forget now) to make the same edits for her -- they were treated as her violations of block and 3RR, even though it was a different person. RickK 21:25, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a hard and fast rule. There are, like many things in the real world, shades of grey. That said, it applies in the case of a new user appearing out of the blue to suddenly takes sides in a revert war. Samboy 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only shades of gray here are from the smears I have to endure from people in the minority who want to censor the image. Unable to prevail on the discussion page, and losing the vote badly, they are trying to discredit the process. Eyeon 22:01, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:AmYisrael

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

• 1st revert: 23:29, 13 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:37, 13 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:46, 13 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 01:31, 14 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 01:33, 14 Jun 2005

Reported by: Impi 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User continues to insert POV material, despite the Talk page consensus clearly being against the addition. Also reverts and posts using the sockpuppet 69.217.125.53 Impi 00:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Warned. --W(t) 00:20, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
    • User continues to revert: 1 and 2. Impi 14:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • And again: 1 Impi 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Protected the page - now they'll have to "play nice". Noel (talk) 15:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the pattern of edits, it's clear that this is just a case of one editor imposing his will against consensus by quite prodigious numbers of reverts. I've given him a very serious final warning (I don't normally enforce "mere" 3RR's but this goes way beyond that in scale) and I'm asking Noel to consider lifting protection because it's in the interests of Wikipedia to keep our articles editable. This page has been protected for over a week in the recent past and it didn't make a ha'pporth of difference. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I opted for protection because i) it can give a longer period of peace and quiet than the mere 24 hrs of a 3RR block, ii) they are willing to use anon sock-puppets, so it's not clear that a block on the account will stop this. Also, now that I think about it, I'm not sure I completely share you concern about keeping article editable. In the early days, when content was thin, this was a concern. I think the balance may be shifting now, though, as our content gets more mature. Noel (talk) 15:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Food for thought there on content maturity. Meanwhile following your message on my talk page I've lifted protection. I've handled a few chaps like this before. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Editor returned and reverted using IP 69.217.125.53. Blocked IP and username for 6 hours for extremely disruptive edits. This goes somewhat beyond normal 3RR in scale. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Trey Stone

User:Trey Stone (talk · contribs) (see list of Trey Stone sockpuppets) refuses to stop vandalizing my comments on Talk:Robert Mugabe (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Robert Mugabe|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He should stop or be blocked. Meanwhile, he is on a spree of making ridiculously POV edits to a series of articles just to bait me, since he knows that I am online. 172 05:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone has been a problem for quite a while...wasn't there an ArbCom ruling against him some time ago? I may be wrong about that. Certainly something should be done about his belligerent POV pushing. Everyking 07:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle. The ArbCom is presently proposing decisions. Radiant_>|< 10:43, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Trey Stone (talk · contribs) has been blocked indefinitely:

• 01:29, 15 Jun 2005 Neutrality blocked "Trey Stone" with an expiry time of infinite (Vandalism, trolling.)

He has emailed me asking for an admin review of this block. I am unwilling to intervene personally for various reasons (none of which have to do with the merits of the case) and so I ask if someone else would look at this and discuss it with Neutrality as they see fit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Trouble on Islam pages

Some of the mideast pages are sinking into chaos because of sockpuppets, anon IPs, and personal attacks, with several pages protected, and editors blocked for 3RR, who just return with different IP addresses.

Involved on the pro-Islam side: Yuber (talk · contribs), BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs), Farhansher (talk · contribs), and Anonymous editor (talk · contribs), also editing as 64.229.171.149 (talk · contribs).

On the anti-Islam side: Enviroknot (talk · contribs) —presumed to be the same person as KaintheScion (talk · contribs) and ElKabong (talk · contribs) — Guy Montag (talk · contribs), PeterChehabi (talk · contribs), and someone posting from a number of IP addresses — .e.g 212.218.64.68 (talk · contribs), 69.57.130.8 (talk · contribs), and 24.3.149.174 (talk · contribs) — who says she's a Muslim woman from Saudi Arabia and hates Islam, supposedly because of the way she was treated. She's called the Muslim editors "Islamist f**ks* [11], and "lying Islamist f**ks", [12], a phrase ElKabong used, and she writes in ElKabong's characteristically vicious way. I blocked some of her IPs for 3RR, but she just keeps coming back.

To get the flavor of the dispute, see all of Talk:Jihad/Archive4 and User talk:SlimVirgin#Yuber and keep going to the end of the page.

I'm going to e-mail David with some sockpuppet enquiries to see if he can pin down who's who. I'm posting here because any help in controlling the outbreak would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:54, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pages currently protected because of them:

• Suicide bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Saudi Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Qana Incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Islamofascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

69.57.130.8 (talk · contribs) and 24.3.149.174 (talk · contribs) (used by the supposed Muslim woman, probably ElKabong) turned out to be anon proxies, so I've blocked them indefinitely. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the only reason those pages are chaotic. I don't think it matters who is who. The behaviour is the problem. Deal with that and forget the personal stuff. I really think that's the right way (even if I'm not always able to do the right thing!). I hold my hands up for my part of the blame. I've been no angel at times. It's a very incendiary area, and it doesn't take much for it to catch fire. But I really believe the good-faith editors have to look at themselves, model the good behaviour we want to see and try to show that there's another road. Of course, you're going to get some trolls who just want the chaos, but if they're not fed, they wither and die. Grace Note 12:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Jihad#Call for comments for preliminary mediation. Inter\^Echo 12:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't very sure who was saying what. The argument on Jihad has gone way beyond anything substantive, it seems. I think your efforts should be applauded though. I think this article is a great case for "source every word". Grace Note 12:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cyberstalking, Harassment, & Dog Posting by SqueakBox

SqueakBox follows me around Wikipedia and vandalizes anything I touch. He tells the lie that I, Rex Judicata, am also Agwiii and has posted this lie in several places. I simply delete the lie. However, the very nature of Wikipedia encourages the behavior of people like SqueakBox. He claims to be a deletionist, but is actually an obsessionist and Cyberstalker.

Law enforcement on the Internet is a challenge for all countries, but we have seen some dramatic events with creators of denial of service, virus, spam, etc. being brought to justice. I am a resident of Florida, and have been an Internet Safety Activist for years.

I have worked to help the passage of Florida 2003 Cyberstalking Law. Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change.

Questions and comments? Email me at RexJudicata@gmail.com

Signed proudly and accurately by Rex Judicata 13:29, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

What is this personal attack doing here. RexJudicata (talk · contribs) is Agwiii (talk · contribs) and 66.176.193.185 (talk · contribs) who has alreasdy threatened to deport me to Florida for the crime of disagreeing with him, has impersonated me here and has now again blanked the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RexJudicata. He falsely calls me a vandal, as ever. It is time for this individual to stop harrassing me, SqueakBox 13:42, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fixed the link on SqueakBox's comment to point to the page he intended. --cesarb 14:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Truth about Squeakbox

Thank you for posting your LIES here.

LIE number 1. Agwiii is not me, not is some foolish set of numbers.

LIE number 2. I have not threatened to deport you to Florida. I don't know where you are nor do I care.

However, I intend to continue to post the truth about you.

Rex Judicata 13:46, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

[multiple edit conflicts] Hmm...I did a little stalking of my own. There is a bad situation here between Agwiii , SqueakBox, and RexJudicata. I am wondering if you might consider applying for mediation with the Mediation Committee. func(talk) 13:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, I am up for it. Yes there is a lot of bad blood between RexJudicata, his sockpuppet Agwiii, and myself since the sock threatened to see me deported to Florida in April in order not to be caught in his sockpuppetry activities. I take his impersonation of me very seriously, SqueakBox 13:51, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Removes comments from a Vfd here, SqueakBox 14:07, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

After seeing him remove the same comment 3 or more times, I went ahead and closed that VfD. --cesarb 14:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

BTW: I recall that, when I first encountered this user, I found out about the sockpuppetery buried deep inside the history of Talk:Abortion. I do not have the time to find it again right now, but if I recall correctly it was something like one account signing one comment from the other. --cesarb 14:35, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's great to know such info can be retrieved as necessary, though given the same MO I hardly think anyone is going to doubt that Agwiii is a RexJudicata sockpuppet. Obsession with me, rapid revert wars with vandalism accusations, writing about me here, repeat planting of the same text in various places, and even twice on the same page, obsession with Florida law, Rex's confession that he shares a copmputer with Agwiii, using the wiord dogposting (by which he means he doesn't like the openness of our community where all edits by all of us are open to public scrutiny), etc, SqueakBox 15:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Have you requested a sockpuppet check to prove your suspicions, Squeakbox? If not, can you post links that show sufficient similarities in edit style? - Mgm|^(talk) 16:21, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but give me some tinme as I need to work and it will take a while, but I am sure I can do it, SqueakBox 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

But here are are couple of random quickies. This was a note by Agwiii to Mel Etitis, this is a note by Rex to himself. Note the words dogposting, harrassment and cyberstalking in reference to me. This shows Rex shares an interest in Florida law with Agwiii. Here is Agwiii at Parents without rights with the same POV as Rex in his talk to Wetman. Note the similarity between this and the above section title Cyberstalking, Harassment, & Dog Posting by SqueakBox. The section title is identical. I can provide as lot more if people want, but this should suffice, SqueakBox 16:52, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

BTW can I ask for a sockpuppet check here on this page for Agwiii and Rex, or do I have to ask elsewhere, SqueakBox 16:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet checks are done by developers. I suggest you ask David Gerard as he's the most active in this field as far as I know. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Found it. I knew I had written about it somewhere... It's on the Administrator noticeboard's history. Quoting myself (see the link for the replies and the context):

I believe that Agwiii (talk · contributions) and RexJudicata (talk · contributions) are the same person. See [13] and [14] and [15]. --cesarb 22:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

...and this shows the beginning of the history; looks like he started as a POV pusher on the Abortion article. SqueakBox (talk · contributions) starts reverting him, and he gets more and more agressive with each reversion. --cesarb 22:21, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

--cesarb 00:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but what is "dog posting"? --Michael Snow 17:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Google doesn't know. Sounds like a made up word that Agwiii and RexJudicata coincidentally happen to use, SqueakBox 17:48, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect it's a neologism (or neo-expressionism, actually - to create a neologism of my own :-) based on the phrase "to dog someone's footsteps". Only in this case, Wikipedia edits... Noel (talk) 18:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Noel, that sounds at least plausible. I was trying to figure out if it had some connection to the famous "On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog" cartoon. --Michael Snow 19:56, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:RexJudicata

RexJudicata (talk · contribs) violating 3RR on Parents Without Rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

• 1st 06.46 June 14 including false libel and vandalism allegations
• 2nd 07.31 June 14 inc false vandalism accusations
• 3rd 07.40 June 14
• 4th 07.53 June 14.

This user is also engaging in numerous personal attacks agaionst me. I am fed up, SqueakBox 14:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) SqueakBox 14:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Protected the page. (This user seemingly has so many different ID's it would take a while to block them all.) Noel (talk) 15:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia breaking the law

RexJudicata has written Those administrators who believe in Wikipedia should question why behavior that is outlawed by Florida (and many other states and countries) would be condoned by Wikipedia. I suggest that this is the case - that Wikipedia allows cyberstalking, harassment and dog posting -- and that it is time for Wikipedia to change. here and I wonder what admins make of it as a statement ultimately addressed to yourselves. Do people think he is accusing wikipedia of breaking US state laws? SqueakBox 16:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

he is just angry, and seems to be the type that instead of taking a step back and cooling down, wants the whole world to know just how angry he is. We see that a lot on WP I guess. Of course, if you are harassed or what not on WP, the individual harassing you may be breaking the law, not Wikimedia, anymore than your ISP who is serving the harassment to your home. Don't shoot the messenger. dab (ᛏ) 16:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In addition, SqueakBox wasn't breaking any laws anyway. As an administrator, it's his duty to keep an eye out on certain individuals that are disruptive or in defiance of Wikipedia canon. I will look into the situation myself and comment on the RFC. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 18:08, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Funny, my roommate is currently studying for the Florida bar and happened to mention the Florida cyberstalking law. The "stalking" must cause "substantial emotional distress" and serve "no legitimate purpose." Good luck proving that. Postdlf 02:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should RexJudicata be blocked for making legal threats? RickK 05:59, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I warned Rex on his talk page about legal threats. While Squeakbox and a couple users have asked him to stop, it doesn't seem like anyone's read him the Wikipedia:No legal threats riot act yet. I'd be fine with a block if he continues to make threats after being notified that they aren't allowed. Perhaps he simply isn't aware of the policy. Rhobite 07:48, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I believe someone did show him that already some time ago. Oh, and look at the first paragraph of this change. --cesarb 12:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disruption to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamophilia

A user (possibly User:Germen) has posted a link to the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Islamophilia page on a sympathetic forum with an open call to place keep votes on the page[16]. The page is being flooded with anonymous and sockpuppet keep votes. Axon 17:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, they will be ignored, as is the usual case. Annoying, but not fatal. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Fuck White Dawg

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

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]
• 6th revert: [22]
• 7th revert: [23]
• 8th revert: [24]

Reported by: Hall Monitor 22:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Why waste the energy? He should just be zapped for objectionable user name. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and vanadalism of anouther persons userpage. I've just given him an infinite block. Geni 01:56, 15 Jun 2005

User:MARMOT

MARMOT (talk · contribs) has suddenly appeared, removing comments from User talk:62.253.96.40 (and calling it "his" page in the edit summary), making complaints about user:Raul654, but mostly defending another anon. at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/64.62.161.12. In all this, he acts in a way that is definitely un-newcomerlike. Any idea who he might be? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do not feed the trolls. RickK 23:41, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

This user created Wikipedia:Administrators cannot vote. --cesarb 13:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He's being a bit of a scallywag but nothing serious. His administrators cannot vote is a poorly thought out presentation of a potentially useful proposal. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edited contributions deleted

I spent a few hours contributing various "external links" to one of my websites on different Wikipedia webpages/themes. These links have now been anonymously deleted. In my view at least, this undermines the stated purpose of the Wikipedia dictionary. The users of the Wikipedia dictionary are capable of doing their own filtering of knowledge; the potential universe of the offering should not be filtered before they are able to view it. Otherwise, it would be best to eliminate the "edit" icon of each page/heading, which would have saved me all that time in posting those external links that are now gone. The conceptual idea of everyone "editing" the Wikipedia pages is a good one, in my book, but maybe not a feasible one due to the simplicity and ease with which one can hit the "delete" button. Kudos for the theoretical concept anyway and much success to a good idea. (Post by User:Earthmatrix 00:12, 15 Jun 2005) - 1st edit under this user name --Calton | Talk 00:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia is not a list of web links. You should not add links to your own web site, and you most certainly should not do so from many articles. It might be acceptable if a user who is not associated directly with your website, but who is impressed by the material on it, adds a link to it from one article.

This policy is to prevent every travel website being linked to from every geographical article, every forum site being linked to from many articles etc.-gadfium 00:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A dictionary is something completely different. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:34, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

User:Rangerdude and User:Willmcw

Hello - I would like to ask for assistance regarding a severe wiki-stalking problem I am having with User:willmcw that has gone on for several months now and has worsened in intensity of late. I first encountered this individual on an article several months ago in which we disagreed about the content and had a prolonged discussion of it before resolving the edits on the article's talk page. From that moment until now, Willmcw has been following me around wikipedia, making largely deconstructive changes to virtually every major edit I make and almost all new articles or stubs I create, and providing votes and assistance in support of the opposition to my positions on editing matters where a dispute exists regardless of the nature of that dispute or the subject of its article. It has gotten to the point that I cannot make a major addition to much of anything, or create a new article without Willmcw showing up in short order to deconstruct and rearrange it for no other reason than the fact that I authored it. Many of his edits involve excessive and extreme demands for source citations under threat of removing pertinent material, even when I have already included sources that are more than reasonable. He also frequently misreads sources and links that I have provided and alters the text to reflect these misreadings, almost always in a way that diminishes or removes specific content I have added. More recently he has taken to inserting pejorative and ad hominem qualifier phrases to introduce the sourced materials I add, even when a link is present, as well as removing valid sources for factually correct information when he personally deems them insufficient for use in the article.

I have repeatedly addressed my problems to Willmcw dating back over several months. For some time I did so in a polite manner. I conveyed to him that his habit of following me around wikipedia was excessive, lacked etiquette and civility, and constituted trolling and repeatedly asked him to stop, all the while recognizing that an occasional encounter was not objectionable to me. As his activities intensified I stated my objections to his behavior more vocally and indicated I was willing to seek intervention here if he did not cease trolling. Yesterday I repeatedly asked him to stop wiki-stalking me, to which he responded by accusing me of attacking him personally followed by a continuation of the same.

The evidence of this user's wiki-stalking may be seen in his arrival at articles on virtually all matters of subject, many of them completely unrelated to his interests or expertises, shortly after I have made an edit there and almost always to deconstruct, challenge, harass, undo, or make unreasonable demands of an edit I have made. Others seem preoccupied with him simply getting the "last word" or "last edit" in, as if he feels a need to somehow make a change, regardless of how minor or inconsequential - be it adding a category or flipping the sentence orders - to every article I edit for no other reason than the fact that I edited it previously. He has shown up to do this on almost every single new article I've ever created and most that I've participated in at length on any variety of subjects. Here are just a few of the history pages from where he's shown up shortly after I've made an edit on all number of articles. They show he followed me to each to make changes, both major and minor:

[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65],

This pattern of behavior dates back at least to February of this year. Willmcw has also "arrived" for no particular reason in virtually every major editing disagreement I've been involved in, always to lend his support to whoever I'm in disagreement with regardless of the topic. While, once again, I do not object for this individual to make edits on articles of common interests and even disagree with me. But it becomes a problem when he starts following me around wikipedia for the purpose of making edits to just about every article I've ever contributed to, and throwing fuel on the fire of existing disagreements with other editors. That's intentionally seeking out controversies and fights. That's also trolling and harassment, and I find it deconstructive to wikipedia. Any help or advice on this would be much appreciated. Thanks - Rangerdude 00:15, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added - since the original posting of this request, the situation between myself and Willmcw has worsened over his involvement in a pending mediation on the Talk:Houston_Chronicle/Mediation article - the most recent article where I was engaged in an editing disagreement with another editor, at which time Willmcw followed me there and began throwing fire onto the flames. This particular mediation was organized and agreed to by myself, the other editor in the dispute, and a third party on the condition that it would be conducted primarily between myself and the other editor. To accomodate other persons wanting to participate (which includes Willmcw) a separate secondary mediation comment section was created. Given the history between myself and Willmcw, I had specifically requested this in order to prevent him from worsening the already wide rift between myself and the other editor on the article's content and the mediator set up the page accordingly. Not content with this design, Willmcw unilaterally added himself into the separate mediation between myself and the other editor. He further reformatted the mediation's header to reflect this addition and reformatted the page to include him in the part of the discussion where he was not invited to participate. I attempted to restore the original mediation arrangement and format, however Willmcw is currently engaged in reverts to reinsert himself. I have addressed this concern to the mediator and note it here as it is representative of the ongoing troubles I am having with this particular editor. Rangerdude 01:20, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although I didn't run through all of the history links above, I did take a peek at the first twelve. Of those, I note that Willmcw was the first to edit Sheila Jackson Lee and that Rangerdude hasn't actually edited Race card (at least, not while logged in). In all the cases that I examined, the edits seemed to be constructive and reasonable. I freely admit that my examination was quite cursory, however.

A brief clarification on those two cases - I added material on Jackson Lee in the week before first signing up for Wikipedia, which is among the edits Willmcw has responded to. Furthermore, he has followed me back to that article after subsequent edits there. On the Race Card article, his trailing me there were precipitated by a redirect I added to that article to fix a broken link on another article where he was trailing me. Thanks! Rangerdude 03:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If Rangerdude could provide specific instances of vexatious edits by Willmcw or examples of poor user conduct, that might help. Given that discussion between the two of them has apparently not been fruitful, I might also suggestion mediation—failing that, perhaps a request for comment on this dispute. I suspect that this page isn't really the correct forum, unless Willmcw is engaging in sustained personal attacks or vandalism. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am actually currently involved in a mediation that has attracted Willmcw's participation with disruptive results, as noted above. Unfortunately his involvement has worsened an already large rift there and has entailed more of the same. Among the more notable specifics of his editing problems is the following after he first trailed me to the Houston Chronicle article a few weeks ago.[66] In it he misconstrued a cited source and changed the text to conform with his misconstruction - this was a product of his unfamiliarity with the subject matter as he followed me to this article for little other reason than to deconstruct that sentence, which I had added a few days earlier and which he followed me to. He does this sort of thing all the time by searching for petty and extremely tedious or semantical issues he can stir up about the way I've worded something - normally with the object being to diminish or weaken the source (in this case, for example, he improperly changed the attribution of a resolution adopted by the Republican Party as a whole to a minor committee within the Republican Party that had first proposed it to the whole party). He does the same sort of thing all the time on other articles. In another article on the history of the Confederate States of America he trailed me there and noticed I had made an addition regarding their diplomacy with a then-existant European country, Saxe Coburg and Gotha. At the time I added this I documented it extensively to the satisfaction of other editors on the talk page and made the agreed upon addition. Willmcw sought to deconstruct it however since I was the one who added it and gave his support to another editor who was unaware of the talk page. When it was pointed out that the issue had already been documented, Willmcw began insisting that SCG was not a real country (though the information that it was could be easily obtained from the wikipedia article on SCG itself) and made several edits to reflect this mistake. [67] Once again it took a drawn out process of debate to satisfy his excessive demands that I justify restoring the previous addition I made even though it had already been demonstrated and agreed to beyond any reasonable doubt before his arrival. His purpose was solely deconstructive and directly aimed at me. There are dozens of similar cases like this as well as cases of him following me to disputes with other editors to espouse their positions in articles that he has no genuine interest or expertise in writing. Rangerdude 03:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the details and haven't checked the links. However, Willmcw is one of our best editors, with a great instinct for how to make articles neutral, when to ask for references, and where to find good ones. Rangerdude, if he's watching your edits (and I don't know whether he is), he almost certainly has reason to. In your shoes, I'd engage Will in reasonable dialogue about it, because he's an eminently reasonable person. Maybe you're doing something problematic without realizing it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm certain he has other friends on wikipedia and will not judge other editors for befriending him. This experience has gone on for too long and happened in too many cases though for me to conclude that it is anything other than his conscious actions. He may be great at editing other articles, but my experiences with him have been very unpleasant and I am certain that he is wiki-stalking me (see it for yourself above - i've linked to some 40-something different articles where he's done it!). I've found many times that far from simply asking for references, he applies excessive demands of my edits that (1) are not required by wikipedia, (2) he does not abide by in his own edits, and (3) are often dismissed or distorted under his own personal POV's and opinions of the subject matter. IOW, I find myself not only having to source my edits (which I tend to do wherever possible anyway without him requesting it) but also having to explain, quote, and justify the minute details of almost every one of those edits AND their sources to him personally beyond the level of proof any reasonable editor would require. He often insists upon introducing extraneous and pejorative qualifiers to sources I give, deletes sources and links he doesn't personally like for political reasons, deletes material that he doesn't understand or is unfamiliar with, and misconstrues even the plainest wordings found on links I add then demands I prove them to him even though he's the one who has made the error in reading. As to discussing the matter with him, I have been doing as much over several months since I first discovered that he was following me. He has been generally unresponsive to my complaint and, as the problem has worsened he's met it with increased hostility. Yesterday I addressed him directly on the matter with specific requests not to stalk my posts. His only response was to accuse me of attacking him personally and bring our dispute into the middle of an ongoing mediation in a manner that has subsequently proven VERY distracting to making any headway in that mediation. I even discussed this matter with another participant in the mediation who concurred with me and related similar experiences with Willmcw. So perhaps he is a good editor at some things - can't say. But I can say that in my own situation he has been harassing, abusive, and generally deconstructive to wikipedia. Rangerdude 03:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I'm saying again that Will is none of these things. If you engage with him constructively, you'll find that out for yourself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Just because your experiences with him are positive doesn't mean everybody elses are as well. He is capable of flaws and I have experienced those flaws first hand. Asserting your own friendship with him is no basis to dismiss or ignore the fact that he has been wiki-stalking me, which is shown beyond a doubt above through some 40+ different article links. Set your personal biases towards him aside if you are interested in this case - who is or isn't somebody's "friend" has no place in determining whether that person did something wrong. Rangerdude 04:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would ask Rangerdude to elaborate—briefly and concisely—on what remedy he seeks. This page isn't really appropriate for a lengthy exposition of perceived slights and misbehaviour. I urge Rangerdude to follow SlimVirgin's advice and try to engage Willmcw constructively and with an open mind. Failing that, he might avail himself of the more formal procedures detailed in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. A request for comment would no doubt generate a great deal of feedback regarding the actions of both involved parties, however it is somewhat time consuming and not to be entered into lightly. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Greetings - as noted to others who have asked the same, I have already pursued several if not all the other avenues of resolution at some time or another with Willmcw to no avail. I've tried addressing it to him. I've tried mediation. I've tried talk pages and RfC's on various articles where we are in dispute, and it only continues and worsens. I've come to the conclusion that it's not any particular dispute we have that's the problem. The problem is the fact that he has some sort of fixation on my edits and person. This fixation has prompted him to wiki-stalk me to all corners of wikipedia on articles of all subject matters. In doing so, he has taken it upon himself to personally screen my edits with a mind toward deconstructing them and in doing so extend editing and reference demands of me that are not applied to other editors, are not a part of any wikipedia policy, and are not followed by Willmcw himself in his own edits. In terms of a solution, I would ask that an arbitrator address Willmcw, warning him against wiki-stalking me and recommending that the two of us avoid each other except on articles where we both have a common direct editing interest. Thank you Rangerdude 04:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing what you stumble across on Wikipedia. I have repeatedly asked Rangerdude to stop calling me a "stalker", which he seems to using as a personal attack. I have posted an RfC in the matter, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rangerdude, as the editor has made it clear he does not want to participate in mediation with me. The charge of "wikistalking", which doesn't even violate any policies that I am aware of, is simply not true. I have compiled a list of the 206 articles that Rangerdude had contributed to as of 04:33 (UTC), Jun 15, 2005. Of those, there are 59 that we have both contributed to. Of those, Rangerdude contributed first to 27 of them, I contributed first to 19 of them, and on 13 my only editing was to the category (mostly one small recategorization effort). By comparison, my watchlist covers 2272 articles and other pages and I've made a total of over 10,000 edits Rangerdude's editing is not a big concern to me, though I do wish his personal comments would stop. Thanks, -Willmcw 07:20, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

What an needless expension of energy. 19 to 27 is hardly stalking; anyway, it's the quality of the contributions themselves that count. El_C 08:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediation suggested

• I've asked one of the mediators to take a look at this case. Would you guys be willing to give that a go? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • I am eager to resolve this issue and gladly accept mediation. -Willmcw 09:54, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • PS I have withdrawn the RfC that I posted earlier in lieu of mediation. -Willmcw 09:57, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
    • but could we maybe move this whole thing to RfC? because that's what it is, Rangerdude was asking for comments on the situation, and it is hardly appropriate for this page — I don't want to be "territorial" about this board at all, mind you, to the contrary, I find it improper to ask advice "of the admins only" when the question should really go to the community in general (which is what RfC is for). dab (ᛏ) 12:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • As always, your territoriality greatly infuriates and terrifies me! El_C 14:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • If there's a willing mediator who will take this one on, please have them contact myself and the other editor by our talk pages & go from there.Rangerdude 17:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • (to El C:) *smirk* dab (ᛏ) 14:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • to Rangerdude: you need to ask for mediation, on WP:RFM. Mediation does not mean the mediator just solves your problem for you while you wait. You need to be actively interested in finding a compromise solution, otherwise it's just a waste of effort for everybody. dab (ᛏ) 14:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) — edit: ok, I see you have two cases pending on mediation already, so I guess you know that. It would be rather an opportunity to ask yourself why you keep getting into shouting matches with people so often. dab (ᛏ) 14:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

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

• 1st revert: 14:24, 14 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:27, 14 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 22:46, 14 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 23:02, 14 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 23:17, 14 Jun 2005
• 6th revert: 00:10, 15 Jun 2005
• 7th revert: 00:18, 15 Jun 2005
• 8th revert: 00:30, 15 Jun 2005
• 9th revert: 00:36, 15 Jun 2005

Reported by: Dpark 00:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Repeatedly reverting NPOV "seized" to "stolen", ignoring concensus. Same thing a couple of days ago (with ~6 reverts then). -- Dpark 00:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• He's done it a tenth time (00:44 15 Jun). Gabrielsimon has been POV pushing on this article for quite a while by saying that the US government "stole" Indian lands, instead of "seizing" them. He seems to be under the delusions that (a) "stole" is NPOV, (b) "seize" implies compensation, (c) he isn't opposed 4 to 1 or so, and (d) he's exempt from the 3RR because he's correcting vandalism. See Talk:United States#Seizing vs. Stealing. Nickptar 00:52, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And he's utterly unwilling to discuss it in Talk; in fact, he falls back on the excuse of all POV warriors, that's he's "undoing vandalism" by changing it to stolen. I'd block him if I weren't involved in reverting this changes. (Gotta keep a neutral face and all) --Golbez 01:09, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
• He seems perfectly willing to discuss it on Talk, just not to listen to reason. And even after being informed twice of this report (and deleting one of the posts in which he was informed), he's done it an 11th time: 01:14. Ay ay ay. Nickptar 01:24, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Now it's up to 12. Can we add an hour or two for his block for every revert he does after first being warned (that's 2, so far)? Nickptar 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • no we can't. I've blocked him for 24 hours.Geni 01:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• There needs to be an "immature suspension" rule of about, oh I don't know, 2-3 years of life experience minimum with this guy. He refuses to listen to reason or reference his baseless opinions and deletes opposing comments. JShultz 01:40, 15 Jun 2005

User:216.76.219.147

Three revert rule violation on Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.76.219.147 (talk · contribs), 216.76.219.48 (talk · contribs), and 216.76.219.54 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 21:43, 13 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:42, 14 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:20, 14 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:21, 14 Jun 2005

Reported by: <>Who?¿? 01:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is a 3 revert rule violation but Im not sure how big the ip range is.Geni 01:50, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the reports, and histories, it all seems to be coming from 216.76.219.*, so the appropriate range block is 216.76.219.0/24. Noel (talk) 05:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is about an anon that has access to a "rotating" IP address. He has created trouble constantly in this article. The last set of numbers varies, but the first three are always the same: 216.76.219.{varying set}. We are sure that this is the same person. He has also vandalized constantly the talk page of this article. His changing IP makes it impossible to talk to him directly and very difficult to track his actions. Regards, Redux 17:12, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

URGENT: The anon (with the changing IP address) is now daily blanking the article's talk page (history). On June 15, a 3RR violation could be said to have occurred (although this is clear vandalism — 3RR would not apply):

• 1st revert: 09:38, 15 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:50, 15 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 17:51, 15 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 18:27, 15 Jun 2005

Regards, Redux 02:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the entire range for 24-hours for vandalism. I can't leave a message for the user, because I have no idea which address(es) they are likely to use; each address in this range seems to have only a few edits. Noel (talk) 05:54, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

→The anon has resumed attacks on the article and its talk page (blanked it today, again). As soon as the 24-hour block expired... This person is likely doing all this from computers in a public place, such as a High School library (I assume, given this ever changing IP). Could we perhaps trace those IPs and block this guy for once? Regards, Redux 20:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've looked at this again. The changes to the content are are good-faith concerns about the content (although we may see an edit war over it, I guess, but that's handled differently from vandalism). As far as the Talk: page blanking, it's misguided, but again good-faith - see this edit for their reasoning. I have warned them not to blank it again, and will block then entire range for longer if they do it again. Noel (talk) 21:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

→I've just reverted an attack (blanking) on the talk page. It's the second time today (Znode reverted the first time). Need I say who blanked the page twice today? At the risk of sounding repetitive: this anon is not acting in good faith. This is a vandal who couldn't care less about Wikipedia and the work that we're trying to do here. Regards, Redux 10:29, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not sure of their motives, but certainly blanking the talk page again, after being warned not to do so, is over the line, so I have blocked the entire range for a somewhat longer block. Let's see if that gets the message through. Noel (talk) 15:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

URGENT: I'm sorry to be the bearer of these news, but it seems that the anon has access to an even broader range of IPs than originally assessed. He blanked the talk page again from the IP 216.76.221.45 (changed the second set of numbers). Further proof that this is not a coincidence is the edit performed by the same IP in the article itself, in which the anon reinstated one of his changes in the article that had already been reverted before (his edit / Everyking's revert of it — talk page history for Everyking's edit summary, look for the 18th of June, between 17:18 and 17:20). He reinstated it word for word. That's the exact same person. He changed IPs when he realized that that range had been blocked. We're running out of options here, we can't block away all IPs, lots of innocent editors would be harmed. This...person seems to be obsessed only with the Olsen twins. So even though no one likes to hear that, the only possible solution may just be to lock the article and its talk page (most unfortunately) for a longer time. It is worth noting, though, that the anon has demonstrated either lack of interest or the inability to locate mirror pages, so if we were to open a secondary forum to continue discussions and even work on the article while the main namespace remains locked, it seems unlikely that he would follow us there. The clear down side is that only this handful of people would know about this alternative, which would severely limit the potential input for the article — but on the other hand, were it not for this anon the traffic in that article would be close to zero. Are there other viable options? Regards, Redux 02:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I protected the article - little has changed in the content recently, so that won't be a big issue. I'm going to leave the talk: page for now, and have settled for blocking that /24 as well. Noel (talk) 16:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ed Poor persistently disruptive on Qur'an abuse page -- surrealistically high number of page moves

Admin -- Uncle Ed (talk) has executed a ridiculously high number of page moves, and has been generally disruptive, at the page currently titled Qur'an desecration by US military.

He has obvious political motivations for the pattern of disruption and title confusion he has sown on this page in recent days. (Check out the titles of his edit summaries on this page if you doubt my assessment of this.) Please. please review the history of this page and consider taking appropriate administrative action. BrandonYusufToropov 02:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here are examples of what I mean:

FROM TALK PAGE HISTORY

• (cur) (last) 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (Was it desecration? - That's the anti-US point of view, all right. So let's describe as such.)

FROM ARTICLE HISTORY

• (cur) (last) 21:21, 14 Jun 2005 Ed Poor (moved Pentagon "admission" down to 4th paragraph, as intro to "critics continued belief" - could be moved up)

• (cur) (last) 20:06, 27 May 2005 Ed Poor (anti-US POV needs to be labeled. Don't put the argument in the text of the article as if you wanted Wikipedia to endorse that reasoning)

... not to mention the avalanche of page moves, resulting in confusion and perpetual redirect challenges for those trying to actually find the article ...

I agree with these complaints. Ed has not only continually made objectionable edits to the main page and acted intentionally obtuse about it in the discussion page; he even went so far as to go to my user page and threaten me with administrative warnings because he claimed my edits were "personal attacks." You can judge for yourself if you think they're personal attacks; I don't know Ed at all and was only responding to his claims on the discussion page for the quran desecration article. --csloat 02:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I sent a message to Ed, and got the following: "It's a long story. The short version is that every time the other contributors changed the scope of the article, I would change its title. It should be stable, now that Brandon tweaked it." As for personal attacks by csloat? I don't think they were, to be perfectly honest. However, the language used when replying to Uncle Ed (and I've been guilty of this, so don't think that what I'm about to say is unique) was rather inflammatory as it personalised issues and implied motive. I suggest that csloat review Wikipedia:Assume good faith. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:08, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I normally do assume good faith. I was simply responding to charges of bad faith, after I also saw way too much evidence of bad faith on user Ed's part. Just for the record, my language was not especially any more inflammatory than what uncle Ed posted to that page. I will assume that he has turned over a new leaf and try to keep my inflammation in check as well. --csloat 06:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Question for Ed Poor about various moves of page currently entitled Qur’an desecration controversy of 2005

You moved the following pages without first discussing the title on the talk page. I’m not saying you needed to discuss the title with me personally, but that you didn’t discuss it with anyone before doing it, which seems to me an abuse of admin authority. It may also represent an attempt to move the page in such a way that people would be unlikely to find it easily or read it.

• May 19 Page Move to Newsweek desecration controversy
• May 27 Page Move to Qur’an desecration controversy
• May 27-June 13 Page Moves - I seem to recall there were multiple page moves on your part shortly after May 27, too, and your posts on the Talk page seem to reflect this, but the record is sketchy for some reason. So please help me clear up the record. What specific page moves did you make after May 27 and before June 14? If you don’t want to tell me what page moves you made during this period, why not?
• First June 14 Page Move to Allegations of Qur’an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
• second June 14 Page Move to Allegation of Qur’an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
• Third June 14 Page Move to Allegations of Qur’an desecration at Guantánamo Bay
• fourth June 14 Page Move to Qur'an desecration by US guards

Maybe I’m wrong, though. Why did you do that? BrandonYusufToropov 18:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I choose not to enter the discussion of whether the page move was appropriate but as a purely procedural comment, I see no use of admin authority. Pagemoves are not an "admin" power. Any editor can make a pagemove. Since no admin power was used, I don't see how this can be considered "an abuse of admin authority". I can understand a desire to question him on a potentially controversial move, but why are you bringing the question here? (By the way, your comment would be received with more weight if you signed your request.) Rossami (talk) 17:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry that I forgot the sig. (And I will post this elsewhere if this is not the right forum, my apologies for that as well.)

Yep, anybody can move a page -- only an admin can move something back to where it actually belongs, though, which makes for an interesting dynamic. Question is: Is it appropriate for an admin to play this kind of three-card monte game with a page -- constantly springing these page moves without any warning or discussion?

Note that someone removed the rest of my post, which is no big deal to me, but the effect is that it looks like I'm complaining about a single page move, which I'm not. This admin sprung this on us multiple times (four times in one day, by my count) while doing his best to disrupt the content of the page itself -- by, for instance, suddenly insisting on splitting the page in two and renaming it. In moving the page around, he was also, of course, a) using up potential names for the page, including those around which consensus had developed, and b) leaving a constant trail of dead redirects in his wake.

Net effect -- hiding the article from all but the most persistent reader. Is that really cricket for an admin? BrandonYusufToropov 19:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. By the way, I am the one who removed the rest of your comment. The system occasionally duplicate edits. You made your original edit in multiple sections with only minor changes to each section. The differences were so small that I overlooked them and incorrectly deleted all but the first section as duplicates. My apologies. I have attempted to repair it (in a hopefully cleaner format?). Please fix it if I didn't get your intent right. Rossami (talk) 20:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, you 've got it right, thank you very much for the reformat. Mine was quite clumsy, for which apologies. BrandonYusufToropov

• For the record, today I filed a complaint against Ed Poor at Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation.

• Ed Poor, who is himself one of the members of the mediation committee, immediately transferred my complaint to the talk page there and, in so doing, "happened" to delete more than half of it.

• I believe he should recuse himself from this matter. Anyone who agrees may perhaps be willing to say as much [here].

• I have posted the entirety of my complaint against Ed Poor on my userpage, which I trust (?) to be safe from his editorial help. Interested parties can find my complaint at: BrandonYusufToropov 20:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen

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

• 1st revert: 17:33, 14 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:45, 14 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:13, 14 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:26, 14 Jun 2005

Reported by: Axon 11:04, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason the above incident has been ignored? Axon 23:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At the time this was reported, this person was a new user who'd never been warned abou the 3RR. I have now warned them, so let's see what happens. Noel (talk) 20:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Magnifying Transmitter

204.56.7.1 (talk · contribs) keeps removing a {{totallydisputed}} tag, I've just inserted on Magnifying Transmitter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). It's hard to tone down the Teslaism articles in Wikipedia, due to their propenents guarding them, but that one definitively needs some work. --Pjacobi 16:27, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

"Teslaism" is your POV. Try to be NPOV in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 Jun 2005

Definition of Teslaism: Inventions and theories by Nikola Tesla (or ascribed to him), only appraised by fans, which didn't find entrance to science or practical usage.

Please do the content discussion at Talk:Tesla and don't simply remove the dispute tags.

Pjacobi 19:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

Similar problem on Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Biography of Nikola Tesla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where he removes the {{merge}} tags. --Pjacobi 17:18, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

The information is needed, so that it isn't lost ... the article was split. See Talk:Nikola_Tesla#Merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.56.7.1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 15 Jun 2005

See my comments on Talk:Nikola Tesla#Merge and be so kind to answer there. In the mean time it would be approbiate, to not simple remove the tags. --Pjacobi 19:32, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

This IP is a shared location from "Linda Hall Library"; it's also currently the source of problems with Albert Einstein. Noel (talk) 19:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

204.56.7.1 is a problem in some other places too. Firstly, he never ever signs, which is just gratuitious impoliteness. Secondly, try Dynamic theory of gravity... if you can bear it. He should have been 3RR banned for that [68] but sadly wasn't. William M. Connolley 19:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Sigh, our bad luck that Tesla was a Serb. Do the resulting Tesla partisans have any idea how inadequate/insecure their ridiculously outlandish claims make them look? Noel (talk) 07:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Totse

Someone might want to keep an eye on this... Kappa 17:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Invasion of the sockpuppets!

I'm scratching my head over the bizarreness that's currently taking place over in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The pogroms in Istanbul. The vote is being swamped by pathetically obvious sockpuppets, none of which have a hope in hell of influencing the outcome (hopefully). What action should be taken? Does "Sockpuppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently" Wikipedia:Blocking policy cover this sort of situation? And what of the user who is creating them? -- ChrisO 18:47, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sockpuppets succeeded in getting the voting on Turkish Invasion of Cyprus hung to a "no consensus" status. RickK 22:52, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the evidence of sockpuppetry on that vote wasn't anything like as compelling. Many of the "keep" voters in that instance did seem to have a bona fide editing history. By contrast, most of the "keep" votes in the current VfD are such obvious sockpuppets that I really wonder why Argyrosargyrou is bothering to do it. -- ChrisO 23:11, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Sandbot

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

• 1st revert: 9:26
• 2nd revert: 13:56
• 3rd revert: 14:26
• 4th revert: 14:56

Reported by: SPUI (talk) 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I understand that this is not a standard case, but the presence of a bot that can violate the 3RR is just as bad if not worse than a normal 3RR violation. Sandbot continually reinserts the text "No profanity, please." inside a comment. I have given my reasons for not including it on Wikipedia talk:Introduction. --SPUI (talk) 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I won't block this, and I advise any other admin to do the same. My reasons:
    1. Its task was approved on Wikipedia talk:Bots
    2. The change is wholly beneficial, and all it would take to remove the offending line is a note to AllyUnion and gaining consensus on the talk page. It's hardly urgent.
    3. I don't believe 3RR is applicable in sandboxes anyway. smoddy 20:10, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Reverts intended to perform maintenance—such as on the Introduction or the Sandbox—are likewise allowed."Geni 02:25, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This just goes to show how badly the Sandbot was needed and what wonderful work it's doing. --W(t) 12:04, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)