Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive9

Contents: February 25, 2005 - March 4, 2005

In the CheeseDreams RFAr, it is being repeatedly claimed that I am a sockpuppet of user:Rienzo. I request that someone with the abilty investigates all IP addresses I have contributed from, and assess the other factors they use to detect sockpuppets, to determine that I am not (or indeed if I am) a sockpuppet of Rienzo (or anyone else). I ask that they present their findings on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CheeseDreams 2/Evidence page. I also ask that they do everything they can to check the IP addresses I have edited from to determine if they are open proxies or not. Thryduulf 00:34, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can someone reverse the botchup cut'n'paste move from MOST to Microvariability and Oscillations of STars telescope. -- John Fader 00:35, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. dbenbenn | talk 03:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Noel (talk) 14:48, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Due to the fact that CheeseDreams has given her password to the general public and now no longer has access to her accounts, it appears that she is popping up as an anonymous user. The problem here is that I can't be sure that it's not someone impersonating her and just causing her general trouble. I would like propose that anyone who purports to be CheeseDreams have their material removed from Wikipedia unless it comes from CheeseDreams' approved account. I think this is only fair for those reading and responding to that person who claims to be CheeseDreams and for CheeseDreams herself (as she is possibly being impersonated). I'm posting this to Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_arbitration/CheeseDreams_2, please reply there. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

user:CheezeDreams should be blocked as per the ArbCom ruling. Thryduulf 02:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Lupo 07:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Howard Dean. hist

• 1st revert: 17:10, 24 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:41, 24 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 00:10, 25 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 03:36, 25 Feb 2005

Reported by: RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• New user persists in removing a perfectly acceptable external link, saying that it violates some nonexistent external links policy. Proved unresponsive to my attempts to explain policy and community practice on talk, and ignored specific warnings not to violate the 3RR. RadicalSubversiv E 03:53, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just blocked User:Ampersand a la Carte-le-Fort for 24h for vandalism. Methinks this is a sockpuppet of User:Box of Rice, who had been permanently blocked by Zero0000 two days ago. (That block didn't take though, because I had blocked BoR for 24h before.) If others agree that ACF is a sockpuppet of BoR, I think the ACF account should be blocked permanently. (Amongst other things, ACF recreated an article BoR had created (entitled "Cabbage Hit") after that article had been speedied as patent nonsense.)

Furthermore, I think both are reincarnations of Mr. Diaper (although he seems to have given up on the diaper business). Check out BoR's user page, his (and ACF's) stray posting of comments originally directed at him on other's talk pages, and both ACF's and BoR's repeated use of the "get a grip" phrase, which dab first used on User talk:Sud-Pol. Lupo 10:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have just blocked Everyking for 24 hours for his reversion of the Ashlee Simpson material in the Saturday Night Live article repeatedly. The arbcom has made it clear that any material dealing with Ashlee Simpson is not to be reverted by Everyking. RickK 23:59, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, that ArbCom decision is unfair, and I've blocked EK over it before. I'd like to see it overturned! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The more I see of the consequences of that decision, the more unfair it seems to me. For instance, the revert that EK got blocked over was because he added some material to NPOV the wording. An anon came by and just reverted him. He reverted back in his changes. Who was at fault here? I'd say the anon! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:54, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you follow the entire revert war? My impression is that the latest revert was just an excuse -- the real reason EK just got blocked was the two reverts people have been arguing over for the past few days. --Carnildo 05:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If you think the arbcom ruling is unfair, you should encourage Everyking to appeal it to Jimbo, and run for arbcom yourself in December. But for right now, the ruling is what it is. Snowspinner 05:41, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Clearly, I reverted contrary to the ArbCom's clarification; my only excuse is that I didn't know about the clarification (I saw on the page that the case was being rejected, and I didn't follow it down the page to the clarification section). So I won't do that again. I would appeal to Jimbo, but my understanding is that doing so is considered to be pointless because Jimbo has no intention of overturning any ArbCom rulings. Everyking 06:07, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why should I have to run for ArbCom to get decisions over turned? I was told that I can just post a request for the decision to be reviewed on the ArbCom page. Situations and people change over time, surely? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't feel Everyking has changed. The spirit of the ruling was to avoid him reverting Ashlee-related material, but he stuck to the letter of it and insisted on reverting Ashlee-related material because it wasn't in an Ashlee-related article. I don't think he's changed; it's apparent he still believes in following the letter instead of the spirit of the law; if he were left unfettered, I feel another edit war over Ashlee wouldn't be long in coming. Don't get me wrong, I know he's a good editor outside Ashlee stuff, but that does not change the fact that he has taken the attitude of entitlement to three reverts and practically every maximum theoretical boundary preventing him from getting into a revert war over Ashlee-related material. He can claim that attitude does not translate to action all he wants; anyone interested can review what occurred and decide for themselves.

I can understand the frustration that Everyking feels over not being able to revert Ashlee-related material even when it does little to no harm, but the idea of the ruling is for him to prove himself, not to allow him to continue his old ways. The correct approach would have been to go on IRC or somehow contact another editor to revert the edit. That is how it's supposed to work. Just because you are in the right does not give you an entitlement to take action that has clearly been outlawed. We don't argue for leniency with otherwise good editors (i.e. Slrubenstein) getting banned for violating the 3RR just because they were in the right. The same applies here. Everyking should just assume he is being placed on an extremely tight version of the 3RR and behave like how he would normally would. Then again, perhaps that's where this problem stems from. Johnleemk | Talk 08:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I wouldn't have reverted if I'd know about the clarification. And no, I'm not going to obey the spirit of a ruling I disagree with; the best you can get is the letter. Everyking 08:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying you only follow the letter of the 3RR because you disagree with it? Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess, I'm not really sure what you mean. Everyking 10:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The full clarification is below, copied from WP:RFAr. In essence: if it's Ashlee-related information, it's covered. AC rulings etc. aren't binding on someone until they're put on their talk page. My abject apologies for our slackness in doing so - should have been done a couple of days ago. I just put the clarification on Everyking's talk page now. Blocks for violations should now stick - David Gerard 11:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2.2) For a period of one year, Everyking is prohibited from reverting articles relating to Ashlee Simpson except in cases of clear and obvious vandalism (as per definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism), with penalties as per the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. What constitutes a revert shall be left up to adminstrators' discretion.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Everyking/Proposed_decision#Revert_limitation_2 for the alternative proposals which were considered and votes on them.

• It is my opinion that any article which contains a link to Ashlee Simpson or mentioning Ashlee Simpson, see (what links to Ashlee Simpson) is an article "relating to Ashlee Simpson"; therefore falling within the articles covered by the revert limitation, if Everyking is editing with respect to that portion of an article which is concerned with Ashlee Simpson and in the opinion of an administrator reverting the article. Fred Bauder 13:44, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• If Ashlee Simpson-related material is put into an article, it is to that extent related to Ashlee Simpson. That's the standard a rough consensus (with some queries) of the admins applied to CheeseDreams and Jesus/Christianity-related material - David Gerard 14:17, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• We should not narrowly define "related to Ashlee Simpson," and it should be broadly interpreted by administrators. Everyking should be made nervous about getting anywhere near anything that could be considered Ashlee-related. The intent is to restrict him, not give him a change to win the game. ➥the Epopt 15:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • That's precisely my thinking. This is an attempt to game the spirit of the ruling with an interpretation that I would think was beyond reasonable doubt - David Gerard 17:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with David's, Epopts, and Fred's intrepretations, although I think Fred's explanation is the most clear. →Raul654 19:53, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
• The intent of the ruling, in my view, is to prevent the overzealous reversion of material relating to Ashlee Simpson. Administrators should be capable of determining when such an action is taking place and act appropriately. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:05, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)
• I concur with the above comments. Neutrality^talk 01:37, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

---

I think The Epopt's comment is quite telling: "Everyking should be made nervous about getting anywhere near anything that could be considered Ashlee-related." The spirit behind that is quite clear! Everyking 12:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The spirit of it is that we didn't think you could be trusted to edit rationally around Ashlee-related articles without great restriction. Remember that you are still entirely able to make your case for particular edits on talk pages. You also need to somehow not let yourself be goaded by others acting obnoxiously elsewhere, e.g. on October 24 - David Gerard 14:40, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, that certainly is insulting. Everyking 16:24, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Then, feel free to remove the insult. With the personal attack policy, insults can be removed on sight. ..-.. 21:15, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Global warming. hist

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

Reported by: Vsmith 15:12, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Reverts 1,2 &3 are labeled as such in the edit summaries.
• Revert #4 is an unlabeled revert of different material on the same page.
• In addition this was followed by 3 reverts by new users User:Munnin and User:WikiWarming [5] that have the appearance of being sockpuppets or in the case of Munnin at least a "get my friend to revert for me" (note the comment after the welcome on Munnin's talk page [6]). This possible instance of sockpuppetry needs to be fully investigated by admins.

the foruth revert seems to be mearly the addition of a couple of tags the differnece between it and the previus reverts is huge so I make it 3 reverts total. Sock pupet acusations should be directed towards incerdentsGeni 18:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can we keep an eye on this ... person, please? Personal attacks and trolling mode, doesn't sound like a new user. RickK 00:55, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

the user has 3 total contributions to wp [7], the first to this page, the second to user:Mich Church's talk page (where he he posts would could be considered a personal attack on RickK and "his liberal cabal", and the third to Votes for deletion. None of which are standard fare for newbies. Thryduulf 01:57, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked - David Gerard 22:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article and its Vfd page, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fuck you and die, are being repeatedly vandalized. RickK 06:40, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't so much interesting as it is long, or rather, it isn't so much lengthy as it is duplicidous. [8] [9] But I did read it, or rather, its table of contents, with great interest! El_C 07:07, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Sydney Hilton bombing. hist

Edit war between over the addition of material. Both sides look like they need a "break", since their only edits today have been reverts of each other.

Reported by: Netoholic @ 11:08, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

• 1st revert: 13:06, 2005 Feb 25 result (reverts back to a Feb 21 version)
• 2nd revert: 04:53, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 3rd revert: 05:15, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 4th revert: 05:31, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 5th revert: 06:50, 2005 Feb 26 result

• 1st revert: 04:45, 2005 Feb 26 result (undoes Ambi's 1st revert above)
• 2nd revert: 05:06, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 3rd revert: 05:23, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 4th revert: 05:47, 2005 Feb 26 result
• 5th revert: 12:01, 2005 Feb 26 result (somewhat complex revert)

Note that Ambi's reverts were to remove aberglas's contribution. Aberglas's reverts were to restore it. Aberglas has never (and would never) just revert anyone else's well meant contribution. (Aberglas 02:35, 7 Mar 2005)

• Both blocked for 24 hours.Geni 11:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Ambi was unblocked by fellow Arbitrator User:David Gerard, without providing any explanation. He also failed to likewise unblock the other person. I must insist Ambi serve out the rest of the block, since it is clear-cut, and unblocking only serves to devalue the 3RR enforcement rule. -- Netoholic @ 22:47, 2005 Feb 27 (UTC)

• under the rules if a block is disputed (and if a person is unblocked it clearly is) then the person can't be reblocked.Geni 23:05, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As Netoholic pointed out on IRC, I failed to unblock the other guy. Both are now unblocked.

It wasn't quite a disputed block per se - I don't dispute it was a 3RR vio. But although I like 3RR a lot, I don't tend to be a complete hardarse about the 24 hours and will almost always unblock if someone will admit they messed up, even if it's really soon after.

I do think Ambi was extremely silly to let herself be goaded into a 3RR violation, and do trust it won't happen again. There's all sorts of ways to point out a content-destroying conspiracist (my editorial opinion of the other guy's edits) without getting lured into a 3RR violation.

(Note to any revert warriors who read this and consider me a soft touch for future unblocking: if you do it again, watch me reblock so fast it'll make your keyboard spin.) - David Gerard 23:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If I had known that one of the perks in being an Arbitrators was that I can break 3RR at will and enjoy a minimal punishment, I'd have run for the job. I'd like to point out that I have reported 3RR violations on this page against two Arbitrators and at least as many admins, and so far the track record is extremely poor. This policy is meaningless unless blocks are enforced without regard to Wikipedia "rank" and that they are not reversed without consulting the community here except in extreme cicumstances to keep the unblock from looking secretive. I do not like that a fellow Arbitrator of Ambi lifted this block, and I see it as clearly playing favorites. I'm just sure how else I should interpret it. -- Netoholic @ 16:55, 2005 Feb 28 (UTC)

Oh, don't witter so. I would similarly remove any 3RR block if the blockee contacted me and convinced me of their understanding of the error of their ways and a commitment to strenuously avoid such things as well, and I would imagine that a great many of our fellow sysops would, too.

Ambi's status as an Arbitrator is not remotely relevent here.

James F. (talk) 21:55, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Er, the closest Ambi ever got to understanding any error was to (finally) add a terse pragraph to the talk page. Gerad made a very consious decission to (just) unblock Ambi because she is in the clique. The comment about "Ambi being goaded" is also hardly helpful and completely against the facts. Aberglas 07:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

• I'd like to hear some explanation or rationale for the behaviour of Ambi and David Gerard in this episode. David says he unblocked Ambi because she expressed remorse, although I don't where that was. Is an expression of remorse in general a means of becoming unblocked? Was Geni's application of the 3RR incorrect? --BM 23:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• In thinking about this a bit more, I'd like to make the following points:

1. In general, administrators should not second-guess the application by other administrators of rules such as the 3RR. Even if one administrator would have been more lenient than another has been, he should refrain from stepping in and altering the penalty imposed by the administrator who made the decision concerning what penalty to apply -- for example, by shortening a block or lifting it entirely. Otherwise, people will play the administrators off against each other, like kids with parents. No administrator wants to be in the position of being thought of as the one who will "fix tickets" handed out by the others: an administrator who gains a reputation for "fixing tickets" will pretty soon find himself plagued with requests to do so, and will be accused of playing favorites when he fixes some tickets and not others. Other administrators will be reluctant to impose penalties, which involves some conflict and stress, if they know their penalties will be altered or cancelled by other administrators who are more friendly towards the offenders. The whole system will be perceived by non-administrators as corrupt, with penalties determined by "who you know" rather than objective factors. If an administrator imposes a penalty, other administrators should alter that penalty only if it is incorrect under the policies and rules that have been established.
2. In this particular case, the person who had her ticket "fixed" was an Arbitrator, and the person doing the "fixing" was another Arbitrator. This was very unfortunate. Especially given the extremely legalistic procedure and style that the ArbComm has adopted, the administrators should try to maintain themselves above reproach. They are in the position of "judging" other members and potentially imposing severe penalties -- severe anyway in the Wikipedia context. If an Arbitrator so forgets herself that she violates clear rules established by the consensus of the community, she should apologize and accept the penalty imposed. Certainly, the person "fixing" the penalty should not be another Arbitrator. Otherwise, the clear message to the rest of the community is that there is one set of rules for the community and a different set of rules for the Arbitrators.
3. I don't believe that David or Ambi thought of themselves as "above" the rules of the community -- rules that they are charged with interpreting and applying fairly. But the effect in this case, almost certainly without them intending it, was undoubtedly to undermine the community consensus, the other administrators, and the trust that the community has placed in them as Arbitrators. --BM 00:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that I leave a note on the talk page of every person I block under the 3RR suggesting that if they feel that the block was incorrect they can appeal to another admin or contact the mailing. In the end there is always the risk that a blocking admin will make a misstake. Some form of apeal is needed.Geni 00:37, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geni, that seems like a good procedure. I am not arguing that administrators should "close ranks" and not reverse an erroneous decision by a colleague. That would be as bad as "second-guessing" a colleague. I am saying that if an administrator assumes responsibility for a case and imposes a penalty, the only person who should soften or alter that penalty is the administrator who imposed it, UNLESS the penalty oversteps or misinterprets the rules. No administrator should end a block or shorten it (or extend it for that matter) simply because he would have imposed a lighter or heavier penalty than the person who actually determined the penalty. Administrators should respect each other's decisions, and if they can't, then one of the administrators involved is not suited to be an administrator. --BM 00:45, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I believe that this goes beyond simply the number of reverts. I believe that the manner in which Ambi acted was quite contrary to the spirit and letter of the Wikipedia rules. In particular:-

• Ambi reverted a substantial, well meant contribution. Cold reverting should be reserved for vandalism.

• Ambi did not make any contribution to the talk page until she was threatened with baning. This was despite repeated requests to do so from aberglas.

• The actual excuse for the reverting was highly dubious. Certainly the article could be improved, but to just say "everything" about the carefully researched article was bad is not valid.

I have added a summary of events to the beginning of Talk:Sydney Hilton bombing. Please look at the tone of Ambi's few contributions to the Talk page. Please also look at the aberglas's contribution that Ambi reverted -- not perfect but clearly substantial.

I also note that Ambi has indulged in this behaviour several times before. Usually the reverted users simply abandon Wikipedia.

If this sort of behaviour is sanctioned by Wikipedia Arbitrators, the Wikipedia will die.

(I am new to Wikipedia, have few friends here, and am unfamilia with procedures. I am learning far more than I ever wanted to know.)

Aberglas 03:03, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) aberglas

Vfp15 banned for being uncooperative

3.1) Vfp15 is banned for one month for failing to work cooperatively with other editors over a long period of time.

Passed 7 to 0 at 14:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Charles_Darwin-Lincoln_dispute

Vfp15 has breached the ban, which now needs to be extended a month from the date of his latest breach.

It is clear that (80.250.128.5 | talk | contributions) is User:Vfp15 from this diff [10], and that he edited wikipedia 3 times on 23Feb [11], [12] and [13]. This activity is in clear breach of the Arbcom ruling.

--Mrfixter 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All he did was blank his user page. He didn't edit Charles Darwin or any other article. I think this is a frivolous complaint, especially since his edit suggests that he's willing to comply with the ban. Rhobite 01:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that he edited at all is proof he is not willing to comply with the ban. Arbcom didn't specify no editing apart from frivolous editing, did it? --Mrfixter 01:47, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh for something's sake. If he wants to clear his userpage, let him: he's doing no harm whatsoever. Take it as a sign that he's leaving and, from the looks of it, not coming back. This vindictive tattling is just ridiculous. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vindictive tattling? Why make me feel bad about informing people about an editor violating an arbcom ruling? I thought this was the place to report users evading blocks. I should do what alberuni and his many sockpuppets did, and reported this violation on my favorite admins talkpage, eh mirv? --Mrfixter 02:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps instead you should exercise some judgment and discretion when reporting ban violations. Ask yourself: Did he try to reinsert the same old trivia into Charles Darwin? (No.) Did he show the same extraordinarily uncooperative behavior on another page? (No.) Did he vandalize articles or attack other users? (No.) Did he blank his own userpage? (Yes.) Did he harm Wikipedia or any of its users in any way by doing so? (No.) So why did you report this instead of letting it go? Do you want to see him rehabilitated into a productive, cooperative editor, or do you just want him punished some more? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel bad. That wasn't my intent - I just wanted to express my opinion that not only was his edit minor and inconsequential, it could be viewed as a show of good-faith. In many legal systems, you must prove actual damages before you can be awarded relief. I think that's a fair way to do it. There is no damage here and little indication that Vfp15 will further evade his ban, so I don't believe his ban timer should be reset. Rhobite 02:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Strawman arguments, every one. All that matters is his breaching the 1 month editing ban set out by the Arbcom. I have provided the link to the rulings and the diffs. Vfp15 was aware of the ban and chose to ignore it. What gives you the right to ignore it, Mirv? Are arbcom rulings just not enforced anymore? Vfp15 has evaded his block, no-one has disputed that, and no-one has disputed the arbcom ruling so what is going on? Where are the admins? --Mrfixter 02:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All that matters is his breaching the 1 month editing ban set out by the Arbcom.—So tell me, why is that so important? What gives you the right to ignore it, Mirv?—My judgement and discretion, which are mostly sound . . . but if you want to play wikilawyer, note that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement says "nobody is obligated to help enforce any ban", so there you go. Where are the admins?—This admin is in the Republic of Boredofpettytantrums; he imagines that others may be off in Ignoretechnicalviolationsthatdonoharm-istan. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 02:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The penalty for evading a ban is that the "ban timer" is automatically reset (no formal consideration is typically necessary). For example, if Fred is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer will be reset from four more days remaining to ten days remaining. If Fred doesn't subsequently evade his ban, he will be banned for a total of sixteen days.

Banned users are simply not authorized to edit Wikipedia.

Ho hum. Mirvs desire seems to be only to troll this valid request. I don't agree with mirvs assertion that arbcom rulings are optional, to be enforced with an air of whimsy. I am suprised to be having a talmud-style discussion with mirv of all people, but all good things must come to an end. Vfp15 ban has to still be extended. --Mrfixter 12:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ho hum. Mrfixter's desire seems to be only to get a user reblocked for making three trivial edits sometime last week. He doesn't seem to understand the purpose of banning—removing users who aren't helping with the goal of building an encyclopedia. But what do you expect from someone whose contributions to the article space consist largely of joining others' revert wars. Vfp15's ban timer is extended, but the block on his account doesn't have to be extended unless someone decides to extend it. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:03, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Government of Australia. hist

Optional: Insertion of material 17:57, 27 Feb 2005 .

• 1st revert: 18:41, 27 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:56, 27 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:21, 27 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 10:26, 28 Feb 2005

Reported by: Skyring 01:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments: At 09:15, 14 Feb 2005 I noted in the discussion page that I would be making edits to this article to bring it in line with recent changes to the Governor-General of Australia article, changes fully discussed and to which Adam was a party. Two weeks later at 17:01, 27 Feb 2005, in the absence of any discussion, I made those changes. I also noted that the republic article had changed to incorporate a new definition, one that included Australia. I therefore replaced the description of Australia as a constitutional monarchy inter alia with republic. Adam reverted this and made some other changes, which I thought strengthened the article and with which I did not disagree. However, as Australia is a constitutional monarchy, I left that in and added republic. Adam then reverted this, noting on the discussion page that he disagreed and would keep on reverting it. I gave a statement of my reasons, and added it back in. Adam has reached four rvs in 24 hours, and although we have discussed the change, Adam has merely reiterated his opinion, rather than provide any research or attempt to rebut the points I raised. Skyring 01:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Straightforward 3RR. 12 hour block. BrokenSegue 01:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The edits are that Australia is a republic. Do you want us to lose all credibility with the Australia public?!?! I'm reversing this block immediately and apologising to Adam Carr on his user page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Adam Carr was reverting a completely nonsensical edit (Australia is not yet a republic), but he still broke the 3RR. He should have recruited another editor to help him revert this erroneous edit. I haven't checked the edit history to see if it was Skyring who kept adding the material, but if so they should have been blocked for a 3RR violation. If they persist in adding untrue material, it will have to go to the ArbComm for more significant action, of course. Noel (talk) 14:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple trick, isn't it? Add crud to an article and get someone blocked for removing it. I'd suggest that this is anything but a straightforward 3RR breach and applaud TBSDY for reversing it. How would one define a body politic where the enforcement of the law to the letter is seen as more important than the establishment of the truth? I've said it before, and I'll no doubt say it again; this is a bad rule. Filiocht 14:28, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Whether it is a bad rule or not, a bad rule that is consistently enforced is better than one that is only inconsistently enforced. The rule explicitly states that you may only revert more than 4 times if the edits are obvious vandalism. User:Adam Carr should have brouhgt the issue to another persons attention rather than continue the revert war on his own. If you want to remove the rule than start a poll of some sort. Also note that I did not block for the whole 24 hours. The only way you can argue that block should be removed is if you think that Skyring's edits qualify as simple vandalism, which I think it does not. BrokenSegue 21:45, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how else I'd describe the repeated, willful addition of factually incorrect information - information that also pushes a particular POV. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest the best way forward would have been to lock the page in this case? However, I am aware that hindsight is a marvellous thing and I have signficant respect for the decision made by this administrator (even if my initial response to the block was a little strong). Admin'ing can be a tough job. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As to how to characterize the addition of the claim that Australia's a republic: this particular point is certainly a grey area, but it's also typical of the kind of edit wars we see in contentious situations. The difference here is that the truth/falsity is a little more apparent than in most of these disputes, but other than that, it's almost identical to all these others (which is also implicit in your comments about "pushing a .. POV"). I know that this whole issue of whether to be a republic or a constitutional monarchy is a very contentious one in Australia, and it may well be that the editor who's adding this claim has some genuine good-faith reason for believing it's true. It may be a grey case, but it certainly feels more like a standard content dispute than classic vandalism (which I characterize as "mindless destruction"). Noel (talk) 13:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR is quite clear. If you make four edits in a 24 hour period that can be characterized as "reverts" of the same article, then you have violated the rule and are subject to blocking. Reverts of persistent vandalism are not subject to the 3RR, but content disputes are not vandalism, and adding false information to an article in good faith is not vandalism. In the absense of some evidence to the contrary, one must assume good faith. The fact that someone won't listen to you does not mean they are operating in bad faith; it just means that you haven't been persuasive enough. It is no defense to the 3RR that the information being reverted is false. An administrator should not be expected to establish the truth or falsity of the text being reverted when applying the 3RR, and an editor should not suppose that he can engage in edit-warring, and that he can overstep the 3RR, because he is reverting edits that he considers false. If the information is indeed false, an editor should have no trouble to convince someone else of this and enlist his help in resolving the edit war. For example, he has the option of enlisting an administrator to protect the article in the state he regards as true, until the factual issue can be resolved on the Talk page. We could have a different 3RR than we have, one that would make an exception for reverting "false" information, as well as vandalism. We don't have that rule. Anybody who thinks we should have that rule instead of the one we actually have is free to propose it to the community and to try to gain consensus for it. Meanwhile, we have the 3RR that we have. Finally, an administrator should not reverse the decision of another administrator unless it is absolutely clear that the first administrator was incorrect and the situation is so urgent that there is no time for others to be consulted. In this case, BrokenSegue's interpretation of the 3RR was correct and even if TBSDY would have acted differently or had a different interpretation of the 3RR, he should not have undone the decision of another administrator, but should have sought community consensus on the correct course of action. The only thing more damaging to the community than edit wars is blocking wars between administrators, and they should be avoided at all costs, even more than edit wars. We are starting to see more blocking wars between administrators. If they continue, we should start to see administrators being desysopped. --BM 02:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For goodness sake! If this is the case, bloody well go ahead and desysop me! if we start seeing us with pages that state that Australia is a republic and people are blocked over removing such inaccurate tripe, I really will leave this project! Good grief man, my country is not a republic, as much as certain people tried to argue (disingeneously, I might add). - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see that I am being accused of adding incorrect material. Has anyone actually read the discussion? I give my reasoning and sources - Australian sovereignty resides in the people and therefore according to the Wikipedia definition (and many other definitions, such as that used by the Oxford English Dictionary), Australia is indeed a republic, despite the presence of a powerless and symbolic monarch. Adam's latest claim is to say that the Queen is the head of state, when the actual situation is that the title is not defined in any constitutional documents or High Court judgement, and the only convention cited by Adam is that the Governor-General is the effective head of state. In fact it is currently a matter of considerable debate amongst constitutional scholars, and there is no consensus. It is a contentious issue. Adam has fallen to abusing me for pointing out facts that undermine his claims and I don't find his approach to debate to be particularly productive. Skyring 08:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By that reasoning ("sovereignty resides in the people") the UK is a "republic" too - the English (later UK) Parliament has the power to remove the monarch and name a new one, and has had that power for centuries (see, for instance, the debate over Henry VIII's loyalty oath, which named Anne's children as his heirs - heck, they even had Charles I executed). But if you tried to claim that the UK is a republic, that would be silly. Technically, it's a constitutional monarchy, and the fact that Australia has a Governor-General is plenty of proof that the same is true there. So until the Australian Parliament formally changes things, and the G-G goes away, a CM it will technically remain - even though in practise it runs much as any republic would. Noel (talk) 12:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion belongs on the article's talk page not here, but in the case of the UK, Parliament is sovereign, not the people. Parliament can make changes to constitutional enactments without consulting the people, which is not the case in Australia. Also the big difference is that in the UK the executive power belongs to the monarch, whereas in Australia it is explicitly given to the Governor-General. The Queen's powers are merely the remnant prerogative powers such as legation and honours. No reserve powers. Again I make the point that using the Wikipedia definition as well as that of the Macquarie and Oxford English Dictionaries (and dozens of others), Australia is a republic. Skyring 13:00, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dang! Sorry about doubling up the page. I was only editing this bit, and I wanted to change one word, which I only noticed the instant after I hit "Save", so I grabbed aholt of it before the page had finished loading, removed my word and I must have somehow been given the whole lot when I saved it again. Told me the page was 52K long, which I thought a bit strange, but didn't investigate. Skyring 10:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Government of Australia. hist

Optional: Insertion of material 11:44, 3 Mar 2005 .

• 1st revert: 13:43, 3 Mar 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:48, 3 Mar 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:04, 3 Mar 2005
• 4th revert: 18:20, 3 Mar 2005

Reported by: Skyring 02:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments: On reading Adam's additions to the article, I noticed that they were heavily skewed towards a point of view that was not supported by informed research. In particular, I objected to Adam's contention that there was a convention that the Queen was the head of state, especially when the only convention he cited supported an opposing point of view, that Australia had two heads of state. In fact the "two heads of state" view is common amongst constitutional scholars, and few express an unequivocal view that the Queen is the one and only head of state. I replaced "matter of convention" with "matter of contention" because that is the truth - the current debate is contentious and there is no consensus. Ensuing discussion with Adam demonstrated this fact in spades. Much to my dismay Adam preferred increasingly abusive language rather than presenting any solid research. He then withdrew entirely from discussion when it became apparent that he considered his own opinion to be all that mattered. He also seems to think that having access to friends who are administrators makes him immune from the 3RR. I hadn't actually intended to pull the trigger if he had been civil and provided some checkable sources to back up his opinion, but he has withdrawn from discussion, even though he has continued to edit the article. I take this step with some reluctance after what he acknowledged (in rather juvenile terms) was good warning. Adam is an excellent writer, and I would prefer he continue to edit this article, but I must insist that opinion be labelled as such instead of being presented as fact. Skyring 02:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

4 Reverts for both (see their User_talk: pages), blocking both for 24 hours. Noel (talk) 03:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've pulled the block on User:Skyring the 4 suposed 4 reverts were an insertion followed by 3 reverts.Geni 04:17, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You think it's an "insertion" (which it isn't, Skyring changed one word, moving the article back toward his POV - and then entered a mendacious edit description), I think it's a revert. As for blocking both, it takes two to tango. Since they are both involved in the edit war, as far as I'm concerned, they either both get blocked, or neither. I have pulled my block on Adam Carr. Noel (talk) 04:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it was a change, but it was an insert. The word "contention" did not exist beforehand. It is a matter of fact that the question of who is head of state is contentious. For one thing, that's what Adam and I are debating, it's a matter of dispute in the wider community and it is especially a matter of vicious academic debate amongst constitutional scholars. As is apparent from the talk page, Adam and I were discussing the matter well past the time when I could have reported him, but when he became abusive and withdrew from the discussion I gave him a good twelve hours before I assumed that he wasn't intending to discuss the matter any further and reported him. Ironically, while I was cutting and pasting, he joined back in, but I didn't notice until too late. Skyring 05:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We do not have the power to block for edit waring without a mandate from arbcom. Making 4 POV edits is not the same as reverting 4 times (and it doesn't matter how much you streach the whole complex revert thing it doesn't apply in this case. If you feel that an edit war has overheated page protection maybe in order (although as I have stated before I prefer the everyones gotta sleep sometime aproachGeni 04:54, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. I have reported Adam twice for clear breaches of the 3RR. The first time he was blocked for 12 hours and quickly unblocked by TBSDY. The second time he was blocked for 24 hours, and I was included despite not having breached the 3RR. Both of us were speedily unblocked. In the process, I cop considerable abuse from Adam:

• “If you carry on with your carping bullshit I will retract it and we can go back to trench warfare.” 06:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “You just can't help yourself with your childish and stupid insults, can you?” 02:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “As I expected, your flippant, fatuous, dishonest and generally pathetic answers to my questions demonstrate the pointlessness of debating this question with you further.” 07:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “It is a stupid, flippant and fatuous answer, and typical of your conceited arrogance.” 08:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• “Gee, I try to be conciliatory and all I get is more of your obfuscatory crap.” 10:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As may be readily seen from the discussion page I have consistently provided checkable sources, demonstrated Adam's logic to be incorrect, and refrained from retaliating in kind. Adam makes up material to suit himself, distorts what is presented and rarely produces anything in the way of checkable sources. When I show that he is incorrect, he ignores me. I don't mind talking things out, but I can do without the abuse when I am doing my honest best to provide solid, well-researched material. Skyring 18:51, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Terri Schiavo. hist

• 1st revert: 01:08, Feb 27, 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:26, Feb 27, 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:07, Feb 27, 2005
• 4th revert: 00:21, Feb 28, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 05:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• All times EST. NCdave accuses nearly every other editor of vandalism or sabotage. Rhobite 05:32, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

problem is that first revert is close to the boarder between reveting extream POV and vanderlism. Oh well user blocked for 24 hoursGeni 05:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts I've removed it the user appears to be pretty new and the history shows some efforts to collabirate on the article. I have warned the user and any future violations will result in a blockGeni 05:54, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ignorance of the three revert rule is not an excuse, especially for such an obnoxious user. There's no question that NCdave has violated the rule: He inserted all those POV links yesterday [14]. His first revert was not fixing vandalism, or even POV - the version he was reverting from was itself a revert to JYolkowski's version from 15:51, Feb 26, 2005. [15] Some quotes from NCdave on Talk:Terri Schiavo: "Many here wrongly think she has the IQ of a carrot stick. So they think that anyone who wants to prevent her death is crazy -- and SOME of those people keep vandalizing the wikipedia article, and deleting the information that doesn't match their prejudices". "Once again the supporters of finishing off poor Terri have vandalized the article". "Maybe I shouldn't be surprised that people with such hard hearts that they want to bump off a harmless handicapped woman, also are not above trashing an article to promote their POV". Rhobite 06:03, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

User behaviour is a matter for arbcom. There is a lot of preserdence for not blocking users who are ignorant of the 3RR. The user is new. There are no mentions on talki pages or edit summeries of the 3RR. If you can find any I will of course block the user.Geni 06:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm new, but I had heard of the 3RR rule. However, I got confused by the time zone difference, and undid some vandalism 47 minutes before the 24 hours was up. However, I've just now actually read the 3RR rule, and I see that there is an exception for undoing simple vandalism. In this case advocates for a particular POV keep DELETING large amounts of information from the article, including most of the references. They don't discuss it on the talk page, they just delete it. Isn't that vandalism? Here's an example, showing vandalism that I reverted. Don't you agree that this is simple vandalism, the reversion of which should fall under the exception? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=10634764&oldid=10632744

As for Rhobite, well he just makes stuff up. On the discussion page I complained about these people deleting all those references, and he replied that it was because "link descriptions you used were unacceptably biased ('pro-death')". But I didn't. I never put such a description on any link or reference. He just made it up. Likewise, he now says that I "accuses nearly every other editor of vandalism or sabotage." But that is an exaggeration. When people DELETE factual information, I call it vandalism, because that's what it is. But when there are disagreements over changes that are made in good faith I discuss them on the Talk page. On the other hand, I've been repeatedly accused of "vandalism" for ADDING well-supported information and references that were missing from the article. For example, the first of my 4 reverts was in response to an anonymous revert to delete this entire body of work, over four successive revisions, which I had done to improve the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terri_Schiavo&diff=10604498&oldid=10600605. That work added considerable information (including facts "favorable" to BOTH sides in this fight), corrected factual errors, and added links to many very useful references. But here's how the anonymous person described the change which undid it all: "(rv severe vandalism, should be reverted further soon)". Of course, Rhobite didn't complain about THAT person's poor manners, in calling me a vandal. That's all that anonymous user did: he removed all my work. Surely THAT also qualifies as "simple vandalism," which should not count toward the 3RR limit. But look how Rhobite described it to you, in his attempt to get me blocked:

His first revert was not fixing vandalism, or even POV - the version he was reverting from was itself a revert to JYolkowski's version from 15:51, Feb 26, 2005. [16]

Yes, I was undoing a revert. But the revert that I was undoing simple vandalism, and Rhobite just plain lied about it to try to get me blocked. NCdave 08:39, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, Jeebus Cripes. You're a bit paranoid, and not everyone is out to get you. If you stopped making the editing of the Terri Schiavo article a moral dilemma and just state the facts in an NPOV manner, maybe you wouldn't have been reported here. Mike H 08:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rhobite is "everyone?" He's the only one who accused me of a 3RR violation (and lied to support his accusation). As for the rest of your complaint, it doesn't even make any sense to me -- I haven't made anything into any kind of dilemma. Making an accurate, NPOV article is exactly what I've been trying to do. Maybe you need some coffee. Then click on those two "compare" links and tell me whether you disagree with me that the first of them was simple vandalism, and that removing all the changes in the second of them was also simple vandalism. Since I was reverting simple vandalism, I didn't violate the 3RR.NCdave 09:48, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That claim (that you were reverting "simple vandalism") is utter, complete, absolute balderdash. You will find vandalism defined quite well on Wikipedia:Vandalism. What you are engaged in is a rancorous content over dispute, which is something quite different. Please do not abuse our intelligence by making such claims ever again. Noel (talk) 13:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, after reading the Wiki entry for "vandalism," I stand corrected. Since the real-life definition of vandalism is malicious destruction, I assumed that the Wiki definition would be similar, and that massive deletion of content would surely qualify. But it doesn't. Wiki's definition is something quite different.NCdave 19:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In POV disputes, one person's "malicious destruction" is another person's 'removal of factually incorrect propoganda', though, eh? What I found particularly trying was that the instructions at the time you added your assertion of vandalism clearly linked to the Wikipedia definition, but you seem not to have gone to check it out. (Lots of people seem to have this problem, though, which is why such claims make me rather cranky.) Noel (talk) 13:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consensus on VfD was to delete Index of topics in alternative medicine despite John Gohde's objections. The article cannot be deleted because of the bit compression bug, so it is currently redirected to List of terms and concepts used in alternative medicine. John Gohde reverted the redirect, I re-reverted it and protected the page. John Gohde then placed the following threat on my Talk page:

The index was deleted for bogus reasons.

Either the original index will be restored, or I will simply add a totally brand new index since Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and style guides state point blank that Lists are NOT redundant because of your stupid categories, that are just plain, wrong, incomplete, confusing, and next to impossible to use. Wikipedia, by current vfd on the Buddha Index is total farce.

I also have a private dictionary on alternative medicine on my website which happens to very be public. Wikipedia just likes to trash alternative medicine which happens to be used by half the planet while writing tons of trash articles like tampons. You people without a life don't even realize that dozens and dozens of web sites are selling advertisement on mirror copies of Wikipedia.

STOP trashing the perfectly valid topic of alternative medicine.

I want this index restored. -- John Gohde 06:53, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a threat. If he attempts this, I will block him. RickK 06:59, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Has it been determined that John Gohde is Mr. Natural Health? And what is the status of Mr. Natural Health's right to edit alternative medicine articles? RickK 05:25, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

He has not tried to hide the fact that he is MNH. He is banned from editing iridology and its talk page, but is otherwise unrestricted. [17] —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please close off Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Jesus, pre-4th century Christianity, and syncretism? It's been eight days now, and I can't close it off as I brought it and am too involved in the VfD. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:08, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. dbenbenn | talk 14:31, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you all—User:Spingo moved Wikipedia:RC patrol to Wikipedia:Pelican shit patrol which I moved back and nominated the redirect for deletion. But then he moved Wikipedia:Pages needing attention to Wikipedia:Pages needing pelican shit links. I moved it back but he moved it again before I could change the redirect; now it looks like he copied-and-pasted the original article back onto Pages needing attention, so I can't move the p.s. version back. That one has all the history. I think that an administrator will have to move it back before people start editing the history-less version at Wikipedia:Pages needing attention. If I've misunderstood something please let me know. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Update: looks like Slowking Man deleted the p.s. links version as vandalism; can it be undeleted to restore the edit history, then moved back to Pages needing attention? I'll leave him a message too. If I'm horribly mistaken let me know. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:22, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is weird. Wikipedia:Pages needing pelican shit links has only one revision in history, and that's the redirect. Wikipedia:Pages needing attention only has the move in history. Where'd the history go? --Slowking Man 08:37, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I needed to clear my cache, that's all. The history's there. --Slowking Man 08:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks—sorry about that. I had tried clearing my cache but maybe the database hadn't updated yet or however it works, or I just didn't clear properly. Thanks for your help. — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 08:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on United Kingdom. hist

• 1st revert: 01:41, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 2nd revert: 02:58, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 3rd revert: 03:54, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)
• 4th revert: 04:08, 28 Feb 2005 (PST)

Reported by: Jiang 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I would like another administrator to hand down the punishment because I am a participant of this dispute. I am being mass reverted without explanation by User:Heimdal. I made my position clear on Talk:United Kingdom#Politics. He refuses to respond, despite requests on his talk page, calling my edits "vandalism" and posting in the edit summary, "Jiang, I think you just need to accept that it's not up to you to decide how an article should look like". All my edits to that page are just being mass reverted with no further explanation. I have already warned him of this rule on his talk page after the third revert. --Jiang 12:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:36, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on History of Russia. hist

Optional: Insertion of material [diff_link_here date_time_stamp_here].

• 1st revert: 13:10, 27 Feb 2005
• 2nd revert: 08:59, 28 Feb 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:19, 28 Feb 2005
• 4th revert: 09:54, 28 Feb 2005
• 5th revert, not technically a revert but a compounding bad faith edit: 10:04, 28 Feb 2005

His last edit summary was also bad faith, I quote it here "replacing this with Silverback's orginal research linking migraiton laws to "captive markets" " He said "replacing", when his edit bears little resemblence to any of my edits.

Reported by: --Silverback 17:29, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I might be missing something, but the first diff you've given seems unrelated to the later edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is unrelated, but it is a revert to the same identical version, and the edit reverted was not obviously vandalism. However, if you don't think this qualifies, I will defer to your judgement. --Silverback 18:06, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see 172 reverting "emigration was aggressively suppressed" and "captive workforce" 4 times, in the last 4 edits. Do others see this as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see it (this is why I normaly look at the history and compare the users versions rather than just looking at the difs which are only any use in a simple case. User blocked for 24 hoursGeni 20:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There was a mistake, so I unblocked myself. There were four edits but only three reverts. The fourth edit was a modification of the text. (I am allowed to edit the article. I wrote almost the whole damn thing, which required dozens of revisions on my own text, after all.) 172 23:37, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself like that is a significant protocol violation. You should have told someone else to unblock you. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:41, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

There was no mistake. Your first revet was at 20:10, 27 Feb 2005 the second at 15:59, 28 Feb 2005 the third at 16:19, 28 Feb 2005 and the fourth at 16:54, 28 Feb 2005. That is four reverts in 24 hours. I have reblocked you for Geni 01:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Support block, these are 4 (5) reverts. 172, please do not unblock yourself, but wait 24 hours before further editing. Below is an excerpt from the block log (which seems to show all (un)blocks three times), with 172 unblocking himself at least three four five times.

• 20:44, Feb 28, 2005 Geni blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• 22:42, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (I did not violate the 3RR. The fourth edit was merely an alteration of the text.)
• 22:43, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Unblocking yourself is verboten.)
• 22:47, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Feel free to get somebody to look at the page history. I'm just saying, don't unblock yourself.)
• 22:49, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (Well, blocking a user for no reason who did not violate the 3RR is forbidden as well. Take a look at the page history.)
• 22:54, Feb 28, 2005 Snowspinner blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (I don't care about the article. Get someone else to unblock you. Don't do it yourself. This is not a hard concept.)
• 23:20, Feb 28, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (Listen, I am busy, and I have to post something on talk. Quit playing games with me. I did not break the 3RR and should not have been blocked.)
• 01:39, Mar 1, 2005 Geni blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR)
• 12:03, Mar 1, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (no violation of the 3RR)
• 12:27, Mar 1, 2005 Chris 73 blocked "User:172" with an expiry time of 24 hours (multiple admins see this as a 3RR. Please do not unblock yourself!)
• 12:41, Mar 1, 2005 172 unblocked User:172 (They did not look at the content of the last edit, just the edit summary. Now quit wasting my time. I have one reply to make on talk, then I will go away.)

Chris 73 Talk 02:01, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

• There doesn't appear to be any mistake here. The four edits listed above are all reverts. Three of them are rollbacks - clearly reverts. The fourth (11:19, Feb 28, 2005, "This article is not a random grab-bag") is easily verifiable as a revert to 172's previous version from 10:59, Feb 28, 2005. 172, I think you should look over the diffs again. Rhobite 03:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do not just read the edit summary. Compare the page histories and look at the content of the edits. It was an attempt to find some middle ground. There was clearly no fourth revert. Now will you people find something better to do than focus on this pissing contest on History of Russia (like the content of the dispute)? 172 12:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Excessive reverts - "Sysops blocked under this provision must not unblock themselves."

• I would support anyone who would like to enforce a longer block for 172's repeated violations of this provision. If he unblock's himself again, I suggest an RFC certified by all the blocking admins. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

He's already got a longer block. When I reblocked him the clock was resetGeni 05:44, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did 172 protect Global warming while he was blocked? Strangely Global warming has been protected after a Stirling Newberry revert, however, 172 does not appear on the page history, yet he appears in the protection log. Is this he? This is a reimposition of a previous protect that was never needed. Stangely 172 seems to be asking to be banned, perhaps he no longer wants to participate in wikipedia or has a sockpuppet lined up?--Silverback 07:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admins functions are not dissabled when an admin is blocked as such they can still be used. I would suggest that any further disscussion be taken to incerdents.Geni 07:34, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172 unblocked himself again. I blocked him again, since multiple admins see this as a 3RR, and so far nobody except 172 disputed that. -- Chris 73 Talk 12:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

So far no one else has bothered to exercise his responsibilities in a competent manner, that's way. Admins are also supposed to compare the page histories to examine the actual content of the edit, in order to see if it is actually a revert. This does not appear to have been done in this case. This was the fourth edit [18], an attempt to find some sort of middle ground. 172 13:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An update: Dbachmann has joined me in actually taking a look at the edits. See these comments on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents:

I looked into it, briefly, and it would seem that 172 was blocked for 3RRvio for edits to History of Russia. They were all reverts, but three were dealing with Napoleon and one with Stalin. So, as far as I understand, they are not four reverts, since one is unrelated with the other three. What's more, the first "revert" is not part of any edit war, but simply a factual correction of an anon edit [19]. The reoport of 3RRvio seems in bad faith to me, in the light of this. Protection of Global warming, which is pretty much unrelated with the history of Russia, is technically not a violation of the block, but blocked or unlocked, involved admins should not protect the pages themselves, but rather refer to WP:RFP. I would recommend that the page is unprotected, and if necessary relisted on RfP, after which the page can be re-protected by an uninvolved admin, if the request looks reasonable. (i.e. if a couple of people support the protection, I will protect it blindly, after waiting an unspecified time, without looking at the present version) dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172 13:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This edit [20] may or may not have been a revert, but [21], [22], [23], and [24] are four reverts within 24 hours. This is also regardless of which section was reverted. You have violated the 3RR, and should be blocked for 24 hours. Unblocking yourself is a most unappropriate action for an admin! -- Chris 73 Talk 13:21, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

look, 172 was edit-warring, and courting with the 3RR. The "may or may not have been a revert" edit is questionable, and therefore the block is arguable. Of course 172 should not unblock himself, but as long as he is only unblocking himself to state his case here (and not continuing any edit wars), he does not do much harm. The "first revert" of 20:10, 27 Feb 2005 on the other hand, that everybody keeps pointing to, is bullshit. I mean, the pointing is, not the edit itself. It is a completely unrelated, non-edit-warring, useful revert of an incorrect anon edit. If you want to argue 172's block, use the other 3.5 reverts, but not this one, otherwise your argument appears flawed and in bad faith. I will not unblock 172 because I have no wish to start a blocking war, and because I feel the four Napoleon-related edits can be argued to constitute a 3RRvio. My personal opinion is that 172 should just sit out his block, in contrition or in anger, and be back tomorrow, instead of causing further complications over at Global warming, but also that the 3RR rule is being abused as a tool for (instead of against) edit warring by the people reporting 172. dab (ᛏ) 13:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a bit disappointed that so many admins fell for Silverback's trick of reporting an earlier revert of an incorrect anon edit 13:10, 27 Feb 2005 as a part of the emigration edit war. The fourth emigration-related edit was also clearly no reversion, but rather an attempt to compromise and find some middle ground. Apparently, no one has objected to my compromise; it has not been reverted or even questioned on talk so far. BTW, I have no intention to sit out anything; I make no apologies for removing original research b.s. from a featured article repeatedly. After all, if we had as many contributors ensuring quality in our history articles as we have admins frantically patrolling this page (perhaps because they get off on playing policeman?), I wouldn't have had to make all the reversions myself. It's too bad that the impulse to write useful encyclopedia articles is not as strong as the one behind the fetishization and ritualization of the Wiki rules. 172 14:33, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing in the three revert rule about factual corrections. Since your "factual corrrection" did not include a source to back it up I have no reason even to think it is such particularly since you used the roleback button rather than manualy reverting which has the advantage of allowing you to leave an edit comment (and according to the Napoléon I of France article about half a million men did go missing whst killed them I don't know but hundreads of thousands is certianly an posible loss). You don't have to make all the revisions yourself you call for help. You presumerbly know the articles there must be at least one person you can call on to help (heck if all else fails throw it at the incerdents notice board). For ther record there are 2 maybe three people who watch this board. Long delays after 3RR requests are not popular and are not fair on either side. Finaly you have repeatedly accused me of not cheacking the diffs. I did and the history and I did direct comaprisons of your versions (there were four identicle ones). I have delt with a lot of accusations. Mostly true but enough false ones to keep me on my toes. I always check please do not accuse me of doing otherwise.Geni 18:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was no trick, I had already come to this page before even noticing the earlier revert. I have now corrected your "compromise", somehow you misinterpreted the fact that I did not immediately leap upon the opportunity presented by your being blocked as a failure to object. Your compromise was in bad faith, and I objected to it in those very words when reporting your behavior above. I thought it would be unseemly to take advantage of your being blocked. I see my courtesy was wasted on you.--Silverback 17:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with you 172, and you will note I did not "fall" for Silverback, but that I condemn the bad-faith reporting of this '1st revert'. I do not think however that I am fetishizing WP rules so much than pointing out that any admin unblocking himself, rightly or wrongly, is going to expose himself to criticism. dab (ᛏ) 14:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That first revert was not bad faith, I see nothing in the definition which indicates why that revert, which was not of mere vandalism, did not count. I have always held that interpretation. Are you claiming the rule allows three reverts to the same version, in "each" edit war on a page you are involved in?--Silverback 17:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I should've been clearer, but I wasn't referring to you. I just wanted to avoid naming any names. Thanks for actually bothering to take a look at the edits. 172 15:03, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is also where you acknowledge that it was poor form to unblock yourself and that in the future you'll ask someone else to do it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I needed to post a note explaining why personal theories/original research should be kept out of History of Russia-- a featured article. But I was running short of time, lacking the time to wait for someone else to correct the mistake (i.e. the block on my account). Maintaining high standards on an FA is especially pressing, as impressions of Wiki's credibility will be based heavily on it, and that weighed into my decision. Even so, I now regret being in a situation in which I'd decided to unblock myself, and, seeing the unnecessary hassle now, will not do so again in the future... It's now clear enough that the fetish cult around the rules has grown stronger than the impulse behind writing good articles; in the future I will better work around that reality, or not contribute to Wikipedia at all. 172 19:54, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This could all have been avoidable if the involved parties stopped to talk instead of waging a rv war. A thought to consider: perhaps we should introcuce some obligatory dispute lessons for 3RR reverters. Seriously, 172, time is not the isssue here. Quick rv may be good against an anon vandal or n00bie, but they rarely lead to solution when dealing with a normal wikipedian who is - rightly or wrongly - certain of the correctness of his edit. I was dissapointed when Polish-Soviet War was protected because our dispute for over 2 weeks, but we managed to solve this via talk and vastly improved the article in the process. Try to draw a lesson from that. On other note, unblocking oneself sounds wrong to me, in case of unjust block, there is an IRC channel usually full of admins who should be able to judge the matter and unblock one quickly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is this about running out of time? Wikipedia is not a multiplayer game, it's not a time-critical affair. If something needs to be done, it'll wait until tomorrow, or most likely someone else will do it if it urgently needs to be done. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shame on you all, for stooping to this level. A blocking war amoungst admins, phooey! I've de-sysoped the lot of you:

• Geni
• 172
• Snowspinner
• Chris 73

I'm bringing this to the board for approval, or possible de-sysopping of my own account (see where I have placed myself on report. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:47, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Probably a bit overkill, but I appreciate the noble impulse. Somebody needed to inject some commonsense into this ridiculous situation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:08, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RickK insists on banning numerous IP addresses of supposed vandals, and in the process is effectively banning any legitimate user who happens to logon with the same IP. I was unable to ask that he desist for the last few days, and when I did he removed it from his talk page and declined to apologise or justify his actions. Trampled 23:50, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

RickK does far more than his fair share of vandal blocking, which means that he gets more than his fair share of complaints. Many of these complaints, from the vandals he blocks, are both unjustified and abusive. Your first message to him was justified, but it was harshly worded ("recklessly" was probably not the right word to use) and may have been dismissed as just another angry vandal. If you do find yourself blocked due to sharing an IP address with a vandal, e-mail an active sysop through the Wikipedia mail function. You can find a complete list at Special:Listadmins, and at least one of them has e-mail turned on. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:01, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So basically he can ban any IP he wants, and we just have to deal with it? Trampled 09:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

no, he is only supposed to block IPs which are the source of vandalism, and in cases of dialup IPs only for a short time (like 30 minutes). If his blocking pattern significantly deviates from this, you may collect evidence and file an RfC, but if it is only a matter of a few isolated cases, it would be better to talk to him directly and point out that his block caused collateral damage, or if he does not react, mail another sysop to have the IP unblocked. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And polite requests work considerably better than outraged rants. RickK 23:38, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I guess "Please stop banning users recklessly" qualifies as an outraged rant Trampled 17:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Nagorno-Karabakh. hist

Was a Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, looked into the matter, and it seems that Rovoam violated the 3RR, removing the disputed tag (and other stuff) 4 times in 24 hours. I am not sure if the user knows the 3RR, but he should not remove a disputed tag in an edit war.

• 1st revert: 23:14, Feb 28, 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:45, Feb 28, 2005
• 3rd revert: 08:04, Feb 28, 2005
• 4th revert: 06:35, Feb 28, 2005

Reported by: Chris 73 Talk 09:24, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hoursGeni 11:36, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

user uses IP adresses for block evasion (User:64.136.27.228 and User:24.24.146.206). -- Chris 73 Talk 13:11, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Did 172 protect Global warming while he was blocked? Strangely Global warming has been protected after a Stirling Newberry revert, however, 172 does not appear on the page history, yet he appears in the protection log (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/protect). Is this he? This is a reimposition of a previous protect that was never needed. Stangely 172 seems to be asking to be banned, perhaps he no longer wants to participate in wikipedia or has a sockpuppet lined up?--Silverback 09:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Admins can (un)protect/block & rollback (& delete?) while being blocked. This is normal, and allowed, as long as they do not edit the page that caused them to be blocked. -- Chris 73 Talk 09:49, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

it should not be "normal" that admins exhibit blockable behaviour in the first place, and any admin who finds him/herself blocked should imho use the time for some introspection. dab (ᛏ) 10:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One possible interpretation of this protect is retribution for my reporting of the violations which got him blocked, which he obviously resented since he unblocked himself several times.--Silverback 11:26, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

dab past experiance suggests the odds of that happening are pretty much zilch. Silverback I suspect he was objecting because he didn't relise how he had broken the 3RRGeni 11:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I looked into it, briefly, and it would seem that 172 was blocked for 3RRvio for edits to History of Russia. They were all reverts, but three were dealing with Napoleon and one with Stalin. So, as far as I understand, they are not four reverts, since one is unrelated with the other three. What's more, the first "revert" is not part of any edit war, but simply a factual correction of an anon edit [25]. The reoport of 3RRvio seems in bad faith to me, in the light of this. Protection of Global warming, which is pretty much unrelated with the history of Russia, is technically not a violation of the block, but blocked or unlocked, involved admins should not protect the pages themselves, but rather refer to WP:RFP. I would recommend that the page is unprotected, and if necessary relisted on RfP, after which the page can be re-protected by an uninvolved admin, if the request looks reasonable. (i.e. if a couple of people support the protection, I will protect it blindly, after waiting an unspecified time, without looking at the present version) dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR states that one should not revert a page more than 3 times in a day. It is not intended to be limited to only reverts of some specific piece of information or section. It is per page. -- Netoholic @ 15:51, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

that's true, and one reason I didn't unblock 172. Still, if you look at the revert, you will see that it was a very minor thing, uncontroversial, and half a day before the controversial reverts started. I would guess that 172 had simply forgotten the first revert, and it as best guilty of violation of the 3RR in the letter, not the spirit (while his '3.5th' revert may be a violation of the spirit, not the letter, so that arguably the five edits taken together amount to 4.0 reverts :o) dab (ᛏ) 16:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not so simple; it depends on how you define "revert". Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't the point of the 3RR to set an absolute threshold? Are you allowed three reverts, or are three reverts the absolute most that will be tolerated? I think arguments about whether a fourth revert was a revert or not are ridiculous - especially for an admin. Something like that might be tolerated for someone new to Wikipedia - experienced users should not be allowed three reverts. Two is plenty, except for vandalism, and there's no limit on reverts of vandalism. If you choose to break the rule, deal with the consequences like an adult. Simple enough. Guettarda 16:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is bad reverting twice is worse reverting three times is very bad reverting four times is not considered acceptible by the wikipedia community. An extreamly large vote has established this. BTW I find people talking about the spirit of the three revert rule with respect to mercy ironic. Dig back through the 3RR arcives to find out what has in the past been justified under that nameGeni 18:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please further note that:-

• There was no request for page protection made;
• User:172 protected the page less than five minutes after a User:Stirling Newberry revert;
• There was no 'protected' tag added to the page;
• The page wasn't added to the list of protected pages.

And: all of the above has happened twice now. Regardless of 172's blocked status, this smacks of collusion, and disregard for all procedure. Alai 16:23, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 18:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)) 172 appears to me to have abused his admin powers in protecting the global warming page. His protects, in both cases, occurred only 5 and 2 minutes after Stirling Newberrys version was reverted. This is too short to be coincidence

I would advise you to file an RFC this conflict has moved beyond the scope of what should be handled by this boardGeni 18:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me if this seems impertinent, but can anyone provide me with the RFC against this administrator before they got desysoped? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:11, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

172's admin powers are currently intact. There is currently a Request for abitration against himGeni 00:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have de-sysopped Geni, 172, Snowspinner, and Chris 73 because they indulged in a blocking war. All these power plays do is distract from the real issue: writing neutral and accurate articles. If they need help, they should ask for it, instead of taking matters into their own hands.

And yes *sigh* I know this is a two-edged sword that applies to myself as well. So I'm placing myself on report, and requesting the arbcom to review my actions. While I await the board's decision, I shall abstain from editing any articles. I'm confining myself to talk pages, as a sort of limited "house arrest" to show good faith. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 18:43, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

wow. I mean, OK! 172 has violated the 3RR, I'll stop defending him now. But de-sysopping, without even an RfC filed? I do think Ed is acting in best faith, and this may indeed set a precedent to considering sysophood as "no big deal" cutting both ways: If complaints come up, let them go through RfA to see if they still have the community's support. But I would still want to hear a few arbcom (and community!) members on this. Would now be the time to export the whole thing from here to WP:RFC? dab (ᛏ) 19:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's already gone to the arbcom. This was completely out of line of Ed, and in no way a part of the powers vested in him as a beauracrat. Snowspinner 19:29, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm it would appear that blocking an arcom member for a 3RR violation may not have been a good ideaGeni 19:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC

Nah, that doesn't seem to have played into it. Snowspinner 19:48, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

It came to my understanding that Ed just unsysoped 4 people on the english wikipedia.

This is not correct. Whatever the reason why he did it (rules for desysoping are not my concern), Ed was not allowed to do it.

First : desysoping should only be done by stewards, and only under strict community approval. In this case, Ed is not steward, so is not allowed to do so.

Second : Ed removed the status with his developer flag, directly in the database. This is again incorrect. Developers should not remove status to editors, unless there is an urgency. And given the names of the people unsysoped, I do not think there was an urgency.

Third : Jamesday indicated me that Ed is not a developer. Him having developer flag is a residue of old times (ah :-)). We try to give developer flag only to developers.

For all these reasons, I asked JamesDay to remove Ed developer flag. Consider it technical cleanup. Ed, I love you very much, you know that do you ? But you are not really a developer, and definitly not a steward. I am sorry Ed.

I also asked JamesDay to restore sysop status to the 4 editors. It is to the community to decide if there is a reason to unsysop them or not. I stay involved here :)

Wikilove to all

Anthere 19:58, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That answers the questions I raised on Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats and m:Talk:Bureaucrat. Thanks. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:12, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

eh, anticipation ;-) You are welcome. Anthere

I understand that Ed's action was not intended to revert community opinion on who should be an admin, but as a temporary measure to defuse a situation that was getting out of hand, pending an arbcom temporary incunction. That does not answer all points raised by Anthere, but I do think considering it makes for a different outlook. dab (ᛏ) 21:17, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I hadn't touched the situation in 24 hours. Snowspinner 21:27, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sisterly love, Anthere. I agree completely with your 1st and 3rd points, as well as your conclusion. I restored sysop status myself, as the log shows.

Dab, you are also right: I meant my action purely as a means of defusing a blocking war. I had nothing permanent in mind, which is why I immediately placed myself on report; Snowspinner beat me to the correct noticeboard only by a matter of minutes (I would have started an RFA on myself if he hadn't). I WANTED comments, and got them.

I was unconsciously aligning myself with a conversation Raul and Snowspinner had about "shooting first and asking questions afterwards". And the situation was "exigent" (as Cecropia put it), if not an "emergency" (as Fred said on the mailing list).

Look, I gotta go, but no doubt this can all be cleared up tomorrow. No permanent damage done, and maybe some good will come out of this. Sorry if I upset anyone. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 22:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

nod, there is an oddity with regards to point 2. We'll try to fix that asap Ed. Thanks a lot for telling us. Anthere 05:03, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As an temp-desysopped admin, i (naturally) think the desysopping was out of line. However, I can also see that Ed Poor was just trying to stop a block war, and that the desysopping was only temporarily. I blocked 172 only once, and had no intention of blocking 172 again. However i still think a block was justified. A regular non-admin user most likely would have to sit out his block, and we should not treat admins differently. Hence I think it was quite wrong for 172 to unblock himself, let alone five times. Additionally, 172 was on revert parole from his Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/172. I'll keep an eye on the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration about the latest events. To Ed: Next time please think first before shooting. Contacting admins on their talk page also works. While I believe you had good intentions, I think you should not have done this. Please do not do such stunts again, and maybe remove your developer status if you are no longer a developer. Also, why did you just set your rights to (=sysop, steward, developer)? You are not listed on meta:Stewards, and Anthere says above that you are definitely not a steward. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:51, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Why did you desysop User:RickK for 5 minutes on Jan 20, 2005? (Log)-- Chris 73 Talk 06:01, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Oy. Is that true? Yeah, I'd like to know the answer to that question. This is the first I've heard of this. RickK 06:32, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I predict that your shenanigans (especially wasting the arbitrators' valuable time) will have taken more time away from writing neutral and accurate articles than the block/unblock war in the first place. Think again next time you want to do something like this. silsor 06:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about the other admins, but 172 was definitely abusing his admin priviledge, and gaming the legubriously slow arb process. Given that sysop powers are just a priviledge and opportunity to serve, desysopping is much less serious than blocking someone from editing. admins should not think their priviledges make them more important than anybody else.--Silverback 08:26, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some answers:

1. Thanks to Anthere for sheparding all the communication about this.
2. Sorry, Chris, I was indeed out of line. It won't happen again.
3. I set my 'rights' only to test the software (as discussed with JamesDay, Jimbo, Brion, et al.)
4. Rick, that was just a test (someone egged me on to it). Nothing personal, okay?

A related question:

• What's the best way to govern a frontier town with 415 deputy sheriffs and no marshalls? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Consensus? <bang!> -- ALoan (Talk) 01:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The following was posted by the undersigned to Wikipedia talk:List of administrators. Since s/he posted these concerns to the List of Administrators talk page, I assume s/he is trying to contact administrators in particular. That is why I am copying it here rather than the Village Pump or similar page. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 22:02, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

I assume you mean "the person who signed at the bottom", right, since technically "undersigned" means you... :-) Noel (talk) 19:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that if you are Turk you are allowed to do unlimited reverts (just because vandalism is the Turkish natural behavior?!), but everybody else need to learn how to become a Turk. And Wikipedia will soon become a Turkipedia.

No more Assiryan, Greek, Persian or Armenian subjects could be freely posted without approval from Turkic people. The principle of NPOV is now called TPOV (Turkish Point of View).

Just two examples: Talk:Safavids and Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh. I have to admit: Turkic people (User:Tabib, User:Cantus, etc.) are well organized. They have a lot of energy to promote their myths and propaganda. Seems, that they now have their own people among Administrators too. They are not as naïve as the rest of us. They are acting rude, but they win in each and every discussion! Too many of them, and just few of us...

As a result, the famous Persian poet Nizami became a Turkish poet, Troy became an ancient Turkish city, and so on and so on, and, finally, Wikipedia became a Turkipedia, The Free (Turkish) Encyclopedia on-line!

I feel, I have to get out of here... and better cancel my check, which I mailed-in for fund rising, if it is not too late…

66.53.55.53 21:31, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason to keep what appears to be an anonymous, racist diatribe posted here? Can't we just delete this section? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:14, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Not really. I figured I'd let it sit for a day or so, and then archive it; I was planning to move it out of here tonight. Their complaints are not totally without merit, BTW - Nizami is usually thought of as a Persian poet, the people of Troy were not Turkish (the Turkic people arrived in Turkey from Central Asia many millenia later), etc. Noel (talk)

it's one thing to say that Turkish nationalists are lurking around on WP. It's another thing to say, as here, that we are endorsing them, or that we are them. Where on Nezami is it claimed he was Turkish? There were edits to that effect by some vandalism-nationalism-borderline-anon, and they were justly reverted. Troy is in the category Geography of Turkey because the bloody site is in bloody Turkey. Nothing to see here, really. dab (ᛏ) 12:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on Nagorno-Karabakh.

• 1st revert:14:14, 27 Feb 2005 Tabib
• 2nd revert:09:52, 28 Feb 2005 Tabib
• 3rd revert:06:37, 1 Mar 2005 Tabib
• 4th revert:11:15, 1 Mar 2005 Tabib
• 5th revert:14:14, 12:02, 1 Mar 2005 Tabib

This is to prove my point. Wikipedia ia now Turkipedia. The NPOV concept is now called TPOV (Turkish Point Of View).

Reported by: 66.53.212.49 23:10, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For record: This is the vandal of Nagorno-Karabakh page who left similar senseless comments in Nagorno-Karabakh talkpage too. Please, see his latest vandalism here. This is the comment he left in edit suummary when vandalizing the page: "I like this war. Let's see if by blocking each IP address you improve Wiki Statistics. I have a big list of public Proxy servers available. It's going to be fun! I may do this on other articles too!". I think no further comments needed... --Tabib 15:49, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I blocked a proxy some time ago and I recently recieved an email from a user saying that (s)he (now using the user account User:apowell42) uses that IP as their personal adress. I unblocked it provisionally. The IP was used by Fvw (when he was doing that proxy blocking stuff) on Feburary 5th (not too long ago). apowell42 emailed me again and asked if their is anyway they can edit if the IP has to be reblocked and does anyone know why apowell42's home IP would match that of a proxy. I didn't know the answer to either question so I turn to you guys. BrokenSegue 03:27, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A port scan shows that 65.161.32.39 is 100% firewalled, so either it's a dialup/dynamic IP account that used to be connected to someone with an open proxy, or the owner turned their firewall back on recently. --Carnildo 06:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 18:56, 1 Mar 2005 Ed Poor blocked "User:WHEELER" with an expiry time of 24 hours (name-calling at talk:republic)

Please unblock User:WHEELER, his time is up. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 21:20, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleared the leftover autoblock. silsor 22:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 15:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on February 2005. hist

• 1st revert: 17:25, 2 Mar 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:40, 3 Mar 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:09, 3 Mar 2005
• 4th revert: 15:25, 3 Mar 2005

User:195.7.55.146 keeps deleting the following news item from February 1:

The Palestinian Authority arrests a Palestinian man who had been shooting in the air, on suspicion that he had killed a Palestinian girl the day before. The original shooting sparked Palestinian accusations that the girl had been shot by Israeli soldiers, and Hamas fired mortars at Israeli settlements in response. (Jerusalem Post) (Reuters)

User:195.7.55.146 is actually long-time editor User:Irishpunktom, but for some reason he generally prefers to edit via his IP address. He is well aware of the 3RR, and has been warned about it (and been banned for it) before. Note on the last revert he is being tricky; under the guise of reverting simple vandalism, he has also removed the Feb 1 news item he had already reverted 3 times before. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours (the IP).Geni 17:54, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately not before he reverted again 17:48, 3 Mar 2005. Did you block his main Irishpunktom account as well? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No I don't see any point since it will be blocked anywayGeni 18:08, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so in this case; he has just explained [26] that does not use his Irishpunktom userid from work since he somehow can't log in there, so he only uses it when editing from elsewhere. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• 15:31, 3 Mar 2005, Wile E. Heresiarch blocked The Recycling Troll (expires indefinite) (contribs) (offensive username)

The Recycling Troll should not be blocked. It has made useful contributions, and "troll" does not automatically make a username offensive. Inappropriate usernames are along the lines of "Anti-Jew", "Kill Guanaco", "┴" "Guanac0" and "Bush '08". Recycling is almost universally agreed to be a good thing, and a troll can be one of several things, none of which are actually prohibited by Wikipedia:Username. Could someone please unblock this user? Guanaco 17:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As is often the case, right action, wrong justification. The point of this account has been to follow around and harass RickK. And, let's face it, the troll in the username is kind of a dead giveaway. Have we ever had a good user with troll in the name? It seems about as likely as a good user with 88 in the name did during the Stormfront siege. Snowspinner 17:35, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, we did have a good user with "troll" in their name. ClockWork Soul (formerly known as ClockWork Troll) comes to mind (spelling of the name may be incorrect). Mgm|^(talk) 17:39, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • And if this user wants to come back as RecyclingSoul, I'll take that as a reasonable show of good faith. Snowspinner 17:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • (*lol*) dab (ᛏ)

Absolutely against the blocking policy. While this person is following RickK around, he's making very helpful edits doing so. I see nothing which justifies a block of any length. If there is a problem, RickK, Wile E., and Snowspinner should not be above having to follow the procedure and file an RfC. -- Netoholic @ 17:55, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

I've encountered about a dozen edits by The Recycling Troll, all of them good. More to the point though, if someone is unhappy with the behavior of a user who is not simply a vandal, shouldn't they be starting an RfC, etc.? Being an admin should not make one judge and jury. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:12, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Was the procedure specified in Wikipedia:Username followed? That policy seems to allow for blocking of an account because of an offensive username, but only after a "rough consensus" has emerged that blocking is the correct course of action. Other, less drastic, courses of action are also possible, such as the admin changing the username, again after discussion and notice to the person affected. Did Wile E Heresiarch at least communicate with the user in question on his Talk page concerning his objections to the username, asking him to change his username, before blocking him? --BM 18:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I oppose blocking this user. His edits are good, regardless of their intent, he is polite, and if there are concerns about the username, let them be discussed on VfD. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:22, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous! "Troll" is not offensive in the least. Some admins need to get off their high horses. If he's making good edits, I don't care if he calls himself a troll. Let him be an example to other trolls. Everyking 19:36, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is a sorry spectacle. Why am I not surprised to Guanaco, Netoholic, Sam Spade, and Everyking jumping on the bandwagon to defend a troll? Do you guys remember why Clockwork Troll changed his name? It was because other people thought he might be claiming to be a troll. Recycling Troll has no such qualms, of course. I'm sure he's having himself a good laugh now. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:03, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, guy, I'm not a troll. In fact, you and I are usually on the same "side" of a lot of debates, for what its worth. But I'm not seeing the policy under which you are planting your banner, here. You can't just unilaterally go blocking people because you don't like their username, you know. Or for any other reason, so far as I can tell, except outright vandalism, a 3RR violation, and maybe a few other very well-defined situations. That's why we have RfC, the ArbComm, and all that. No? I was just about to send you an email asking you to look at my edit history and see if I might look like admin material to your eyes, thinking you'd be a great person to have as a nominator. Guess I blew that. --BM 20:25, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know you're not a troll; that's why I didn't mention your name. Sorry for the confusion. Admins are indeed allowed to unilaterally block users for offensive usernames, but apparently "Recycling Troll" isn't offensive enough. Well, whatever; I won't try to reinstate the block. Btw I am willing to nominate you; drop me a line if you wish. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked, because I don't think there's a consensus that the name alone is offensive, and this question has been debated a few times before to no particular conclusion. I also left a message on the talk page to let him know he's on thin ice. --Michael Snow 20:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Recycling Troll acts more like a Bot than a Troll around VfD, as I've already suggested on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of ethnic stereotypes 2. 34 separate "keep" votes clocked up in 19 minutes on March 1, for instance! Wikipedia's sure never fast enough for me to do stuff at that rate. Is this the much-dreaded Keepbot, that somebody has finally created? No, I'm not suggesting that "keep " votes are "bad edits" per se! But a pattern like that, great swathes of Keep without (obviously) even glancing at the merits or otherwise of the cases, plus a choir of praise on this page for "good edits" and "helpful edits"—I don't get it. I'm nonplussed. Bishonen | Talk 21:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

People using tabbed browsing can occasionally accomplish such feats of editing speed, at least when the servers are working fast enough. Of course it's easier when you're just pasting identical, justification-free votes all over. --Michael Snow 22:16, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've checked many of his edits over the last few days, and as far as I can see he's simply voting the opposite of RickK. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 15:55, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

if that's the case, that's ample reason for a block for disruption/harassment, imho. I do not support a block on grounds of the name (of course not!), but we may still block him for being (rather than calling himself) a troll. dab (ᛏ) 16:53, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have numerous complaints about Apollomelos. He is shrill and intolerant of anyone who disagrees with him. He also has no problem slandering people. For example, he has written that I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan and that I am a bigot. He also has deliberately fabricated charges of vandalism against me. These are all grounds for libel charges. Apollomelos3 18:15, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And whose sockpuppet you are Apollomelos3, or 128.143.77.181? Noah Peters again? Since this complaint was your fourth edit, I have hard time finding any evidence of someone attacking "you", whoever you are. Wait, give me a reason for NOT blocking you for impersonating Apollomelos first. jni 18:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already blocked him, for impersonating Apollomelos. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not "impersonating" apollomelos, you dolts. Look up "impersonate" in the dictionary. How am I impersonating apollomelos when I'm writing a complaint about him? You guys are not the brightest. (199.111.225.59 22:58, 3 Mar 2005)

Impersonating is the wrong word, but you can't just register an account that has a name almost exactly like the name of someone you're complaining about and expect to get away with it. silsor 23:07, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Look, Apollomelos has made several simply false allegations against me, to the point of attributing things I didn't write to me, to the point of outright false accusations against me personally, from being called a homophobe to being called a bigot to being called a Ku Klux Klan member. Apollomelos also claimed I added things I did not to the gays in the holocaust page. Look, I admit to doing 2 things that are wrong: I committed the terrible sin of adding the "gay" template to United States. I also deleted content on fvw's userpage several times in retaliation for him blocking me. That is it in terms of my "vandalism." I NEVER vandalized the Abraham Lincoln page as Cody alleges. I want to clear my name against all of these false allegations. And my usernames have been deleted because I didn't want to be subject to false attacks anymore, so I am posting "anonymously" (though all of these admins will know who this is). (199.111.225.59 23:18, 3 Mar 2005)

Well, you're not going to get anywhere going about it this way. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:31, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide links that show where Apollomelos made false accusations against you, and especially for the behaviour listed in your first post on this page? Also, there's no need to post "anonymously" since logged in users actually have greater anonymity (not having their IP address revealed). silsor 00:26, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I defended you in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/User:Noah Peters when you wanted your original account name wiped because you had said some things about homosexuality that you didn't want associated with that name. I did so on the understanding that you were intending to leave Wikipedia and that you regretted your disruptive editing. It now becomes clear that you are continuing your disruptive pattern, and I withdraw any support from you.-gadfium 23:50, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This user Noah Peters is causing continuing troubles on the Wiki. I originally sought an arbcom ruling against him through arbitration but he instead agreed to arbitrator Raul to be permanently blocked rather than face arbitration. His behavior is mere vandalism as evident in the attacks of the past few days against multiple users who voiced concern over his actions prior to his ban agreement which he has illustrated means nothing. Apollomelos 03:18, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And please note the past incidents in which Noah Peters has lied. He defends himself on the basis that I made false accusations linking him to ip addresses and other usernames. On more than one occasion he has later admitted his link to sock puppets and ip addresses after previously denying them. He cannot be trusted as evident in his violation of his own agreement with Raul and past deplorable behavior. Apollomelos 03:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is just one incident in long line of vandalism and homophobic crude practices committed by user Noah Peters on the Wiki. [27]

If I sleep for years with my dog, does that mean I'm a beastophile?, his own remark aimed at ridiculing homosexuality. His behavior lacks any sense of credibility or civility. And I can cite numerous other examples including much more vulgar and obscene attacks. Also note that I never criticized him has a person, only his actions. Apollomelos 03:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here are some examples of Noah Peter ip addresses and sock puppets.

• Noah Peters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 128.143.77.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Apollomelos2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Apollomelos3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 4640orFight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 5440orFight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 199.111.225.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.225.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.227.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.226.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 199.111.225.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I can name more if needed but somehow I doubt arbitration or blocking is going to fix this problem. I suppose it is just something we have to deal with while working on the Wiki. Apollomelos 03:46, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some recent remarks by Noah Peters about Fvw, Boothy443, Knowledge Seeker, and myself:

• [28] I'm glad to see that you're gone. You always enjoyed being aggressive on wikipedia, engaging in long feuds, provoking other members, and making false accusations when it suited your purposes. You also enjoyed punishing those who crossed your path. You used wikipedia not to contribute to articles, which you rarely did, but as an outlet for your anger. Wikipedia is better for your absence!

• [29] Learn how to speak English please: "an anon vandal." Your last response was incoherent.

• [30] No, a consensus has not developed, and yes, the strongest will win this revert war. It is the law of the street, the law of force, the law of survival of the fittest. There will be a "winner" and a "loser," because all we are doing is engaging in a power struggle.

• [31] You know you are stupid when: You are so unaccepting of criticism that you cannot tolerate a parody user page set up by Apollomelos3 and seek to ban that user, a request which is invariably granted by sympathetic wikipedia administrators who hate criticism as much as anyone else.

Apollomelos 05:16, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we can do I suspect that this is a case for arbcomGeni 05:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cody has once again chosen to reply with more lies and accusations. First, I want to make a general point that I have a long history of substantive and helpful edits and new article additions, mitigating factors according to wikipedia policy. I created single-handedly the John Hart Ely article and totally rewrote the Byron White, William O. Douglas, Miller v. California, and numerous other articles. I rewrote the Roe v. Wade article too. Ask Skyler about this. For false accusations of Cody, look at the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/User:Noah_Peters, where Cody totally falsely alleges that I am user:Abelincoln98, which is an outright lie. Also, Cody wrote in an edit summary that he was reverting "vandalism of ku klux klan member." This is also an outright lie and outright personal attack. For Cody's new charges, I have never denied, that I have other accounts. I never lied about having other accounts. In fact, I acknowledged these accounts when I asked for my user name to be changed. I never denied I am Apollomelos3, etc. My comment about bestiality occurred when we were considering whether the fact that Abraham Lincoln shared a bed with another man meant he was a homosexual. Cody is deliberately presenting this quote out of context to smear me. I have written those comments about various administrators, but all of these were in the context of specific debates in which they constituted appropriate responses. In one case, the user Boothy was criticizing me personally. I am not going to waste space here reconstructing the context in which all of the comments were made, but Cody is once again presenting these out of context. And I have criticized Cody, out of what I believe to be justified frustration after numerous personal attacks made by Cody. And in any case, I have a right to make criticisms like these, which were made on people's talk pages and express valid opinions. I admit to being frustrated when I wrote them, but this was out of disgust for the false charges leveled against me. Once again, I am trying to clear my name. I acknowledge two incidents of vandalism, but remember my voliminous positive contributions. The harsh treatment of administrators with persistent blocks has been unjustified compared to what I have actually done.

ENOUGH. RFC is that way mediation is thata way and Arbcom is that way. Geni 07:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both of you have valid points. However, I don't see why this needs to be on the administrators' noticeboard. silsor 10:20, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I still believe you are user Abelincoln98 and others. How can I trust you when you behave this way? You even pretended to be a “radical gay activist” on one of your sock puppets in what I believe was an attempt to stir up anti-gay sentiment on the Wiki. And Abelincoln98 has very similar edits including language usage. I do admit I was wrong in using the ku klux kan member phrase in a revert of your vandalism. It was an outburst of frustration after nearly two months of dealing with you and over a month since your “permanent” block by the arbitration committee which you continue to defy. At this point the arbcom has stated the permanent block still stands. I personally would not care if they allowed you to take part in the community once again under certain stipulations such as the prohibition of editing any gay-related articles. As you seem to have a problem with any articles dealing with homosexuality evident in your edits denying the gay men who were killed during the Holocaust and continual spread of the urban myth that gay pride parades have public sex, bestiality, etc. Apollomelos 18:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have requested that the arbcom review this suggestion: As this user Noah Peters does seem intent on returning to Wikipedia how about allowing him under the stipulation that he refrain from editing any sexuality-related articles? Perhaps this would seem adequate enough for him to stop his continued bad behavior? Just an idea. Apollomelos 18:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)