Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive27

Contents: June 5, 2005 - June 6, 2005

User:JohnKenney

An impersonator of User:John Kenney, who is adding fake death notices to the articles of several prominent Democrats, including Walter Mondale. Searching for "Walter Mondale dies" and "Walter Mondale died" return three google hits, none of which refer to him dying recently. Normally I'd assume good faith, but this user cut and pasted his userpage and talk page from John Kenney. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:09, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

As penance for having fallen for his Walter Mondale hoax, I've blocked him indefinitely. — Dan | Talk 00:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Great, thanks. Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Why didn't anyone tell me about this? I've got somebody pretending to be me! Very exciting. john k 20:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Someone adding hoaxes isn't acting in good faith, even if they aren't also spoofing another user. Isomorphic 04:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Nohat (I)

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

• 1st edit 19:56, 4 Jun 2005
• 1st revert: 01:48, 4 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:04, 4 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 20:08, 4 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:27, 4 Jun 2005

--68.164.151.141 00:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replaced by "Nohat (II)", below. Noel (talk) 05:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Eyeon

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

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

Reported by: Samboy 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Ugly (you could even say shitty) edit war in Feces. Also see...

User:Nohat (II)

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

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

Reported by: Samboy 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The page has now been protected from other crappy edits that editors may dump onto this page.
• Both sides of this turd of an edit war, IMHO, need a 24-hour cooling down period. Samboy 00:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's certainly no way I'm blocking anyone for removing that image. Proteus (Talk) 09:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

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

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

Reported by: 67.41.186.237 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: He is engaging in an edit war. So far within 24 hours I have reverted a total of three times and he has a total of four on homosexuality. It is concerning the Epic of Gilgamesh and its homosexuality, something that has been accepted for months now on Wikipedia. An acclaimed scholar last year translated a previously untranslated portion of the 12 tablet containing male homosexuality. Unfortuantely Mikkalai's attitude is "since I, myself, have not read the new book, it must be a lie." Also, I just noticed I myself reverted the article Epic of Gilgamesh four times and he did five. I herby report myself as well. 67.41.186.237 03:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user cannot count. The fourth revert was of user:69.235.29.7. His edits are left intact. I decided to abandon the case. I even did not block this guy for his 3-RR violation. His aggression and lack of listening to common sence is outrageous, and I am sure some other editors will deal with him. I am not talking on this case anymore. mikka (t) 03:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We have both broken the 3RR rule on Epic of Gilgamesh. And I am not 69.235.29.7. 67.41.186.237 03:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions of Epic of Gilgamesh was deletion of broken link and related text. Editor must check what he is doing. mikka (t) 03:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I certainly apologize for my 3RR violation, I was not aware of such rules. The irony is that you, Mikkalai appeared to have indeed been, you call me outrageous, I call you the same. The homosexuality has been on the article for several months, you are the first to object. 67.41.186.237 03:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's why I did not want to block you. My attention was brought to other editor's objections of your edits of Homosexuality. As I said, this is not my fight, and I am not returning to it. See Talk:Epic of Gilgamesh for some history. mikka (t) 03:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polish/german names

Could someone with a rollback button have a look at this? I'm not up to speed on the whole polish city names thing, but the misleading edit summaries alone are enough to seriously consider mass-rollback. --W(t) 07:14, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to play the devil's advocate here, but it doesn't seem this anon was properly informed of the controversy surrounding the issue. I think this should be done before he's ever blocked. If he doesn't know, he may genuinely feel the insertion of whatever language name it was is spam, therefore making his edit summaries quite understandable. In short, I'd say, try to inform them first. Mgm|^(talk) 08:05, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm low on good faith, but it does seem sort of unlikely an entirely new user would take up a revert war another user was engaged in and take to mass-reverting all the same articles. See also this by the way: the user violated the 3RR and there's evidence to suggest it's User:Witkacy. --W(t) 08:12, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Could you provide the evidence? And stop to produce gossips? You also forget to mention that User:Boothy443 broke the 3rr, who is indeed a sockpuppet... and that after him User:Chris 73 and User:Calton began to revert the same articles... interesting...--Witkacy 18:35, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... interesting... Where I come from, we call that the "Berkeley 'Interesting'", the passive-aggressive attempt to imply bad things without the need to provide a shred of evidence or of responsibility.

And explaining to you for -- what? the 3rd? 5th? -- time, enforcing the dual use of Polish/German names in places with shared histories are explicitly exempt. Don't like it? Deal, but don't keep pretending it's otherwise or that you don't understand. --Calton | Talk 00:17, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Calton, you never participated in discussions about Poland-related articles or problems, you never created Poland-related articles, you are not interested at Poland at all, but i always see you in edit-wars provoked by Chris 73. And that is interesting...--Witkacy 08:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not "interesting", it's merely an attempt to imply something by someone without the courage to say something directly, all as way to direct attention away from his dishonest avoidance of the straightforward facts. That would be you, of course. Stop with the handwaving and deal with reality for at least a few seconds, okay? --Calton | Talk 13:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't. As was pointed out at the time[5], the proposal that would have allowed that failed for lack of consensus. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 12:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seventy-five percent on the basic principles isn't good enough for you? And 61% is disastrously low? Uh-huh. --Calton | Talk 13:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt (talk · contribs) has taken it upon himself to interpret the conclusion at Gdansk/Vote to mean that any city with shared history (in the case of Braunschweig (city) to mean looted Polish treasures and slave labourers during WWII) to fall under this ruling of "shared history". He claims that other users have done it first, to justify his actions. This has the making of yet anouther pointless revert war, and intervention to avoid this would be beneficial to the community/project. Guettarda 16:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we can fix this, without writing new policy and getting community approval for it, if having a private word with the editors in question doesn't work. (I will certainly try that.) I am tempted to recommend that only people from outside the area are allowed to make the call on whether a city has shared history. Noel (talk) 17:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If somebody doesn't take User:Halibutt in hand, he's going to get blocked for his vandalism. RickK 09:04, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:193.29.205.252

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Dabie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 193.29.205.252 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 04:55, 2005 Jun 5
• 2nd revert: 05:33, 2005 Jun 5
• 3rd revert: 07:11, 2005 Jun 5
• 4th revert: 07:28, 2005 Jun 5

Reported by: --W(t) 07:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Comments:

• More of the polish/german naming clusterfuck. There are allegations that this is User:Witkacy, it might be useful if one of the people with access to the sock checker had a look at that. --W(t) 07:33, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

• So check my IP... [6], [7], [8] I'm not schizophrenic.. User:Boothy443 is a sockpuppet and his edit summaries: " rv/POV vandalism from Witkacy sockpuppett, who has no idea what spamming or abuse means " are highly provocative and a simple lie--Witkacy 07:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • You can't deny it is rather interesting both of you seem to be rather fond of the word "provocative"… --W(t) 08:00, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
  • And we both also use the word "you" and "and" ... etc. As i already said, check my IP - and if the anon is not my sockpuppet, i will await an apology--Witkacy 08:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Boothy443

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boothy443 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 05:26, 2005 Jun 5
• 2nd revert: 06:19, 2005 Jun 5
• 3rd revert: 07:27, 2005 Jun 5
• 4th revert: 07:36, 2005 Jun 5
• 5th [9]

Reported by: --W(t) 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Comments:

• Continued after being warned. --W(t) 07:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
• He also violated the 3rr on Szczecin-Grabowo, Szczecin-Zydowce, Szczecin-Zalom etc.--Witkacy 08:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Once more, Witkacy:

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

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

Talk:Gdansk/Vote#Results_on_VOTE:_Enforcement:

The proposal is accepted. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. In more complex edits, only the place names can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule according to the outcome of this vote, additional changes fall again under the 3RR rule. The reverted user should receive a note or link of the vote results on this page. Persistent reverts in violation of the outcome of this vote despite multiple warnings may be dealt with according to the rules in Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism.

Seems straightforward: it even uses as its example the very city you use in your claim of violating 3RR. Boothy443 is enforcing a vote, is NOT violating the 3RR rule, and you know this because it was explained to you less than a month ago when you made the same claim. --Calton | Talk 14:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A group of editors can't just exempt themselves from the 3RR, even if it's just on "their own articles". This kind of policy change would have to be discussed and agreed upon wikipedia-wide. --W(t) 14:49, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

That's a mischaracterization of the vote, in my opinion, (it WAS "Wikipedia-wide", among other things), but however you phrase it it's what they did. Mind showing me the rule or constituional clause that says they can't? Don't like the vote? Deal. --Calton | Talk 15:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that particular vote was attended by a very large number of people; i.e. it wasn't just a small circle of editors voting. So I'd say it was pretty authoritative. Noel (talk) 17:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its interesting that the anon User:193.29.205.252 who participated in the edit-war with User:Boothy443, and like Boothy broked the 3rr was blocked, but Boothy not...--Witkacy 20:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's so much dirt flying in all directions its not surprising some stuff is getting missed. I don't have time to check this out and see if a block is warranted, someone else will have to do it. Noel (talk) 21:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I was blocked for violation of the same rule, eventhough the Talk:Gdansk/Vote rules were clearly applicable, I have a reason to request that this user be blocked just like I was. See below for details. Halibutt 05:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who closed the Gdansk enforcement vote, but it obviously has no authority to gainsay the 3RR. Only 50 out of 78 votes to support it. After 6 voters were excluded for low edit counts, the figure was only 44 out of 72. These figures wouldn't be a rough consensus even by a generous 2/3 standard. By contrast WP:3RR passed by something like 159 to 28. I really don't mind if the Gdansk/Danzig people want to inflict these rules on one another, but I think we should draw the line when they claim to be exempt from the strongly supported WP:3RR because of a mere 50 votes.

I have altered the vote conclusion and general notice to conform to a more realistic intepretation of the vote, bnut I won't get involved in it beyond that. It just isn't worth the time. However I hope we all will strongly oppose any further attempt to alter the 3RR on the basis of that flawed vote. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The vote was closed out by User:Chris 73, which you would have known if you had bothered to check the history. --Calton | Talk 17:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "Talk:Gdansk/Vote rule" describes a (slim) consensus, i.e. reverting to the "rule" version may be reverting to the "consensus" version. However, "reverts to the consensus version" are not exempt from the 3RR. Why, if it really is the consensus version, there should be no need to break it, since lots of other editors will do the same revert, sooner rather than later. The only reverts exempt from 3RR are those of clear vandalism. Altering the consensus version is not considered vandalism. Thus, I basically agree with Tony: you break the 3RR, you'll be blocked, Gdansk/Vote or no Gdansk/Vote. dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If we're going to take 61% as a consensus, this makes a mockery of the whole principle of consensus. Why bother? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. Also, note that the most disputed part (Period from 1466 to 1793) was 47:48 (!) before the exclusion of users with few previous edits - which I support in spirit but is not supported by any existing policy or semi-policy! And once agains, it comes back to the problem with current Wikipedia:Survey guidelines - they don't specificy required majority, consensus, anything, and thus the Gdansk/Vote is open for dispute after dispute (and plz note that this as this is not the fault of Gdansk/Vote but wider policy fault - thus it may and will cause more disruption as more votes are disputed, unless we fix the policy - please comment on my proposal at [[Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:08, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt

Seems the user Halibutt (talk · contribs) is currently on an edit spree to demonstrate either a parody or some form of breaching experiment (see WP:POINT). Someone should have a look at this. Since I am currently in a related dispute with him over the naming of Polish cities, I'll watch by the sidelines. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:33, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm acting in accordance with the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. It says specifically that For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. Since this rule is often interpreted very broadly (see Chris 73's revert war on Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, for instance), I took the liberty to act accordingly and add the cross-naming to German cities that have a mixed Polish-German history. If someone wants to question the vote itself, then the Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion page would be a good place to start. Halibutt 16:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

How does this apply to Mainz, pray tell? It manages to not mention one word of this extensive Polish history in the article. Remind me, when was the upper/middle Rhine Polish, exactly...? Alai 17:27, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, the rule applies to all cities in the region, as long as there is at least one English-language reference which uses the Polish name. No doubt Halibutt can tell you exactly which reference this would be. Eugene van der Pijll 17:43, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It only applies to cities "that share a history between Germany and Poland." So far as I am aware, there is no Polish past in Dresden, Mainz, Hanover, Aachen, and so forth. john k 18:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that Halibutt could provide some specious explanation of why Aachen shares a past between Germany and Poland, but this is clearly against the intended meaning of "sharing a history" in the vote - it is quite clearly against the spirit of the policy, and is very clearly an example of disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. john k 18:55, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not support what Halibutt is doing right now, but I think he is trying to prove a valid point, namely that often the literal interpretation of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote results leads to gross violations of common sense. Thus trying to insert the German name Stettin into every single article about the modern suburbs of Szczecin (all stubs by the way) misses the point, as those articles have nothing to do with the history of Szczecin.

There has been some discussion on how to add some common sense into this issue, and refine the results of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote so that the range of its applications is reduced only to articles relevant to the shared Polish/German history of various places. For some reasonable proposals, on which some comment by Chris73 is still eagerly awaited by some users, see Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. Balcer 20:51, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think he is trying to prove a valid point. Click here ---> WP:POINT.

In any case, it's clear to me that the voting was done to be as decisive as possible to avoid edit wars -- and Balcer and others are trying to do an end-run around it to refight their petty battles. The vote was held, you lost, deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the vote was held, a new set of rules was introduced. Some of them worked, some of them them clearly seem not to be working as the revert wars have not stopped. I am now suggesting some new ways to compromise and work further towards reducing edit wars. Why do you find this so objectionable? Also, your aggressive attitude that this is some kind of a contest with losing and winning sides is not helpful to say the least. Balcer 01:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No Calton, that's incorrect. What was a fight in some Polish city articles has now spilled over in to German city articles which were not involved due to Halibutt's editing spree. I agreed with the Danzig/Gdansk decision, but these edits are clearly not a part of that spirit. DirectorStratton 01:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the actions of Halibutt violate the spirit of the vote. I also maintain that the actions of Chris73, Carlton and other users involved in adding German names in obscure articles about locations in Poland completely not related to shared Polish/German history violate that spirit in a similar way. This is why the results of the vote need to be amended/clarified to avoid these unfortunate problems. Balcer 02:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps my actions violate the spirit of the voting results. But the spirit is a matter of personal oppinion. We've been trying to reach some more reasonable solution at the relevant talk pages - to no effect. So, I've decided to stick to the letter of the voting instead. Like it or not, I have a right to do so.

For instance, the city of Dresden used to be the Polish capital for more than half a century and a large part of Dresden's nobility moved to Warsaw. If that's not a shared history, then what is it? If other users have a right to demand the cross-naming be applied to such obscure articles as Lacznosciowiec Szczecin and Amber, then why don't I have the same right to demand double-naming on the former capital of Poland? Double standards?

I agree that the voting results are bad and could be misinterpreted, but unless we change them, I have a right to follow them. The same right as others. Halibutt 07:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

" For instance, the city of Dresden used to be the Polish capital for more than half a century and a large part of Dresden's nobility moved to Warsaw."

Or the Ruhr Area (west Germany) - "In the 19th century Ruhr area pulled over 1 million Poles from East Prussia and Silesia due to the event referred to as Ostflucht. There are until today a large Polish minority. According to the vote result the cross-naming applied also for that part of Germany. --Witkacy 08:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While it has been correctly pointed out that this borders on POINT, and I'd ask Halibutt to stop this, I'd like to note that this serves to illustrate the fact that the vote needs to be reexamined. Also, Halibutt's behaviour is not far from that of Chris or several other users. We need not only to redo the vote, but well before we do this we need a clear policy on such votes, or no matter what the results, this will happen over and over again, and affect whatever future votes we may held. Plese check the Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a sidenote to what many of you said: I'm not trying to prove any point here, I'm merely following the rules set by the voting and the interpretation established by User:Chris 73 and many others. If it made you understand the flaws in the rules - I couldn't be more happy. However, it was not my intention to show it to anyone or to prove it in any way. And please stop accusing me of breaking the WP:POINT since it's not the case.

Also, what exactly would be the point I'm allegedly trying to prove? Finally, what exactly is wrong with my behaviour? I'm only enforcing the Wikipedia's Community Consensus, reached through wikipedia-wide voting. Perhaps if I tried to break it or fight against it you could ban me or question my behaviour. But it's the contrary: I'm trying to enforce it - yet I'm being bashed and reverted by as honourable wikipedians as User:Mackensen, User:John Kenney or User:RickK (the latter even threatened me on my talk page that I will be blocked from editing - yet without stating a reason). They revert my edits to the article on the former Polish capital - without explanation - yet they claim that it is my behaviour that should be changed... Strange? To me it seems so.

And now User:Chris 73, who established the same rules I'm following now, has listed me here as someone who is trying to demonstrate a parody. What the heck is that? Gentlement, the voting might be right or wrong, it's none of my business to judge it. But once some of us are allowed to follow it literally, all should be given the same right. Or perhaps I am wrong? Perhaps some of us have more rights than the others? Perhaps the voting was applicable only to Polish cities? If so, please be so kind as to cite the exact place where it is written.

BTW, once you establish a new, clear, wikipedia-wide rule or change the current one, I promise to abide by it. So far I am simply following the current rule. What is wrong with that? Halibutt 13:34, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Your actions and those of User:Chris 73 are not similar. The exact text of Vote 9 at Talk:Gdansk/Vote was:

The naming of many places in the region that share a history between Germany and Poland are also a source of edit wars. For these places, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names, e.g. Stettin (now Szczecin, Poland) or Szczecin (Stettin). An English language reference that primarily uses this name should be provided on the talk page if a dispute arises.

Now when Chris 73 adds "(Stettin)" to the first reference in an article, it follows the most reasonable interpretation of this text.

However, to interpret the text of the proposal in a way that it applies to, for example, Braunschweig (city), see this edit, you have to use a very unnatural interpretation of:

1. "the region": Braunschweig is not in the same region as Stettin or Gdansk, as most people would define regions;
2. "share a history": most people seem to interpret it as "was a part of both countries", only you use the definition: "there were some Polish people there";
3. "commonly used names": Brunszwik is not a commonly used name (at least not in English);
4. "English language reference": both on Talk:Braunschweig (city) and Talk:Mainz, you pointed at a google search, which only returned a very few pages in badly-written English by Polish authors, that weren't even about those cities.

Seeing that those are all tenuous interpretations; that you yourself think that it's absurd what you are doing, and that you don't like doing it; that you are only doing this because of the community's consensus, but that you haven't found a single supporter of these actions; that none of your changes actually stick, as all of them are reverted immediately; and that the only thing you accomplish is to annoy your fellow contributors; wouldn't it be better if you ended this crusade?

(Please note: I've taken one of User:Chris 73's edits at random; there may be some that are of more dubious validity. If so, I apologize, and would like to be shown a better ("worse") example of his wwrongdoings). Eugene van der Pijll 16:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some additional comments to the comment by Eugene van der Pijll. Since the outcome of the vote i have not really added any double naming to an article. However, I have reverted mass removals of double naming while enforcing the vote. While doing so, there may have been a few questionable reverts (i.e. a handball team in gdansk), where double naming may or may not have been neccessary. Additionally, some users complained about Germanic language vs. German language links (as in the revert link you randomly picked). Hence I also occasionally change a Germanic language link to German language as suggested by halibutt. My edits are not perfect, but I try my best to work in the spirit of the vote. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 16:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

(My apologies for mischaracterising your edits. The original mention of "Stettin" at the page I referenced was indeed inserted by someone else. I didn't mean to pick on you (Chris) personally; so Halibutt, if you have an edit by someone else than Chris, that you feel: 1) contravenes the outcome of the vote, and 2) is accepted as a valid edit by "us", the other wikipedians; that would be a good example too.) Eugene van der Pijll 17:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, if you are being reverted and warned by three separate admins, I would tend to take that as evidence your edits are not in good faith. That, in addition to Eugene van der Pijll's well reasoned comments, and your own comments, lead to a clear indication that you are not editing in good faith and are violating WP:POINT. If you were being clearly helpful and trying to improve Wikipedia, and achieve consensus on these issues, it is likely you wouldn't have so many different people claiming you are not being helpful. Please stop, and instead keep in mind we are all here to help Wikipedia, and realize that what you are doing is not achieving that. - Taxman ^Talk 17:09, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:Mirror Vax

Three revert rule violation on Joe Scarborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mirror Vax (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 23:15, Jun 4, 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:33, Jun 4, 2005
• 3rd revert: 06:17, Jun 5, 2005
• 4th revert: 18:23, Jun 5, 2005

Reported by: Rhobite 18:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I disagree with Geni's characterization that Mirror Vax's last violation was OK, but this time it couldn't be more straightforward. Please block. Rhobite 18:55, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

blocked for 24 hours.Geni 19:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:80.141.x.x

Three revert rule violation on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Requests for page protection|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 80.141.216.197 (talk · contribs), 80.141.234.76 (talk · contribs), 80.141.217.19 (talk · contribs), 80.141.190.112 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [10] 18:01 5 June
• 2nd revert: [11] 18:18
• 3rd revert: [12] 19:11
• 4th revert: [13] 19:41

Reported by: Thryduulf 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is one of serveral edit wars between this user and user:Ted Wilkes, with Ted deleteing the user's comments as vandalism. I've blocked Ted for violating the 3RR on this same page with the edit prior to the 4th revert above. I would block the anon but I don't understand how to calculate the necessary range block. Thryduulf 19:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, to really do it right, you need to convert them to binary and see how long the common strings of bits on the left-hand-side is. But let's see, the existensce of both 190 and 217 in the third byte means the range spans the 10xxxxxx to 11xxxxxx boundary (which is at 192 decimal), so you'd need a /15, i.e. block from 80.141.128.0 to 80.141.255.255. Noel (talk) 20:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deleting comments made by other users is vandalism, in my opinion, and so any reverts to restore said comments aren't covered by the 3RR. (Other admins may disagree, but I'm certainly not imposing a block for this.) Proteus (Talk) 20:32, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Chris 73

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Grabowo.

• 1 [14]
• 2 [15]
• 3 [16]
• 4 [17]

Reported by:--Witkacy 20:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversions in accordance with the vote at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, excluded from the 3RR. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

No. The article is about the Grabowo suburb of Szczecin. And not about Gdansk. And BTW the outcome of the voting is still disputed and a consensus is until now not reached.--Witkacy 20:17, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, Witkacy:

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

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

Yet again, I must point out that it uses Szczecin as its very example, so your rebuttal is, as (I think) Wolfgang Pauli put it, not even wrong. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In which case User:Halibutt's actions are not protected as well? And I hadn't heard that the outcome was still disputed. Mackensen (talk) 20:20, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. The outcome is disputed. See also [18]--Witkacy 20:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The vote also applies to Szczecin, and there was a consensus about the outcome. You don't have to like it, but live with it. Not sure what to do with Halibuts edits, though. I'll stand aside on his edits, and let others handle this. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:21, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

For you the voting applies also for Erika Steinbach... But you are wrong. And the consensus was not reached, see Gdansk template talk--Witkacy 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy, read the full text at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, In biographies of clearly German persons, the first occurrence of the name should be used in the form Danzig (Gdansk) and later Danzig exclusively. Similar applies to other place names in the region that shares a history between Poland and Germany. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:43, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus was not reached. Halibutt, Akumiszcza and Balcer invited you to comment on the new proposal in the Gdansk issue, but you refused... [19], [20]--Witkacy 20:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I was blocked for violation of the same rule, eventhough the Talk:Gdansk/Vote rules were clearly applicable, I have a reason to request that Chris 73 be blocked equally. See below. Halibutt 03:08, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this silly affair under the User:Boothy443 3RR case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:59, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 protecting Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Individual users are messing around with the vote count on Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, changing the reported outcome of the vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. These edits were were always promptly reverted by other admins to its proper state. Because this template is visible on numerous pages, I have protected the page. This protection can pe permanent, since the vote was closed since quite some time ago. As i am involved in the dispute, I have listed the protection here so other admins can look at it and comment if necessary, but I strongly believe this protection to be neccessary. Sorry for all the confusion. -- Chris 73 Talk 20:39, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you removed the "disputed tag"? Because: "... this template is visible on numerous pages.. " hm?

The outcome of the voting is still disputed on Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice--Witkacy 20:57, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yup, it is disputed and you are one of the sides in that dispute. Thus protecting the page could be understood as an abuse of your admin rights. Halibutt 07:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Chris, I must agree, you are a party to the dispute, so you should not have protected the template. Instead, post here, and ask another admin to do it, don't do it yourself. So please unprotect it, and someone else can protect it if they agree it should be. I do however, tend to agree with the protection, because inserting disputed in the template is disruptive, as the template appears on a lot of pages. Also Witkacy's changing the vote results in the template appears improper, since clearly there were a number of questionable votes. The criteria for what votes would be counted was applied equally to all votes (and favored each side in different cases), so using the removed votes now as a basis for changing the template is improper. Consensus would be needed on the talk page for that change to the vote results. I would actually suggest re-voting, only for the disputed period in order to clear up the issue. - Taxman ^Talk 14:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that changing the vote results in the template is not the best option. However, both the result of the voting and the template itself (its shape and usage) are disputed on the talk page, so adding a {{disputed}} tag is appropriate. I believe that the tag should be added until all controversies are resolved. Also, retaking the vote seems a decent option. Halibutt 15:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the disputed tag in the template, is that it then appears on the talk page of each article the template is used as saying "this article is disputed", which is most likely incorrect. It is not the article that is disputed, but the template message. Further, it's not really the template that is disputed, but the results of the vote. So the disputed tag can go on the template's talk page, but not in the template. So while Chris73 being the one to do the protecting was somewhat improper, it looks like it was the right thing to do. And to be pedantic, since what he did was the right thing, even though he shouldn't have been the one to do it, there aren't any sanctions that should be placed on him. I would consider this the end of the matter. The template's and the vote's talk page are the place to carry this further. If the results of the vote are to be changed (and therefore the content of the template), consensus on the talk page would be required. For the record, I have no stake in the dispute either way, and I would consider myself as neutral in this matter as it is possible to be. (Bordering on I simply don't care, except that the discussion is civil and conducted fairly.) - Taxman ^Talk 16:47, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Another GRider role account?

I've just come accross Bahn Mi (talk · contribs), whose contribution history constists almost entirely of school articles, listing school articles at user:GRider/Schoolwatch, school VfDs and pictures of schools. Additionally the username reads very much like "Ban Me". (copied to User talk:David Gerard) Thryduulf 22:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should say, based on the username, pattern of edits, and use of the phrase "organic growth" [21], that it is a GRider sockpuppet, and should probably be subjected to an IP comparison. If it exhibits GRider's trademark confrontational rudeness or it engages in disruption, it should be blocked forthwith. — Dan | Talk 23:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Has GRider ever written anything explaining his actions? Apparently he's been banned, right? I'd be interested in reading his side of the story. Everyking 23:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, GRider hasn't been banned; at least, not to my knowledge. The GRider RFArb stipulates only that he is barred from editing deletion-related pages for one year. He is more than welcome to continue to contribute to articles and to participate in other aspects of Wikipedia. From his contributions, he appears to have dropped off Wikipedia (at least, under the GRider account) about two weeks after the end of the arbitration. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 00:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah—my mistake. (See below). GRider was banned as an abusive sockpuppet. I'm not sure what 'his side of the story' could contribute in this case. The use of sockpuppets—particularly for the twin purposes of committing abusive acts and stacking consensus discussions—is pretty universally condemned.--TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 02:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard, who has access to the IP comparison feature, has pronounced GRider an abusive sockpuppet of another user, and has consequently blocked him indefinitely. — Dan | Talk 01:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

... and after some searching of this page's archives, I found the related discussion here. — Dan | Talk 01:25, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Let's see - obvious sock, name says to ban it, exists to vote on controversial VfDs? Gee, I wonder what we're supposed to do here. Snowspinner 02:38, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Complain once again that the Evil Adminstrative Cabal are abusing their powers? --Calton | Talk 02:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but we do that in every circumstance. Snowspinner 03:06, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

So is anybody going to block this guy, or are we just going to sit around and talk about it? RickK 04:32, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I already did. Snowspinner 04:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

If this user is being abusive, do please block it. However as far as I can tell it's doing good faith edits. Is there any example of abusive behavior? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:40, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, in reality there should be an IP check to confirm. But I've gotten tired of arguing that point. Some people seem to think it's fair to just guess. Everyking 10:16, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's GRider violating his one year ban from participating in VfD, then it's definitely a blockable offense. RickK`

Absolutely. I'm open to persuasion on this. If DG gets around to an IP check this may help. Also any similarities in behavior? Apart from liking school articles, editing them a lot and voting to keep them, which could apply to quite a few of us. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's true. The "organic growth" combined with all the other traits you mentioned is a fairly prevalent GRider trait, though. --Deathphoenix 12:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By that logic I am a sockpuppet since I also use that phrase. I mean seriously, do an IP compare first.  ALKIVAR™ 12:54, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no problems with an IP check, which is why I said "that's true" and provided my opinion about organic growth. --Deathphoenix 15:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I used the term "organic growth" too. A lot. I don't rule out this being GRider but I think we'd need more than what we've got, in the absence of a proper sock check. This editor is doing some pretty good work so I don't like the idea that he may be driven off if he's being blocked by mistake. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there's very little, and by very little I mean no, chance that an editor with a name "Ban Me" that goes straight for a controversial and chronic debate over VfD is a sock, so I have faith that they can just return on their original account. Snowspinner 14:02, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts anything to just wait for an IP check. Everyking 14:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Every time I wait for an IP check god kills a puppy. Snowspinner 14:31, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please respond seriously. There are some of us who believe that it's best to wait for an IP check in a case like this; it's not appropriate to mock that view. Everyking 14:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you want me to respond seriously - I've addressed this opinion enough. I think it was clear cut. I think that acting like you're a sock of a banned user is a bannable offense. But I'm tired of restating those points, so I went with the joke. Snowspinner 15:30, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Every time I wait for an IP check god kills a puppy. was my first out loud laugh today. Wikipedia needs more humor, wit, and lightheartedness in the DISCUSSIONS (not articles). All the time I see childish rants about imagined slights (I don't see that here tho). My point is I think Wikipedia would benefit from an atmosphere on the talk pages that promoted humor and wit rather than took offense at it. Thanks for the laugh. 4.250.201.219 20:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Socks are not blockable per se, but I understand the concern that it could be GRider. How about we unblock him and tag all his edits on VfD as possible socks of a banned editor? This way he can continue to contribute to Wikipedia (which he's been doing very well for some time) and David will get more evidence for his sock puppet check from the edits he does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock this chap, mainly for technical reasons. I'll annotate his votes on VfD to ensure that his questioned status is known to VfD closers. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:52, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Socks that are created for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy are blockable per se, regardless of whether or not they are a sock of GRider. Stacking votes would be one violation of policy. I recommend reconsidering this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My curiosity was raised on this issue when I saw a few edits in my watchlist to GRider's school watch page, and then one to the "redirected without consensus" section. At least at the times I happen to check my watchlist, few people edit that section and so I decided to take a look at the users contributions. What struck me was that all bar about 2 or 3 of their several hundred edits were to widely disperate school articles or school related pages. David Gerard's original comments were that GRider and the other accounts he blocked at the time were "being used as role accounts by someone" (or words to that effect). Having nearly 100% of edits to any single theme is not typical behaviour of the vast majority of wikipedians. Combined with the schools topic, the GRider/Schoolwatch edits and the VfD votes I had enough of a suspician to consider it worth my while sharing them. If you look again at my first note on this subject, you will see that I didn't call for him to be blocked, nor did I block him myself. I am suspicious enough that if IP evidence were not available I would certainly investigate further (e.g. editing times, wording of VfD votes, etc), and if nothign contradicted my inital impression then I would consider a block. In the event I posted here, so others were aware of my suspicians, and DG's talk page to request an IP check. Also, as David was the one investigting the last tranche of sockpuppets, he will likely familar with his MO. Thryduulf 21:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Bank of Wikipedia

Bank of Wikipedia (talk · contribs) - WTF? RickK 07:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Seems kind of Iasson-like, no? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before and dismissed as "harmless". Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm always at least a little worried when anyone has "Wikipedia" or some variant in their username that it will be especially confusing to newbies who may think the user has some kind of official status. Further identifying it as a "Bank" is just asking for trouble. I think the user should be asked to adopt a new name, and this one blocked. Postdlf 07:59, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the "Bank" for a while now. It was odd, and something about the user's style bothered me, but I figured it was harmless. The multiple spelling errors and odd word choices, combined with the repeated edits to fix one or two sentences, strongly reminded me of User:Iasson. And once he posted his "rules" I was pretty sure (see [22]). Still, I didn't really see anything blockable. I don't really think this Bank is very productive, though. I agree with Postdlf that a new username should be selected, though at least the Bank is not implying that it is official in anyway. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:14, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If it's Iasson, that's a blockable offense in itself. He doesn't have to do anything blockable per se, since using sockpuppets for the purpose of getting around a block is blockable. However, in order for this to stick, we need some fairly substantial evidence that it's Iasson. So far, I agree that this seems to be Iasson. If I were an admin though, I'd probably do a little more digging before I block. --Deathphoenix 12:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe we should have the username policy and the login/register screen say the use of Wikipedia in a username is prohibited. All it results in are dubious and often abusive usernames like "Wikipedia Sux" and such. We might as well nip it in the bud. Or can anyone think of a legal use of such names? Mgm|^(talk) 09:49, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a perfectly good user called User:OmegaWikipedia, who I can think of. I think it's OK in principle, but certain instances could be discouraged. Everyking 10:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps existing uses could be grandfathered, but new usernames that make use of Wikipedia (not as part of the word Wikipedian) should receive a suggestion that they find a new username? I agree that the name Bank of Wikipedia does read as having an official imprimatur and could be confusing to newer editors. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 15:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Azeri vandal

We are currently under attack by a wide number of anonymous IPs, obviously the same user, who is attacking every single article which is even tangentially related to Azerbaijan or Turkey. A large number of these pages have been protected (see the protection log) and a large number of the IPs have been blocked, but the vandal is persistant. It's 3 AM in California and I'm going to bed, but have fun if anybody besides Nohat wants to take on this task of dealing with this idiot. RickK 09:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Someone seems to be replacing random articles with this Azeri article text. Everyking 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, he seems to have been doing this for some days. I remember removing his edits on one of these pages like 3 days ago. Sarg 18:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some months, in fact; at least since mid-March. [23] — Dan | Talk 23:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's User:Rovoam, one of the parties in the arbcom case over Turkey/Azerbaijan articles. Any benefit of the doubt I gave him in the past is gone, now he simply vandalizes from a number of open proxies. If you see his edits Azeri, Template:Europe, Turkey, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc., please check if the IP is a proxy. If so, block the IP indefinitely per the proxy policy. Some of his IPs aren't listed on openrbl.org, so I'm hesitant to block them permanently. Page locking should be used sparingly, as that's his stated goal. Rhobite 21:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

For the curious, where exactly is the open proxy blocking spelled out, and what is the best and most definitive way to determine if an IP is an open proxy? -- Decumanus 22:52, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy. I check IPs using openrbl.org. Google may also return some hits for the proxy IP. Some administrators test the IPs themselves. Rhobite 22:57, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

His primary IP range appears to be 65.148.*.* - see [24]. — Dan | Talk 00:02, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Sollog

We just had a double-barrelled Sollog attack, under the names of User:Tocorrode and User:FallApart. I don't know if he's already created more accounts or not, but be on the lookout. RickK 10:07, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Attacks on User:Chadbryant

For some time this user has been under attack from a long list of sockpuppets (User:Julian Delphiki, User:Worst Poster Ever, User:Oops I Crapped My Pants, User:Luigi Mottola, User:Fark dot com, User:Smell Etitis, User:John Henry DeJong, User:Chadabryant, User:Chad Bryant, User:CBryant215, User:AnaleaseBryant, User:DickNWitham, and User:Dick Witham) and an IP address (User:172.173.150.224), mainly targetting his User page. More recently there's been a change of tactic to article-creation. One (Chad Bryant — [25]) I've deleted, but my attention was drawn to a more subtle version, ACW-Utah. I started to try to edit out the personal attacks, but in the end decided that the whole thing was there for only one purpose (a conclusion supported by the contributions history of its creator, The Lone Stranger (talk · contribs), whose approach and demeanour can be seen in his messages on my Talk page, [26]). It's pretty obvious that this is the latest incarnation of the vandal, but could someone check the IP addresses to make sure please? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As the latest article has again been created (labelled speedy by another editor, and deleted accordingly), it would be udeful to know whether or not the creator is a reincarnation of one of the perma-blocked vandals. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bullshit IRC ban

[10:45:42] <SPUI> we need a rambot for streets in the census data!
[10:45:50] <ambi2> so instead of getting unrambotted and made good, they never get created at all
[10:45:59] <ambi2> go back to the GNAA, SPUI
[10:46:07] <SPUI> fuck off
[10:46:42] <Snowspinner> SPUI: Civility plz kthx
[10:47:08] <SPUI> ambi2: Civility plz kthx
[10:47:20] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Snowspinner
[10:47:37] * Snowspinner sets mode: +q #wikipedia!*@*
[10:47:46] * Snowspinner sets mode: -q #wikipedia!*@*
[10:47:50] <SPUI> haha what
[10:47:52] * Snowspinner sets mode: +q SPUI!*@*

I would recommend that Snowspinner's op privileges be revoked, as he cannot be trusted to treat all fairly. --SPUI (talk) 14:57, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You would want to talk to Fennec about this - the IRC channel is not official, and my status as an op there is unrelated to any status on Wikipedia proper. He's the final court of appeal. That said, I've already asked him to look at the situation. Snowspinner 15:20, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

If it's not official, then it should be at ##wikipedia, per freenode policy. --SPUI (talk) 15:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, your case would probably have been strengthened had you not resorted to comments like this: [27]. Snowspinner 15:23, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not understanding...Ambi told you to "go back to the GNAA" without provocation? In that case your response doesn't seem inappropriate, and I don't see why you should have been blocked for it. But I've been blocked from IRC myself before, so I know how it goes. Everyking 15:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah - I didn't say anything before "we need a rambot for streets in the census data!". --SPUI (talk) 15:02, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fennec is the Freenode contact and the one in charge of ops and whatnot, so you should probably talk to him. — Dan | Talk 15:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

SPUI:I would recommend that Snowspinner's op privileges be revoked, as he cannot be trusted to treat all fairly.

And you base that on one block? I would ask for ambi to receive block rather than Snowspinners op status to be revoked. Ambi started it. Mgm|^(talk) 16:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Did everyone hear the latest news? I'm going to block everyone tomorrow at 07:00 UTC sharp. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it? JRM · Talk 16:44, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Ambi started what? Accurately characterizing SPUI as a member of the GNAA? SPUI is a constant annoyance, forever getting himself appropriately blocked from IRC, and then whining about how everyone is unfair to him afterwards. He needs to grow up, (and if that is a personal attack, I stand by it nevertheless). func(talk) 16:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply by SPUI (talk) 21:24, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In line with No Personal Attacks policy I've removed that, leaving the diff there instead. violet/riga (t) 21:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• go back to the GNAA, SPUI doesn't have a friendly tone to it. Sure it correctly characterizes SPUI as a GNAA member, but it also implies he isn't wanted in the discussion. Nevertheless, let it be clear that I totally agree with him being blocked. There's no place for the comment "fuck off" whether you're provoked or not. Unless it's to discuss the Fuck article it's the kind of language that sparks arguments and it shouldn't be allowed EVER. Calling a ban on someone who told someone to "fuck off" isn't bullshit by a long shot. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:03, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the current block is for repeatedly evading what was going to be a five minute time out for the "fuck you." Snowspinner 22:29, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Though this was in the Sandbox, I don't think adding several links to Snowspinner's talk page was a Good Thing [28]. --Deathphoenix 17:07, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

has there been any discussion about making the irc channel at least semi-official? Given the importance the exchanges on irc seem to play for community interaction, and given how naturally people here discuss events on #wikipedia (as opposed to any random irc channel) as wikipedia-related, it seems to be de facto wikipedia turf, and should possibly acknowledged as such, de jure. Otherwise, imho, it is the same as any other chat forum on the internet, and should be considered as having no relevance to the goings-on on wikipedia at all. dab (ᛏ) 17:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would that give semi-official status to the penis jokes made on the channel as well? ;-) func(talk) 03:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Statement, not a "threat" (if that can be called such): if this channel gets to be any more "official" than it currently is, don't count on ever seeing me there again. The whole point of the channel is so we can go there and discuss things in a way that wouldn't be appropriate or useful were it done on the wiki. That does include informal and unproductive discussions as well. I refuse to see this as any more than what it is: petty squabbling. Were people blocked from editing? Did this affect the encyclopedia in any way, aside from editors becoming slightly less productive? No. We're wasting our time. This should have never been taken to the wiki, let alone here. If anything it demonstrates the need for a separate way of discussing IRC issues, not to make the IRC channel more wiki-like. That would completely ruin it, for me at least.

If you have problems with someone on the wiki, start an RFC or an RFAr. If you have problems with someone on IRC, well frankly I don't know what you do, because I just can't take a hundred or so people chatting about whatever comes to mind seriously enough, but whatever you do, don't do it here. IRC is IRC and wiki is wiki and never the twain should meet. JRM · Talk 20:39, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Perhaps we need #wikipedia-rfc and #wikipedia-rfar channels for the off-wiki disputes. :) It would be pointless to try and make #wikipedia official. If you have problems with #wikipedia, make a new channel. There's already #en.wikipedia which experiences far fewer problems than the main channel. Angela. 21:14, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Angela, have you seen Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose? :-) (I agree with Angela and JRM, though: this dispute has nothing to do with behavior on-wiki; it's a personal issue and a #wikipedia issue, probably best resolved by just agreeing to talk to each other in some private forum.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that #wikipedia should not be (even semi-) official. there should just be a huge disclaimer that it's a private forum and unrelated to wikimedia, so things like this are never even brought up. dab (ᛏ) 20:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Halibutt

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

• 1st revert: 17:34, 5 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 07:40, 6 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 13:53, 6 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 14:58, 6 Jun 2005

Reported by: Alai 21:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Claimed to be an "exception" to the 3RR under the terms of the Gdansk stramash, rather spuriously as the Rhineland is about as Polish as I am. Alai 21:12, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• By the same user: 4 reverts on Aachen, 5 reverts on Dresden (all clearly labelled as such). And just getting warmed up on similar behaviour on various other articles. Alai 21:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The evidenced reverts are not breaking the 3RR rule, as they are not done on the same day. And just look above for the same argument about the other party in this debate. This is taking us nowhere. Try doing something constructive, like contribute at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal instead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • See WP:3RR, which clearly states "24 hour period", not "calendar day". I suggest you try your "do something constructive" advice on Halibutt, who's simply being disruptive, and frankly bordering on being vandalistic, to make a point. Alai 22:03, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is utterly ridiculous. I'm not buying the supposed "immunity" at all, as I can't see any way that that vote could apply here. Blocked for 24 hours. Proteus (Talk) 21:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Are you blind? I explained above he didn't break the rule. By the same token, you should block Chris and several other respected Wikipedians. Unblocked. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:55, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • For an admin, you certainly don't know very much about the 3RR, namely that it applies to 24 hour periods, not calendar days (which, rather blantantly obviously, differ depending on where you are in the world). And you, being involved in the dispute, are abusing your powers by interfering in administrative decisions. Proteus (Talk) 22:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I am involved in the dispute as you are, trying to cool heads here. I concede that Halibutt has done 4 reverts in 24h period, but I see his excuse - that he was empowered to this by vote - as valid one. Both sides are arguing that they can avoid 3RR (if broken) because of unclear vote results. What authority gives you the right to decide one is right? I don't think anybody here has such a right - I certainly don't presume myself to be the oracle here - thus I am encouraging fixing the policy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, the other side appears to have abided by the 3RR, and spent most of the past day asking Halibutt to stop. Has anyone else broken the rule, or claimed the right to? Mackensen (talk) 22:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • a) I'm not involved in the Polish/German dispute. You are. b) If there is any doubt whatsoever as to the applicability of this "immunity" policy, it cannot be used as a basis to overrule the 3RR. I'm not going to let a disputed vote on an article talk page overrule official Wikipedia policy. Anyway, he should have been blocked for disruption even if he hadn't broken the 3RR. He's causing havoc, and that's not acceptable. Proteus (Talk) 22:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Neither am I - I have yet to do a single revert on this matter. Both sides have been asking the other sides to talk, and both sides have violated the 3RR and claimed immunity based on the Vote results. Consider also that one side is represented by a well-known an administrator and one is not before you judge the support votes. I see both parties as quilty, and perhaps all users involved in the reverts should be blocked for a day to make them stop their POINT, but I strongly object to blocking only one party. Each side has arguments backing them, and they can't be discarded - it only points to our loopholes in voting policy, and this is why I am trying to make people do the constructive thing - improve the policy - instead of pointing fingers and trying to put a blame on one user. Chris has already agreed with me that policy needs fixing, Halibutt has done the same, so we should make an effort to cool tempers down, not inflame them by blocking one side, which has claimed immunity and can rightly state that if they are blocked, so should be their opponents, since both sides are claiming the very same arguments. In the end, if you want to block one of them and assign blame, I am afraid it would have to go to ArbCom - we have no authority to decide this matter. So please, can we work on improving the policy? Although all arguments on talk pages of involved parties you can make, the better, and I hope this ban threat will make Halibutt more reasonable - I am just afraid it may encourage Chris to the opposite (pray I am wrong). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I believe there is a policy that says that four or more reverts in a 24-hour period may result in a 24 hour block. I cannot see how Halibutt is exempt. Their arguments don't matter – the point is that Halibutt did what he did and, by policy, should be blocked. smoddy 22:31, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • So why wasn't Chris blocked on the same grounds (see section above)? Do different rules apply to different users? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no German/Polish history here, whereas there was with Chris's. To quote from the text of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland. This town is in south-west Germany. There is no shared history. There is, however, a 3RR violation. That should be acknowledged, even if the block is not reinstated (it would be silly for reinstation to happen now). smoddy 22:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Hmm. You have a point. I guess I will wait for Halibutt to reply here himself. Nonetheless, I hope this little incident made it clear to everybody we need to reexamine voting policy. If only everybody involved here spend half of that time at Template talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal ... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • ...then we'd all have raging headaches. smoddy 22:51, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. " Witkacy 20:28, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt emailed me 4 hours ago, saying that he is still blocked (that is 34h after his orginal block. IIRC he bas blocked around ~2100 on 6th, and he wrote the email to me ~0700 in 8th). I was under the impression that block would last 24h - unless you decided to block him pernamently? Also, he told me that Proteus is ignoring his emails. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's an autoblock, because he tried to edit anonymously during his block period, as anyone could easily tell from looking at Special:Ipblocklist. And I've ignored his e-mail (singular, not plural) because all he did was accuse me of bias and say I'd broken the rules by blocking him. I'm under no obligation to reply to rude e-mails. Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I checked the logs. He was blocked, as I wrote, on ~2100 on 6th. He tried to log in 7th on 2300, which 26h after his orginal block. The block was still there. It looks to me like a violation of user rights, as 3RR rule clearly states blocks can be done UP TO 24h. And note that up to does not mean exactly 24h, it can be shorter. As for his offending email, I'd like to see it. I have known Halibutt for over a year and never to my knowledge he has offended anyone, and weighting his word against yours, I am inclined to put my trust on him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was blocked by 23 CET and the block was lifted between 9 and 10 am CET, two days later, which made the block last more than 35 hours. I would be happy to hear any reason why took it so long and why was the WP:3RR violated by Proteus. As to my email, I did not accuse you of bias but simply stated that blocking me in violation of Talk:Gdansk/Vote, especially after I've explained my edits on the talk page, is at best a matter of Proteus' personal crusade against me. Especially that there are other users here who were not blocked for the very same reason. Who exactly made Proteus responsible for which cases are compliant with the rules of the Talk:Gdansk/Vote and which are not? As far as I know, this right is reserved for Jimbo or ArbCom, not for any of the admins, even as honourable as Proteus.

Also, if Proteus was offended, then I'm sorry. Please be so kind as to quote the exact part of my letter that made you think that I was trying to offend anyone and I'm sure the misunderstanding could be solved. However, I have a reason to believe that the reason behind lack of your reply was not exactly my email being offensive, but rather the fact that Protheus was trying to prove some point by blocking me - or silence me in the Talk:Dresden and Talk:Mainz discussion.

Finally, I was not trying to "edit anonymously", I simply didn't know that I'm blocked. And, by the way, if I wanted to edit anonymously, I would be able to do it since I was trying to log in from my work, and as far as I know there is a completely different IP there. Halibutt 03:03, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I see no more explanation that I can give that hasn't been given by either me or another admin further up this page. If you still don't understand, then I'm sorry, but I don't see how reiterating the same points over and over will help. (And the suggestion that I'm engaged in a crusade against you is absurd, as is patently obvious.) Proteus (Talk) 09:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for responce from Proteus with interest, it has been close to 24h since I requested his reply on the same grounds above. Blocking a user for over 24h is an evident violation of 3RR rule and should be punished. Also, ignoring user emails beacuse they are 'offending' leaves room to much abuse (you block someone, he complains its not fair, you consider this 'offending'...).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:27, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can understand Halibutt's complaints, if he genuinely doesn't understand that breaking the 3RR by using an interpretation of a "disputed" vote shared by virtually no other user as an excuse is unacceptable. But you are just being ridiculous, and demonstrating a lack of knowledge about the workings of Wikipedia that I find absolutely astonishing in an admin. Anyone can easily look at the block log and find the following:

23:25, 6 Jun 2005 Proteus blocked "User:Halibutt" with an expiry time of 23 hours (reinstate block removed in violation of policy again)

23:05, 6 Jun 2005 Proteus blocked "User:Halibutt" with an expiry time of 23 hours (restore block)

22:41, 6 Jun 2005 Proteus blocked "User:Halibutt" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violations on numerous articles)

Do you think I've found a way to block people without it showing on the block log, or to manipulate the IP Block List by the powers of the Force? If not, just what is it you are suggesting I've done? Proteus (Talk) 09:39, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why exactly wasn't I able to edit wikipedia until 10 AM? Also, it's your interpretation of the rules set by the voting; if you can tell me what makes you the person to decide on which version is better, then I promise I won't file my complains anywhere. Also, my interpretation is apparently shared by at least User:Chris 73 and his fellow contributors (see above). Finally, I asked you to post the offensive parts of my letter here so that I could apologise and improve my style in the future. Could you be so kind? Halibutt 12:46, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Now, I guess there may be some confusion from time zones, but even so, my calculations do show that Halibutt was blocked for at least 33h. Now, I could understand a 2-3h difference (up to 27h), since after you blocked him, I unblocked him and RickK blocked him again at least 2h elapsed, and I'd assume his block was set for 24h, and thus it was reset by RickK reblocking. But, since you blocked him around 2100, and RickK reblocked him around 2300, the block should have expired around 2300-2400 next day (I am using my and Halibutt's timezone here). But Halibutt states he was still blocked at 0700 on the day after. That is 7h after a 24+2=26h block should have expired. How is that possible? I admit I know little about this mechanism, since I have not been involved in similar case prior to this (and I still consider this a giant waste of time of all parties involved). In any case, I think we can resolve this matter peacefully, if both sides can step forward and apologised for their mistakes: Halibutt, you should apologise for your actions. Setting aside the fact that other users act in a similar way and cite the very same vote for immunity (and yes, I think they should be punished as you were, but this is not the issue here), the fact is that your actions bordered on POINT and eventually broke the 3RR rule. Proteus, you (or whoever is responsible) should apologise to Halibutt for over-24h block (and clarify the insulting letter issue). Then we can go, fix the voting policy and have all this childish pointing fingers behind us. Sounds good? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:57, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. I'm sorry for being a pain in the back. Halibutt 05:45, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

You want me to apologise for Wikipedia having a technical fault? Sorry, not going to happen. (As for the offensive e-mail, I consider any e-mail that challenges my integrity, threatens me with RfC for extremely spurious reasons and rudely demands that I explain myself to be "offensive".) Proteus (Talk) 12:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I am dissapointed by you, Proteus. You seem to use the logic: 1) Proteus is always right; 2) if Proteus is not right, see 1) and try to blame technology instead of take it yourself. It was you who blocked Halibutt, not Wikipedia itself, and you should accept responsibility for that - unless simple 'sorry' for you is impossible? So far, in the discussion between you and Halibutt I see you have offended him with allegiations you cannot support, not the other way around. Halibutt has every right (as specified by 3RR policy) to demand an explanation and your failure to respond to this borders on abuse of powers. This behaviour is not what I'd expect of a Wiki admin. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proteus, I guess it's your turn for explanations. It's easy to ignore other users or state they are offensive, but at times it would be better to actually try to be more cooperative. Halibutt 21:29, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've explained things already. I'm not going to continue doing so. I have better things to do with my time than explain to you why you can't break the rules and explain to an admin who should know better how Wikipedia works. Proteus (Talk) 12:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, your attempts to turn the issue and blame me for this is not going to work. We are not discussing my alleged ingorance here (and after rereading the 3RR rules I am certain I have acted according to them), but your abuse of power (i.e. blocking a user for over 24h). Unfortunately for you, Wiki is not a dictatorship but a democracy. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:08, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is getting really tiresome. Please provide a copy of a log entry showing where Proteus blocked Halibutt for more than 24 hours, or stop making these wild accusations of "abuse of power", and apologize to Proteus. There is at least one known technical feature of Wikipedia (over which admins have no control) that can extend blocks (i.e. autoblocking), and there is also a possible bug that causes blocks not to be cleared (see, e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive16#User:William M. Connolley). Noel (talk) 08:05, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if everybody sais it's a technical fault, I guess it really is - thank you for explaining it to me. But I would still like to see the offendig letter, because current reasoning by Proteus is very similar to Catch 22: 1) policy states a user blocked by admin can complain to him 2) Proteus thinks that complain disputes his reasoning thus it is automatically offending and may be discarded. See my problem? Now, if we see the letter and agree it was in fact offending, I will apologise to Proteus and warn Halibutt. But until this is resolved, I have every right to demand from people with power (i.e. admins) that they prove they are not abusing their power, don't I?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I got somewhat cranky with you, but Proteus did previously try and show you that the log entries showed he hadn't blocked Halibutt for more than 24 hours. (It's also easy for anyone to check Halibutt's blocks and see that nobody blocked him for more than 24 hours, leading to the conclusion that it was a technical issue.) Noel (talk) 18:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please see my comments on this silly affair under the User:Boothy443 3RR case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great to see some people are still thinking about the big picture. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, back down, apparently there's no sense in requiring common sense here. Let's just forget about the issue and stop wasting our time. I won't file a complain against Proteus, though I hope his behaviour improves with time. Also, perhaps we should modify the ban warning, since so far it says that you can contact the admin that blocked you but it doesn't mention the fact that you should not wait for any answer to come. Also, the 3RR should mention the fact that 24 hours here in WP might last for much longer. Halibutt 11:56, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

violet/riga

violet/riga acted in an extraordinary manner on Talk:Economic history of the Irish state. A controversial name change had been proposed. The proposal had not been highlighted so very few people participated. 5 took part. 3 supported the change. 2 opposed. Then violet/riga as an admin came to the page, cast their vote in favour of the change, and within seconds announced that there now was 66% support and moved the page.

It was a gross abuse of position for an admin to in effect cast a vote in a deadline free vote about which few people were aware, and about which the proposer of the motion had failed to draw people's attention to, and then immediately themselves move the page.[29] It broke every principal of neutrality, impartiality, fairness, etc. If they wanted to vote, they should have then left it to others to implement the decision. But for an admin, seconds after voting, to shut down the vote and make the move on the basis of a majority their vote had produced, was a disgrace. Yet the admin doesn't seem to think they did anything wrong. How can users trust admins is one admin thinks it ok in effect to use their position to be judge and jury in the making of the decision. If they had a least left it for day or so to see if others might want to vote, and then come back, it might have been tolerable behaviour. But what they in effect did was highjack the debate, produce a decision and enforce it in less than a minute. That is unacceptable behaviour for an admin. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 22:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have fully explained my actions on that talk page and think that this is mostly down to Jtdirl being upset that the vote went against him. WP:RM is not a requirement for moving an article and this vote, while not publicised there, went for over two weeks before a decision was made. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Violetriga's actions seem perfectly reasonable. A more important issue is Jtdirl's general comportment. He is a valuable contributor, but he is far to fast to resort to insults and threats when other users disagree with him. - SimonP 22:54, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Might I add further that the proposed move was noted on Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes I disagreed with the decision, but that isn't the issue at all. I would be just as angry if someone on my side of the argument did that. No admin should intervene in a debate, cast a vote and in the same edit announce that there now was a consensus and make a change. No admin. Ever. The admin making the change should be neutral from the debate, or if a participant be returning to the page to implement whatever decision the participants had decided. They should not simultaneously be the person who casts a vote and in the very same edit then announce that their vote had now produced a decision and immediately implement it. For all we know, 30 seconds later another voter could have come along and cast a vote a different way and meant the consensus wasn't there anymore in numerical terms. It is wrong for any admin to do that. It is disrespectful to wikipedians and should never ever be done that way by any admin in any debate on any debate at any time. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 23:24, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And for all we know 30 days later nobody else might have voted - sorry, but that logic can't work when it's been over two weeks since the vote began. I find it more disrespectful to publicly berate a persons actions rather than dealing with it on their own talk page. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

30 days? I see votes in that poll going as far back as 22 May. What was the great rush, violetriga (and yes, that is a déjà vu on that question)? El_C 02:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say the poll was going on for 30 days - I said "over two weeks". The "great rush" was the fact that it'd gone on for a long time and I was asked to look into it. What is the point in waiting for another week? Why make myself have to keep track of such things when I'm just going to be annoying those that want it moved (which, by the way, are in the majority)? violet/riga (t) 06:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So what happened is:

• You were asked to look at the poll;
• You chose to vote;
• Your vote produced a (bare) two-thirds,
• You then instantly rename the page.

That is outrageous behaviour. Other admins would never dream of using their vote to produce a two-thirds majority that was not previous there, and then use the outcome produced by their own vote instantly to rename a page. What is even more astonishing is that you don't see anything wrong in that behaviour. In parliaments, speakers follow what is known as Speaker Denison's rule, whereby if in a tied or indecisive vote their casting vote will result in either the maintenance of the status quo or the overturning of the status quo, they vote to maintain the status quo, on the basis that they would be breaching their independence if they used their casting vote to create a new decision. Instead they vote to leave as is, allowing the issue to be revisited later, or if their decision to vote one way produces an irrevocative decision (eg, the fall of a government, the killing of a bill) they vote in a way that allows a future decision to be taken (eg, defeat for a government would force it out of office - an irrovocable decision - support for a government allows a later decision to be taken in parliament to defeat them later on). The way you intervened broke every concept of good practice, fairness, and respect for users. If you wanted to vote and it was clear that your vote would be decisive, then you should have left it to others to do the move. Frankly, if this is the standard of behaviour you think is acceptable, then you are unfit to be an admin. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 18:56, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a parliamentary vote and no matter how many times you say that it was "outrageous" I will just not agree. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

V_r, as I said re: the previous page you used admin powers in (protected) even though you were involved in reverting (over BC/E), once you get involved in a dispute and adopt a side in it, it's best to leave it for another admin who is uninvolved, to implement whatever admin changes are deemed fit. As a universal rule. El_C 19:09, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're saying I shouldn't have a vote? Sorry but that is totally against the whole principal of this place. Anyway, that'd mean I wouldn't get to have my say on any WP:RM request as I'm the one that does them all. As for the other page, once again I'm sorry but you are simply wrong about what happened there. violet/riga (t) 19:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In defense of violet/riga a recent vote was taken at Talk:History of the Republic of Ireland for movement to History of the Republic of Ireland and their were no decenting votes for that article. Several articles were moved from "...Republic of Ireland" to "...Irish states" without any vote or consultation been taken some months ago and on a basic level this moving back is simply housekeeping and realigning article titles to more appropriate titles. Djegan 19:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not where the page was moved to (though there is a fundamental issue of accuracy in putting articles under names that did not exist for most of the timespan covered by the articles). The issue here is one admin's blatent abuse (clearly not for the first time) of her powers to push per personal viewpoint. Admins have been sacked in the past for doing so, in cases far less clearcut than here, where an admin used her vote to create a majority and then in the same edit announced she was moving the page on the basis of that majority. That is disgraceful behaviour. The fact that she does not see that admins should not act that way, suggests clearly that she is unfit to be an admin. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 19:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Violet/riga, have we met before? To comment on my suitability for being an admin without really knowing anything about me is hardly a sensible thing to do. Just because I disagree with you on this issue doesn't mean that I immediately assume that you're a problematic editor. I disagree with your point of view, and still think that it's coming out of annoyance from the decision rather than the action. You claim that the move shows bias? Well you know what? I really don't care about any Irish history and was only there because of a move request. My vote was based on opinion of the content of the article and naming of similar articles, and is very relevant. Now explain to me why I should've waited for other people to vote. violet/riga (t) 19:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you blurred two incompatible roles simultaneously. You were perfectly entitled to vote. You were perfectly entitled to implement the decision of the vote. But what should never be done is to cast a vote that produces a decision, and then instantly turn from being a participant in the vote to the enforcer of that vote. That crossed a fundamental line. It would have been an abuse of my position as an admin if I had turned up on a page where one more vote was needed to get the required majority, used my vote to produce that majority, turned around in the edit and said in effect 'oh look. There is a majority here' and implemented it there and then. If you wanted to vote, you should have stood back and let someone else not involved in the debate implement the decision. At the very least, you should have left the page until other votes were cast and then, a day or two later, see if the consensus your vote had created was still there.

The principle should be not merely to be neutral in your conduct on moving the page but to be seen to be neutral. All sides need to be able to trust your impartiality in implementing that decision. It is possible to do so even if you have expressed a vote, provided it is not your vote that created the decision you then are implementing. Your actions set yourself up simultaneously as judge (implementing a decision) and jury (the voter who created the majority). That is imcompatible with your role as an admin and should never be done by anyone. Admins try to avoid using their powers on pages where they are an active participant, because, even if they are neutral in their own eyes, they may not be perceived as neutral. I try where possible to avoid being an admin and a contributor. There may be occasions when an admin who is a participant in a debate has had to intervene using admin powers (such as protecting a page) but we do so only in emergencies, only when immediate action is needed and where no other admin is available to act. In every case a full explanation is put on the talk page. All sides usually agree in those cases that the action was justified in the case and had all been done openly, fairly and honestly.

You simply have not have realised that what you did was fundamentally wrong, but it was. You personally created a decision which then you personally, immediately implemented. You should never do that. Having in effect sat on the jury there was no need for you in immediately leap on the bench, don the robes and assume the role of judge. Having voted, you should have left the implementation to someone else. Or at the very least given time to see whether others might vote to disagree with you, especially as your vote created the smallest conceivable percentage above two-thirds. Creating a majority and simultaneously implementing a decision you have been responsible for creating, is something no admin should ever do. You may not intended it that way, but it looked like an abuse of your role. In effect, what you did was to enter a page where there was no mathematical consensus for a move, used your vote to create that mathematical consensus, then enforced the consensus, and told the people on a page that would not have had a consensus without your consensus, that now they would have to build up a consensus to overrule you.

If you didn't understand the underlying principles behind the behaviour of admins as admins in using admin powers, perhaps they need to be spelt out more clearly. But please do not act this way again. Your actions, however well-meaning, turned a vote on a page into at best a farce, at worst the highjacking of the decision by one user. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 20:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And as I said above I still disagree. The fact that you see this as an abuse of admin rights is totally illogical when, in most circumstances, a move can be performed without admin intervention. You may try to argue that I moved it too quickly but cannot say that it was an abuse of admin rights. Secondly, if it were any random person that voted and then moments later I made a decision, you could still claim that there could've been further votes that tipped the balance the other way. Indeed, if you look at it that way no vote would ever end. The fact that there was a majority without my vote totally seems to escape you, and some could argue that the move should've been done because of that – there have in fact been recent discussions at WP:RM about what constitutes an actionable majority. By my view it is you that has acted improperly and caused the situation to look a farce simply by your outbursts on that articles talk page. violet/riga (t) 21:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you still cannot see the problem, then frankly, you should not be an admin, for your own sake as much as for everyone else's, because if this is your concept of what an admin is, you are going to get yourself into severe problems. And BTW decisions on wikipedia are not decided by majority but by surpassing a set percentage that can be said to be a consensus. A vote of three people out of five does not quality as a consensus. Numerically four out of six just about does. So you created the numbers to justify the move, and then it looks like, rushed the implementation through in case another person might appear and reduce the total below the consensus threshhold. And that is an abuse of Wikipedia, whether you like it or not. FearÉIREANN^(talk) 21:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand entirely what you are saying, but I disagree. I can't believe that you claim I've made something into a farce when it is you making such statements as "you should not be an admin" based on one interaction (oh, wait - I'm still awaiting you response on talk:News anchor). Not all decisions on Wikipedia are not made by consensus - they should be where possible, but it simply cannot happen (VfD, for example). As per the rules of WP:RM the page should've been moved. But the page wasn't listed there, so it isn't even bound by those rules. Please show me the policy that states that a page can only be moved with full consensus. violet/riga (t) 21:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm amazed and appalled that we're having such an inflammatory debate over this incident filled with charges that an admin is abusing her position. May I remind everyone that you don't need to be an admin to move a page? This action might have been taken by anyone, and still can be again (not that I wish to incite a move war). Certainly discussion on the matter isn't and shouldn't be considered closed, and I can understand disagreeing with the action taken, but the problem is being blown utterly out of proportion. --Michael Snow 21:54, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I agree with others in finding violet/riga's behaviour here questionable at best. When it's seen in light of the earlier issue to which El C referred (protecting a page in which he or she was editorially involved), I think that it indicates a certain lack of understanding of an admin's responsibilities. It's overheated (to say the least) to demand de-adminning or the like, but a re-reading of some of the documents on the Administrators' reading list mightn't be a bad idea. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:06, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For clarity, I wasn't "editorially involved", but that's another issue. I fully understand the responsibilities. violet/riga (t) 22:15, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, for clarity, you had edited the article in line with one side of the edit war. We've been through this. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:32, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yet we still disagree. violet/riga (t) 22:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Michael Snow above, but I think the criticism he makes needs to be more directional. It's not any "we" having an inflammatory debate that's to be seen above, it's Jtdirl flaming violet/riga. At least, I can't see anybody else being inflammatory. Jtdirl, I don't even understand how a page move--something anybody can do, and undo! housekeeping! a move only five people were interested in!--can have the capacity for deserving that much abuse. You're the one breaking the concepts of "good practice, fairness, and respect for users" here. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that any user could move pages; I have never moved a page. Still, I never claimed to be a compotent admin (or editor, for that matter!). It struck me as analogous of the past incident, which I do not think I'm wrong over, though I don't find it important enough to press on. El_C 03:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually it's rather disingenuous to say that anyone can move pages; any user has the ability to do it (except anons and very new users), but when there's controversy, so that a poll is needed, there are accepted norms of behaviour. My view is that violet/riga behaved inadvisedly (at best) in this case, thought that's not because he/she's an admin — no editor should have done what she did. Nevertheless, as an admin, she should be more careful than other users (and the earlier incident was directly related to being an admin). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:59, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am very aware of the way move polls work. As I am the one that makes the WP:RM decisions, I decided to move it. The fact that my vote tipped it over the edge of the (previously non-existant) 66% rule is not relevant. My vote and my decision were unrelated. The simple fact is that the vote had been going on for over two weeks and decision needed to be made. I still haven't seen any decent explanation why I should've waited any longer. And as I said previously, if I'd decided one minute after any other user made the decisive vote would that still make it the wrong thing to do? Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong with what I did. People also seem to forget that it's hardly like it's a fixed decision and I explained what people could do if they disagreed with the move. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow. There have been a lot of electrons spilled over this topic, haven't there? I think that two weeks is plenty of time to consider a page move, so there's no problem there. There's no specific rule requiring a 66% majority for a move, so Violetriga hasn't overstepped or twisted a policy in that respect. Since she seems to be the only one who usually carries out pages moves, it seems unfair to bar her from ever having an opinion. In this case, I'd say she acted more like the chairperson at a meeting or the Speaker of the House in government. Normally those individuals don't vote on issues, but their judgement is called upon to break a tie. (Of course, this instance didn't even have a tie, violetriga was just adding a bit more weight to the preexisting majority.) What's the problem? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 13:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I swore to myself (and at myself) that I would never, ever post on an/i. I might act on it, but I wouldn't post on it. Now I'll have to perform prayers of penitence. Folks very often follow the first red herring that swims by in these discussions, and so I'm doubly sorry that I'm about to release one into the stream, but for over a year I have thought that one of the most critical holes in the policy structure of Wikipedia is that lack of quorum. This is not to be on one or the other side of this particular page move, but rather to say that far too often people are claiming consensus in the dark. Again, this is not to take a position on this particular issue, only to say that, if anyone wishes to draft a quorum policy, I would be happy to lend whatever skills I have to the writing of it. One critical function of such a thing would be to establish where and when a quorum is needed. Page moves wouldn't need one, for the most part, so it wouldn't apply here, but it would at least relieve the concerns of folks to know that we have a quorum policy that says that it is not necessary for page moves. Geogre 15:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A light of common sense, Geogre. We are very good at claiming that we act on a consensus basis, but have not even begun to define what we mean when we say this. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:41, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
    • Indeed: when we say "consensus" we very rarely mean that everyone is happy with a position: at best, there is a plurality or supermajority. Just on a point of order, while VR executes most of the requests on WP:RM, particularly the ones that need an exercise of judgement, VR is not the only one to make page moves; however, I have to say that I would trust VR to exercise any judgement required properly (this case included). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche and User:The Power of Reason

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Lyndon_LaRouche
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2.

An editor, The Power of Reason (talk · contribs) is making contributions to articles that portray Lyndon LaRouche as, among other things, an important economist. On two occasion the Arbitration Committee reviewed similar edits. They found that the material was harmful to the encyclopedia's integrity and also that the editor was using sockpuppets fraudulently. That editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), had certain temporary limits placed upon his editing which are still in force. Other limits were placed on edits of this type, in particular: "Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as 'promotion' of Lyndon LaRouche." The current editor is working quickly and appears to have a familiarity with Wikipedia. If any admins would be willing to keep an eye on this editor's contributions I'd appreciate it. Thanks, -Willmcw 22:39, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

User:The Power of Reason has made 32 edits, beginning June 6, all constituting original research and promotion of Lyndon LaRouche, and all in violation of the September 2004 and February 2005 arbitration-committee rulings. The edits include the creation of two new articles LaRouche-Riemann Method and Triple Curve, both aiming to show that LaRouche is an important economist, and promoting LaRouche and LaRouche original research, which is prohibited by the arbcom rulings. I've put a speedy-delete tag on the articles. I didn't want to delete them myself in case The Power of Reason is a reincarnation of User:Herschelkrustofsky, as I've been conflict with the latter; and also because I'd like to hear from other admins as to whether these articles are speedy-delete candidates, or whether they should go through VfD.

It would be helpful if David could run an IP check on The Power of Reason to determine whether the IP address matches any of those used by the Herschelkrustofsky sockpuppets. These were listed in evidence during the second arbcom case; I'll find a link and post it here. (See below.) If The Power of Reason is Herschelkrustofsky, any admin may block the former indefinitely.

The two relevant arbcom rulings related to LaRouche sockpuppetry are (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Proposed decision):

1) If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week. The IP should be blocked with due caution as to whether it is a dynamic IP or ISP proxy likely to have many users.

2) If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.

The three relevant rulings regarding insertion of LaRouche material by any editor are (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision):

1) Original work which originates from Lyndon LaRouche and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears other than the article Lyndon LaRouche and other closely related articles.

2) Supporters of Lyndon LaRouche are instructed not to add references to Lyndon directly to articles except where they are highly relevant, and not to engage in activities that might be perceived as "promotion" of Lyndon LaRouche.

3) Wikipedia users who engage in re-insertion of original research which originated with Lyndon LaRouche and his movement or engage in edit wars regarding insertion of such material shall be subject to ban upon demonstration to the Arbitration Committee of the offense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The IP addresses used by Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs), Weed Harper (talk · contribs), and C Colden (talk · contribs) were: [30]

DSL connection 64.30.208.48 (talk · contribs); it resolved to Los Angeles;

AOL dial-up IP ranges 172.128.0.0 - 172.191.255.255, and 172.192.0.0 - 172.216.255.255; these also resolved to California;

Occasionally, they also used 198.81.26.48 (talk · contribs), 198.81.26.76 (talk · contribs), 198.81.26.76 (talk · contribs), 198.81.26.76 (talk · contribs), and 198.81.26.73 (talk · contribs)

Note: The Power of Reason has made edits to Arnold Schwarzenegger, and has claimed Lyndon LaRouche is a leading figure in California politics. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:06, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not jump to conclusions. It may be Herschel, but there's more than one LaRouchite in the world. We should wait for an IP check and then, if it turns up positive, we can block without requiring any further discussion; if it's negative, then it will be a POV issue for article talk pages and not here. Everyking 00:46, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some of the ArbCom rulings apply to any editor promoting LaRouche and his theories, so even if this editor is not Herschel, he may still enage in behaviors which require administrator action. -Willmcw 01:35, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that's that LaRouchites can't insert references to LaRouche into articles otherwise unrelated to him? Worryingly, that leaves an enormous amount of room for interpretation. To those of us who aren't LaRouchites, the idea that LaRouche is worth mentioning in a general article on economics seems rather silly, but to LaRouchites it seems preposterous to have an article about economics without mentioning him. So how do you decide what articles are unrelated to him? You'd have to side with one POV or the other if you were going to make judgements about these kinds of cases. Everyking 02:30, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The strength of one's sources is usually a fair indicator. El_C 02:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That still requires a POV judgement, doesn't it? How are you going to decide which sources are strong and which are weak? I think something like this would have to decided through discussion on the talk pages; you couldn't have admins going around making unilateral decisions on which articles are and which aren't related to LaRouche. Everyking 02:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not prepared to entertain these epistemological (& rhetroical) questions at this time as the risk of elipticism appears great. Perhaps, then, you should direct these to the Arbirtration Committee in a request for clarification. El_C 02:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The articles have to be "closely related" to LaRouche before LaRouche publications can be used as sources, and then only as primary sources, not secondary. "Closely related" refers to the pages on Template:LaRouche. This isn't a POV issue; it's about the insertion of original research in violation of Wikipedia:No original research; the insertion of tiny-minority views in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; and the arbcom's ruling that editors may not act as advocates for, or engage in the promotion of, Lyndon LaRouche. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:53, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, instead of trying to re-hear the cases, why don't you read the two arbcom rulings? These issues have all been dealt with. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:55, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking is not of the habit of reading... No, wait, I'll keep it inside my mind. El_C 02:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I think I'm a mind reader. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:08, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I practically said 80% of it, but good job! El_C 03:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:The Power of Reason appears to have set up a sockpuppet The Power of Human Reason (talk · contribs), or someone else has done it in order to cause trouble. Also, the two articles The Power of Human Reason created are up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Triple Curve and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/LaRouche-Riemann Method. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Did you set blocktime to infinite or indefinite? Just curious. El_C 03:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting way out of hand. Obviously somebody blocked his original account for no known reason, compelling him to create this new account. If we are going to ban people for their views we should at least get a good pretext first so as not to embarrass ourselves. Everyking 03:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Oh how) I wonder (wonder) who that somebody could be ? ;p El_C 04:01, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote that The Power of Human Reason had been set up as a second account, I didn't realize that The Power of Reason had been blocked. If the latter's been judged to be a Herschel sockpuppet, it means the former can be blocked too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

But there is no actual evidence that the user was a sockpuppet to begin with... Everyking 19:19, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked the user. This is just not acceptable. Get an IP check. Everyking 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, emboldened by the consensus you inevitably get when you blast admin actions left and right, you've gone ahead and unilaterally overturned the block? I'm reblocking. Snowspinner 22:41, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter, these accounts have announced their departure. Let's not have a block war, please. --Michael Snow 22:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On sock checks: at present the query in question is timing out (it's an expensive query so the server happily lets it die if it takes too long). On But, in any case: Herschel sockpuppetry: he only got busted as Weed Harper by > < this much last time (he slipped up) and the AC declared C Colden might as well be a sock owing to the IDENTICAL EDIT PATTERN and stuff.Herschel is not stupid and I expect he'd do a better job of sockpuppetry another time around - it's not hard. Please keep in mind that IP-username matching is not Magical Truth Sauce, it only goes back a week or so anyway, and that almost all socks are spotted the way they always have been, i.e. acting the bloody same. There are many banned users who have returned to Wikipedia under a new name and been left alone if they don't do something really dumb like make the same trouble again. And if someone imitates a blocked user sufficiently, they are liable to be blocked again. I ask all to get a grip - David Gerard 22:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The huge problem here is that the guy did nothing but edit some articles with a LaRouche POV, and he was labeled a sockpuppet as if there is only one LaRouchite in the world. Beyond that, I didn't see any other similarities, did anyone else? He left a note on my talk page referring to the LaRouche Youth Movement and Herschel called himself "an old guy". This is dangerously close to blocking a person purely on account of his or her views. Everyking 23:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Circularly, there's something to that, because it wasn't necessery. Edits such as this are prohibited for all users, a rule you objected to, Everyking, and which I suggested to seek clarification on. There was no need to sock it if the (any) user was explained the policy as per blatant promotion/sanitation of LaRouche and yet argued he was going to circumvent it under the guise of npov and relevance. El_C 03:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I expect this would all look pretty dismal from the outside. We justify it in our own way, which satisfies some of us, but in reality it's repression of a particular POV. Note that I was the first person to revert and caution this LaRouchite, yet I'm also the first to stand up against his mistreatment. Is it so difficult to have that balance, to disagree with the edits and yet also stand by policy and fairness? Everyking 03:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Noted. But, circularly again, what you are charging in this case is that you don't find a piece of policy to be fair, which is why I suggested you seek clarification on or find ways to challenge that. I'm not sure what else to recommend, so I withdraw. El_C 04:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What policy do I object to? I don't know of any. What I object to is the particular case of the blocking of this user by an individual admin, which as far as I can tell has no policy behind it. Everyking 04:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the point in your going on about this, except in pursuit of your vendetta against Snowspinner. The Power of Reason's edits violated the NPOV policy because they reported the views of a tiny-minority without making clear that that's what they were; they violated the NOR policy because they relied on LaRouche publications, which are not credible publications by any standard, and which the arbcom has ruled amount to original-research; and they violated two arbcom rulings, which said that LaRouche supporters must not promote the views of Lyndon LaRouche or engage in advocacy on his behalf. The second arbcom ruling also stated that "Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely." Arguing against this is perfectly valid so long as you've read it. But you're disagreeing for the hell of it, without knowing the subject matter, and without having read the relevant policies and rulings, as part of your campaign against Snowspinner, the arbcom, and all or most administrators. I wish you'd stop it, because it's incredibly time-consuming. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:49, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

None of that is grounds for blocking except the sockpuppet claim. But since there's no real evidence in favor of that, then that doesn't count either. Note also that I opposed this before I even knew it was Snowspinner who made the block. Everyking 10:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Everyking and SlimVirgin. You figure it out. JRM · Talk 08:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Cartoon vandal needs blocking

24.60.128.48 (talk · contribs) has started on another round of insterting nonsense into Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends related articles. His edits to other articles need checking as well.

This user really needs a block. His talk page consists of nothing but warnings about inserting nonsense going back to November. His MO is to come along every so often and repeatedly insert unexplained and incorrect information into cartoon articles. He is the only user to have edited from this IP, and so a long-term block (in the order of months not days) is really needed. I would do it myself but I am too involved, having been reverting his changes for the past few months. Thryduulf 22:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I block him every time I encounter him. I've warned him in the past that he would be blocked indefinitely. The problem is that he uses lots of different IP addresses, but they are all static. I'll block this one, but he'll come back somewhere else. He never discusses anything. RickK 23:10, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
• I really hate even the thought of it, but has anyone considered just contacting his ISP, which is Comcast Cable in Boston. If there is that much vandalism, then he is violating his TOS with them. Just a last resort, thought. <>Who?¿? 23:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since these are cartoon articles the user is probably a child, and if the subject of Thomas the Tank Engine is any indicator a rather young one at that. A lengthy block would be appropriate, but if he can evade that I suppose there's nothing to do but wait for him to grow out of it. Everyking 00:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds familiar. I hope he's not on AOL. — Dan | Talk 00:51, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really sure he's a child. The user has created several articles which were completely false -- I can't remember the exact name of it, but it was Hollywood something or other, claiming that there was a long-running TV series which had cartoon characters from every known cartoon production company all working together in one show. He created a category for this fake show and linked just about every single cartoon character to it at one point or other. He's created fake Simpsons characters. He's created other fake cartoon shows and cartoon characters. I do have a feeling that English is not his native language because of some of the wording, but he is persistant and keeps coming back after being blocked with one account and using another. He has worked on commercial icons and other non-cartoon material, which would make me think it isn't a kid. RickK 19:23, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was Hollywood Jam. Meelar (talk) 19:37, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

That was it, thanks, Meelar. RickK 20:17, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

24.60.133.207 (talk · contribs) has just made all the same edits to the Thomas the Tank Engine series that 24.60.128.48 made. I've been through and reverted them all, please could someone block if they feel necessary, I havne't got time now. Thryduulf 06:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours; I won't squeal if anyone else wants to make that longer. I'd like to see this loser permanently gone as well. Postdlf 06:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed it to a permanent block. RickK 07:00, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)