Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive5

Contents: January 29, 2005 - February 4, 2005

User:Robert Blair

I've finally discovered through his talk page that this user has been editing offline and the installing his edited version over the top of new articles. This has caused no end of problems, since it is indistinguishable from reverts. I don't think administrative action (blocks etc) are needed, but what is urgently needed is for an experienced Wikipedian to talk to him about this. Can anyone help? - Jakew 01:53, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. I understand sock puppet investigation is in progress - David Gerard 02:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally find that allegation incredible, but until it has been established, a relevant policy applies: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Can someone please talk to this user on the assumption that he is not a sockpuppet and get him to work in a style more conducive to collaboration? - Jakew 02:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake this is yet another desperate attempt by Exploding Boy to wriggle off the hook with respect to the allegation he made that I had created "yet another" sock puppet. First he attempted to claim it was Dr Zen and now as a last ditch desperate move he is claiming it is Robert Blair. Attention is drawn to my request on wikien-l to which Tim Starling replied (on 10 Jan 2005) which linked Robert Blair to the IP range 207.69.13*.* which I subsequently posted to this notice board as evidence of a 3RR breach. There was no response from any of our esteemed sysops. Then I refer to my exchange with the belligerent Exploding Box where I stated that as a sysop he had the connections to establish who was or wasn't a sock puppet. Of course he declined to act (probably on the basis that he did not want to let some facts get in the way of some delightful innuendo). This is of course further evidence of the lack of good faith by EB in these matters. I would then state it once again and clearly that it is entirely within the ability of the people who make these allegations to put this matter to rest in a few minutes. The question that needs to be asked is why it is not. - Robert the Bruce 05:08, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Most admins don't have any better "connections" to get developers to check sockpuppets than you do. Some may know a/some developer(s), but it's happenstance. Why do you think we're having the big debate above (at #Sockpuppet detection) about a mechanism to do that, if it were easy for admins to get a developer to do it for them? Noel (talk) 19:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation over "totally disputed" tag at Race

Jalnet2 has reverted five times in 22 hours at Race over whether the "totally disputed" tag should be on the article. S/he wants the tag on the grounds that the article is too politically correct, s/he says, but is the only one who wants it. Several other editors disagree. Does 3RR apply to tags as well as content? Here are the reversions, between 03:56 on Jan 28 to 01:54 on Jan 29: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] SlimVirgin 02:25, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

No revert since she was warned about the 3RR, so I'm not going to block just yet. Keep in mind that the fact that there is a dispute over whether or not there is a dispute is an indication that there is a dispute though. --fvw* 02:28, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

I dispute that, fvw. ;-) SlimVirgin 03:15, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this what the {{NPOVNPOV}} tag is for? ;-) --Carnildo 02:46, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reverted again despite warning and got blocked by me for 24 hours -- Chris 73 Talk 03:12, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking

Everyking restored a table in Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album) without gaining consensus on the talk page (and even so, the decision of the arbcom seems to prohibit any reverts to Ashlee Simpson articles beyond those reverting vandalism). Judging the revert is left to admins' discretion; I will not judge Everyking, since I couldn't care less, but I thought it might help the community to know about this. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Look, this is getting out of hand. How is it fair that someone is just allowed to remove information without consensus yet Everyking is not allowed to put it back? I'd advise that no action be taken here as Everyking has done nothing wrong. Perhaps he's a bit too enthusiastic with his Ashlee Simpson articles, but I think they are by and large of high quality (sure, I put one of his articles on VfD for non-notability, this does not mean that I dislike the other articles!) Please, let's not chase away a good contributor. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but I think the issue is that arbcom ordered that Everyking not be allowed non-vandalism reversions. This means that at present Everyking is not treated the same as other users and may well have done something wrong.Mackensen (talk) 01:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But I didn't revert anything, so the point is moot. Surely it cannot qualify as a revert if it's discussed on talk and no objections are raised. Perhaps in the technical sense, but certainly not in spirit. Everyking 01:48, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Revert" has nothing to do with whether or not it has consensus. The ArbCom said you weren't allowed to revert and you reverted, plain and simple. --fvw* 01:52, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

That's a rather problematic line of reasoning. That would mean I'm forbidden from ever restoring anything from an older version of the article, even if there's full consensus for it. I very much doubt that was the ArbCom's intent, as that would make it impossible to make compromise edits. Everyking 02:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly the ArbCom's intent, if you want to revert to a previous edit, you'll have to let the others with whom you've reached the compromise (if there aren't any others participating in the compromise it's not much of one) make the revert. If you don't like the ruling, appeal to Jimbo. --fvw* 02:18, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Huh! I guess you read the ruling more thoroughly than me, because I don't remember anything about that. Where does it say all compromise edits must be made by others? Everyking 02:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere, nor did I claim that. I merely said that all compromise reverts must be made by others, which follows logically from the fact that you're not allowed to revert those articles. --fvw* 02:32, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Can it be a compromise and a revert at the same time, Frank? I'm not sure that's possible. Everyking 02:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revert and consensus are entirely unrelated. Read the definitions. Or don't and keep claiming you're allowed to revert as long as you have consensus, I really don't care, just expect to be blocked if you revert and Ashley Simpsons article again. --fvw* 02:43, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Frank, you're not implying you'd actually block me if I did revert, are you? I wouldn't think you'd do such a thing. Everyking 03:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I hope he would. The ArbCom decision was that you can't revert the articles except for simple vandalism, and should be punished as if it were a violation of the 3RR. --Carnildo 04:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, you restore the table, then, and I won't have to. It's ridiculous that such a large amount of information, compressed into a compact and accessible form, is being willfully omitted from the article. Everyking 04:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

John, you really need to find something else to do besides picking on me. Aren't there any more Beatles songs left to write about? Come on, do something. If you couldn't care less about this issue, then you could devote your time to something you do care about. Everyking 23:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I like the table. It gives a nice comparison of how the album sold in the US and Canada, which is interesting and factual, and for people like me who might not want to wade through massive paragraphs to find it...it's convenient. I don't like that it makes me scroll to the side, however. (Maybe we could cut it at 25 or 20 weeks?) But honestly, this isn't a restoration I'd get too worked up over, John. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:32, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, it should probably be converted to run vertically. When it was created, the length wasn't an issue, and I'm just not really savvy enough to undertake the task of changing the format. Anyway, if you like the table, you might want to weigh in on the article talk. We could use some new opinions about things. Everyking 23:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I left a note on the Talk page, but beyond that, I'm really not willing to get involved in a dispute that's already too stupid for words. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 01:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing that after two months it's still raging? It is stupid on the surface, but at its root is an issue that's fundamental to the welfare and future of Wikipedia. Everyking 02:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

A user asked to be blocked here [6], would one of the admins be willing to oblige? -- CheeseDreams 20:42, 29 Jan 2005

Stop trolling, please. Andre (talk) 20:54, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

User:Relaxation

User:Relaxation is a newbie who has exploded onto Wikipedia with a huge collection of copyright violations, innocent comments on the Village pump and Talk pages about how he's being picked on, and a demand at Talk:Gayness that the "gay topic" be deleted. Smells like a troll. RickK 23:51, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted Relaxation's comments on the Gayness topic, and for that, I apologize. RickK 05:25, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Diaper

Mr. Diaper, I mean User:Sud-Pol (as he's again posting as) is at it again. The latest new upload of his I've looked at is as creepy as any, given his history: Image:Infernal1.jpg. Can we just judge these to be part of a pattern of continuing vandalism and speedy delete them? Any objections? -- Infrogmation 03:47, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just thinking the same thing. If we can establish consensus here (and perhaps on WP:VP to avoid ivory towerism, real or perceived) that the addition of diaper pics isn't wanted, it should be both speediable and block-for-vandalismable, which would be very pleasant. --fvw* 03:49, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

He seems to be editing under the name Brother Larrys Friend and User:219.77.75.200. At least, that last one is the one that just did a hit & run on my userpage. Joyous 04:00, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. No. Done. -- Curps 04:33, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Sud-Pol and User:Brother Larry are one and the same (closely similar names and content of Image:Jam2.jpg and Image:Jam11.jpg which were obviously taken by the same person a few minutes apart; similarity of user pages; same pattern of diaper-related disruption plus occasional textual vandalism). Since Brother Larry was blocked indefinitely along with the possible sock puppet User:Mother Larry, so should it be with Sud-Pol and User:Brother Larrys Friend (done) on the same grounds. -- Curps 04:40, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Back as User:Brother Larrys Father. He just doesn't get it. Blocked for a month. If somebody wants to block indefinitely, that's fine with me, but remember to unblock first. Lupo 11:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have done so. It doesn't make sense to block the sock puppet for less time than the puppeteer. -- Curps 01:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He came back yet again as User:Brother Larrys Maid. He does "get it", he's not doing this out of cluelessness. He cast a vote at VfD, and leaves messages on the talk pages of people who revert his edits... he clearly has a good understanding of Wikipedia. -- Curps 04:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Back again, as Bloem. —Korath (Talk) 11:49, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up after him. I've speedied the images, and blocked the account indefinitely. Lupo 13:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Now back as User:Lampo. andy 15:55, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, contributions reverted or speedy deleted -- Chris 73 Talk 16:35, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Help with page move/rename

Can someone help move List of Proto-Semitic roots to Proto-Semitic, as the move-page thing won't work? -Ril- 11:48, 30 Jan 2005

I'll deal with this. Noel (talk) 13:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce vs Robert Blair

These two users seem to be at odds at each other, causing reverts on several pages just shy of an edit war, and short of a 3RR. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:34, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Problem solved. According to the following ArbCom ruling both are banned from editing circumcision related articles and if they violate the ban it is to be treated as a 3RR violation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_the_Bruce - Robert the Bruce 17:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What a curious situation. If Robert Blair is not Robert the Bruce then he is not banned from editing. The AC ruling is for Robert the Bruce and his sockpuppets. AC rulings apply to people not accounts. If he is Robert the Bruce then he is temp banned from editing. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention lots of 3RR violations, though many would be self reverts of course. Oh well, let the ArbCom sort it out, they can determine who was who and whether they need blocking. Should be interesting. --fvw* 21:00, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Do self reverts count?They don't normally, but this is hardly a normal situation. Anyway here's an interesting thought- If Blair isn't Bruce, then he will believe he can edit. An admin might believe otherwise and decide to block Blair and his Bruce sockpuppet. Two birds with one or stone (except of course the admin won't know that). Hey Blair might even decide to sacrifice himeself -If he felt that getting Bruce blocked was worth being blocked himself. Boy I'm glad i don't have to sort this one out. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hehe, kamikaze editing. If Robert Blair isn't Robert the Bruce I doubt he'll do that though, the injunction seems to already have achieved more or less the same goal. Anyway, I think you've got your plate full with the other AC cases-with-a-twist. --fvw* 21:14, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

The ArbCom has requested to know whether Robert Blair is in fact Robert the Bruce or not. We'll get back to you when we know - David Gerard 01:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While you dither Robert Blair (aka 207.69.13*.*) has decided to test your resolve on Genital integrity and on Ridged band. - Robert the Bruce 03:23, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to inform everyone that I, Robert Blair, most certainly am not Robert the Bruce. -- Robert Blair 17:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:TDC

User:TDC has reverted Iraq Liberation Act five times today. And he seems to be getting a little hot under the collar with personal insults (see edit summaries). -Christiaan 19:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Warned. I'll block if e reverts again. -Frazzydee|✍ 19:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period should automatically get him blocked. GeneralPatton 19:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I personally like to warn first, but if you want to block, I'm (of course) not going to do anything about it. The 3RR is pretty easy to break accidentally, especially if you don't know about it, and a block is like a slap in the face. -Frazzydee|✍ 20:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, since User:TDC has been here for a while, and since he apparently does have multiple instances of previous confrontational editing, a 24 hour cool-off block would have been suitable in this situation. GeneralPatton 20:11, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention his abusive personal language. --Christiaan 20:18, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Frazzydee, your assumption of possible accidental 3RR violation is admirable (Good Faith Assumption and all that), but misplaced in this instance. You are speaking of the editor that has screamed: "Do so now, or this edit war will never end. That I can promise you." TDC 19:41, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC) [7] If you look at TDCs last 500 edits, you'll see that well over 50% of them are repeated reverts. His reverts aren't accidental. They are merely a tool he uses in his attempts to bully and frustrate other contributors. -Rob 21:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It seems Neutrality has done the block for us. BrokenSegue 20:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality blocked "User:TDC" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on Iraq Liberation Act; personal attacks in edit summaries)

Anyone else see a common theme on these pages: User:Libertas, User:TDC — Davenbelle 20:28, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of my own sanity, please, someone tell me that TDC is not Libertas/Oliieplatt/Salazar ad infinitum. If not, I'll feel obligated to dig through the contribs, and it wasn't fun with any of those sockpuppets. Khanartist 20:37, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that they are different users. I have been working with TDC for a while, and their personalities are quite different. TDC has a POV, but he is an overall good contributor. I was able to work with him quite well, e.g., on History of the Soviet Union (1927-1953) and Hugo Chavez. 172 01:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with 172. I've interacted with both, and they're nothing like each other. Same POV, but it stops there. Mackensen (talk) 01:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear it; I would not be surprised if Libertas/Olliplatt attempts a reincarnation. — Davenbelle 04:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are both right of center on the political spectrum. So? Noel (talk) 21:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not the POV itself, but the aggressive pushing of it. — Davenbelle 04:23, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

FYI; from User:TDC:

Sometimes when I feel like killing someone, I do a little trick to calm myself down. I'll go over to the person's house and ring the doorbell. When the person comes to the door, I'm gone, but you know what I've left on the porch? A jack-o-lantern with a knife stuck in the side of its head with a note that says 'You'. After that I usually feel a lot better, and no harm done.'

You forgot to sign. But anyway it's a quote. See wikiquote "life" Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 05:21, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)0

No, Theresa. A quote would be indicated as such with quotation marks or an attribution, which it is not. It is presented on User:TDC as an original sentiment, even if the words are the same as Jack Handys. The sentiment of "feel like killing someone" itself isn't that scary until you couple it with thinly veiled threats frequently made by TDC, such as:

"I used an advanced IP trace. I know your name home adress and telphone number."[8]

This kind of discourse is totally inappropriate between Wiki-editors. -Rob 21:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Administrators. My name is -Rob, perhaps the least anonymous of the unregistered contributors to Wikipedia. I have interacted with many of you. I am the user that first brought TDC's rampant reverts to light on the WP:RFP page, thus spawning this little discussion here. Right up front, I'd like to say that I don't advocate harsh sanctions against TDC. I certainly wouldn't go as far as agreeing with User:172's assessment that TDC "is an overall good contributor", but I will acknowledge that he has made some acceptable edits. A "good contributor" doesn't resort to personal attacks; doesn't resort to personally threatening contributors; doesn't resort to using repetitive unexplained reverts to bully contributors, and, in my opinion, directs his energies toward the goal of producing accurate articles, instead of winning arguments at the expense of Wikipedia. TDC prefers to "work the system" instead of work with editors that have differing viewpoints. Despite all of this, I believe TDC can still make valuable contributions. Wikipedias existence and prosperity depends on contributors, and I see blocking and banning as extreme last resorts if there exists any other way to retain a users constructive input, while also curbing their bad behavior. -Rob 21:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He is indeed persistent when it comes to advocating the changes that he wants made, but it is not hard to compromise with him. Unlike some contributors (like Libertas/Olliplatt), he does not pick fights with users with different POVs as a means to an end. In the end, it is the articles on which he is solely focused. After a couple of harsh exchanges with him myself, I found that once we got down to business we could work together cooperatively and after a while even cordially. It turns out that he has a good understanding of an NPOV product, and that he is quite well read and knowledgeable and capable of contributing a lot of good work to this site. 172 22:09, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admin 172 - you've gotten my goat, as far as your admin responsibilities go. While it is true that you did warn me in the past (In the interest of 'full disclosure' as you stated on your talk page) that you were on amicable relations with User:TDC, I didn't expect you to support disruptive behavior of Wiki editors. Do us all a favor and compare TDC's latest explanations for his reverts on Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War to what actually got reverted. Explain to us just how such reverts (to versions created last year) are justified. The fact that you tend to lock TDC's reverts in place just MINUTES after TDC's edits tend to make me believe you have the articles on a watch list, and you selectively time your protections to coincide with TDCs most recent interactions. If I am mistaken regarding this, I will sincerely apologize to no end... but the facts of the situation are rather obvious. If you still maintain good relations with TDC, perhaps you can persuade him to collaborate on the articles at issue, instead of just revert them ad infinitum to ill effect? -Rob 23:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To Admin 172:

You might also consider adding explanations to your Page Protections in the edit summaries, as well as adding your protection efforts to the Protected Page list [9]. If your intent is to prolong the protections by omitting them from the Protection List, rest assured that I won't let them remain unlisted. If your omission was simple oversight, then consider this a polite reminder of protocol. -Rob 23:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The function of protecting pages is to put an end to revert wars while the editors have time to settle their disputes. The time is not right now for listing the page protections because there seem to be no signs that the dispute is anywhere near being resolved. In the meantime, I suggest that you try to work out your diferences with TDC. 172 05:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "right time" to list the protections you implement is right when you implement those protections. Rule #4 of the protection policy detailed at WP:PPol -- perhaps you should review it. Fortunately, other Admins have taken up your slack, at least on the above mentioned articles. As for your strawman insertion of the function of protecting pages, that wasn't an issue. -Rob 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Admin Theresa Knott:

Thank you for your response to my most recent request on your User Talk Page. It is most informative. -Rob 23:54, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An appeal to the Administrators from -Rob:

1) TDC likes to make ad hominem and personal attacks. For example, he has called me Idiot, Moron, Tard, Liar, and Stupid among other things. He has used the same epithets, and worse, against other editors. Having worked extensively in education with grade-school children, such attacks mean little to me, but I do feel such attacks may contribute to driving some editors away. Is there any way this behavior can be corrected?

The wikipedia despute resolution processGeni 01:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Geni: The wikipedia dispute resolution process has been tried. Ask Theresa Knott. Do you have any other suggestions? As for the mediation portion of this process, see [10]:

"As mediation seems to be at the crux of this, I'd just like to note that, as a member of the MC and apparently its future Chair (unless someone decides they want the job), we don't have our act together right now and are unlikely to in the next several weeks. While certainly mediation can occur outside of the MC, I think it's fair to say that right now Wikipedia doesn't have a fully functioning formal mediation process, though it certainly should by this time next month. I don't know if that impacts your decision, but thought you'd want to be aware, at least." Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

2) TDC likes to cite a single perceived problem in an article, such as an alleged plagiarism or copyright issue, and use that as an excuse to implement a revert to an article version many edits old, thus wiping out factual and legal contributions with which he personally disagrees. He likes to use this tactic on the Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War articles in particular, which are currently protected due to his antics. Is there any way this behavior can be corrected?

The wikipedia despute resolution processGeni 01:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3) TDC likes to use subtle deception to achieve his goals. TDC depends of the general apathy and laziness of the Admins to serve his purposes. Take a look at [11] for instance. TDC knows that most of you won't actually click on the source he provided. TDC knows that most of you won't see the subtle mis-quote he has inserted to support his position. It is very subtle, and very devious, but some of us are smart enough to catch what TDC is doing. I challenge you, Admins, to look at the link he provided and compare it to the actual text TDC claims to have retrieved from that source. Do you see the subtle difference? TDC's version would lead you to believe that use of all Public Domain information might be plagiarism, while the actual text of the cited quote clearly states that the use of simple facts doesn't constitute plagiarism at all. TDC obviously hopes you won't notice this extremely subtle mis-quote that he makes. I'd wager, until I pointed it out here, that you didn't notice it. Kudos to TDC on his attempt at pretending to quote a source, but it ultimately failed. Is there any way this deceptive behavior can be corrected? -Rob 23:03, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The wikipedia despute resolution process. Although we will try and do what we can to help settle dissputes and the like it is ultimetly not with our remit beyond what normal editors can doGeni 01:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know this which means you move straight to arbcom. The point is that unless there is blatent vanderlism, a major edit war or someone breaks the 3RR rule we do not have the power to take any actions beyond what we can do as editorsGeni 03:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• There is "blatent vanderlism." User:TDC continues to cite 1 or 2 sentences as possible plagiarism, then uses that excuse to revert away several months of edits, spelling corrections, formatting and content from several users. That is vandalism.
• There is a "major edit war." Or more accurately, a revert war. User:TDC, since October of last year, has done nothing but revert the articles at Winter Soldier Investigation and Vietnam Veterans Against the War. No edits, no collaboration, nothing but massive reverts. Have you bothered to look at the edit history?
• There has been violation of the 3RR rule. Read the top of this page to discover that User:TDC is presently blocked due to violation of the 3RR rule. I do not anticipate that such temporary sanctions as blocking will solve the actual problem. I was asking for more constructive suggestions. Are you suggesting arbcom as the only recourse? And if so, on which (of many) grounds listed above? Veiled threats? Ad hominem and personal attacks? Subtle misquoting? Bullying editors with repetitive reverts? In the end (after sanctions), I fear you'll just end up with an editor that is even more disruptive than before. I was hoping for a more constructive suggestion. - Rob 03:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seriously Rob, take a minute or two and let this soak in, no one gives a fuck. This aint the second grade any more. No one here is going to be impressed by your tattling on me because I pissed in your cornflakes.

Then you should have no worries at all about ever being blocked, or ever finding yourself mentioned on an Admin Notice board. -Rob

To anyone feeling bad for lil' Bobbie, just let me remind them that he his contributions are almost completely comprised of plagiarized material and he refuses to remove this material. I would be more than happy for arbitration on this issue, perhaps then I would be vindicated once and for all. By the way Rob, I plan on pursuing this issue indefinitely. TDC 16:29, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

...and as long as you continue to violate Wiki-policies, such as those on 3RR and Vandalism, I'll be right there. Indefinitely. -Rob 20:40, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, arbcom is really the last resort in resolving disputes. You ought to try a number of other options before the arbcom. GeneralPatton 17:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser

WikiUser is making a nuisance of himself, involved in petty British English vs. American English disputes and breaking the rules of the MoS (his interpretation is incorrect). He has threatened several people with mediation (including me for merely threatening him with a 3RR block). He claims to be the victim of abuse because he is disabled and has a history of threats and abuse (many people may know of him). He has called people nazis and threatened suicide [12].

I'm finding it difficult not to use words that could be deemed as a personal attack and would like some neutral admins to look at his edits. WikiUser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 217.204.65.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Cheers, violet/riga (t) 19:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He seems to be on a crusade to inject anti-Americanism into Template:In the news. I responded on the Talk page. His edits to music articles seem passable. He seems to be quite defensive, however, when someone else criticizes him. At least, that's what I gathered from my admittedly cursory look at his contributions. --Slowking Man 23:15, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

ChrisO has filed an RFC against him; the lengthy compilation of evidence ChrisO has supplied is fairly eye-opening. Noel (talk) 05:32, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams

I want to know why CheeseDreams gets away with submitting a request for arbitration (universally rejected by all arbitrators) against Slrubenstein. She has tried this stunt before, only with RFCs against several admins. This was brought up in her arbitration. I count this as harrassment and I'd like to know a) why is this allowed? and b) how do we stop these ridiculous requests? - Ta bu shi da yu 22:50, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be a consequence of the refusal of the ArbCom to ban CD from submitting RfAr requests. The logic was that RfAr is a "last line of defense" and if denied to a contributor, makes them vulnerable to abuse without recourse. Consequently, the potential for RfAr abuse exists. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:31, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that CD has reposted the request for arbitration because one arbitrator rejected the request Ta bu mentions "with prejudice" (CD interpreted that to mean that the arbitrator was prejudiced against her) and another arbitrator suggested mediation (and mediation was attempted with Slr and CD until CD decided the mediation wasn't proceeding fairly). I don't know how to solve RfAr abuse (Dante's point is well taken) but this kind of thing is really going too far, and we need to have a way of dealing with it in common sense fashion. Almost makes me wish I hadn't convinced everybody to send m:Don't be a dick to meta. :-) Jwrosenzweig 01:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I've filed an RFC against her again. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams. She's out of hand. I tried to tell people this a while ago. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The legal systems of various countries have this same problem, and they have a solution. People who are deemed "vexatious litigators" (I think that's the 'term of art' the legal system uses for people who incessantly file suits to harass people) are put under restrictions where they cannot file a suit with approval from a judge. We could do a similar kind of thing - say that a "vexatious arbitator" cannot file an RFAr (or an RFC, for that matter) without prior approval from at least one arbitrator, with violation of this stricture to garner a longish block. Noel (talk) 04:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OneGuy is in violation of Arbitration Ruling

Forgive me if this is not the correct forum for this complaint. If it is not, please direct me to the proper forum.

OneGuy has been making personal attacks against me. First he accuses me on his talk page of being some other user (OneGay) who seems to dislike him. Now he is making clearer personal attacks on Talk:Islamophobia. I quote "Gosh! Are you playing games or are you really this stupid?". This was an uncalled for reply to a question I posed in the Talk:Islamophobia regarding when quotes are taken "out of context" Please see the arbitration results at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/168.209.97.34. This is the second time in a week I have asked him to stop his personal attacks.

Please take action against OneGuy. OneGuy has, in the past, sifted carefully through all my contributions just trying to find something he can use against me. And also note, OneGuy is the ONLY ONE who seems to have a problem with me. 168.209.97.34 13:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This is fun :) I encourage any admin interested to read the relevant pages and see who is posting "personal insults." 168.209.97.34 claims that I am the only one "who seem to be having a problem with him". Could it be because this guy follows me around and posts personal insults or reverts my edits? If you don't like it, 168, don't follow me around. It's pretty simple OneGuy 13:45, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have not been making personal attacks. You have. I revert your edits when your edits seem to be to be nothing short of pro-Islamic POV pushing. Anyone who reads your edits can clearly see it for themselves. I'm amazed you have gotten away with it for as long as you have. In my opinion, POV pushers are a bigger problem to wikipedia than even vandals... At least a vandal is easier to spot by a busy sysop. 168.209.97.34 14:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We do not have the power to block in cases of persoanal attacks and I can't see anything in the arbcom ruleing that modifies this. I would appear that there is some kind of long running disspute between the two of you however this is not the place to rehash itGeni 14:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Geni, can you please tell me where to take this then? If I am to be held to the arbcom ruling I expect OneGuy to be held to it also. What I'm asking for is reasonable. 168.209.97.34 14:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you really this stupid, or are you playing games? :p the ruling doesn't even mention personal attacks. The bottom line is: You may be blocked up to a week for "vandalism" at admins' discretion. That's it. OneGuy is on no sort of "parole" whatsoever. dab (ᛏ) 14:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This would be the correct place to report if OneGuy was in violation of an arbcom ruling. As it is, the arbcom ruling 168.209.97.34 links to only identifies him with -Iothario-, putting him on "POV parole". OneGuy was "admonished" not to respond to insults in like fare. 168-whatever pursues a long-standing personal feud with OneGuy and is basically just playing the victim here. Since 168-xx is on "POV parole" only for re-inserting material (nice one, arbcom), but not for partial removals resulting in anti-Islamic bias, he is technically not in arbcom-ruling violation either. But, as opposed to OneGuy, who has a wide range of interests, 168's only mission on WP seems to be pushing anti-islamic pov, and giving everybody grief when a more balanced version is restored. As it stands, nobody violated any ruling, so this is best continued on Talk pages. Or dropped. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You state that the only reason I have to be here is to push anti-Islam related articles. I have asked you several times, without ever a reply, the question: Why do you ignore OneGuy's constant Pro-Islamic POV pushing. Come on, already! READ HIS POSTS!!!! He plays the arbcom against me, and yet when he attacks me if falls on deaf ears. When I point out his POV pushing it simply gets ignored. Dbachmann, please answer this question: "Do you think OneGuy posts Pro-Islamic POV articles?". Answer that honestly, please. OneGuy has started this "war" against ME, not me against him. That is why nobody else complains about me yet this page has a constant stream of complaints against OneGuy, which gets ignored. 168.209.97.34 14:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I told you, arbcom found evidence of POV pushing by you, not by me. That's why you are on a POV prole for one year, not me. This would be my last response to you here OneGuy 15:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Here's an idea! You are an anonymous user: create an account. Don't expect most of us to have any sympathy for you if you don't create one. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:25, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As requested by 168.209 on my talk page concerning OneGuy's alleged personal attacks, I officially suggested OneGuy should not rise to 168.209's bigoted baiting. As such, OneGuy should snicker at the baiting instead. I hope this satisfies all reasonable parties - David Gerard 00:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unprofessional behavior and personal attacks by by David Gerard

David Gerard, a arbcom member, is personally attacking me after my request that OneGuy be repremanded for making personal attacks on myself. Please see the above where Gerard says "168.209 on my talk page concerning OneGuy's alleged personal attacks, I officially suggested OneGuy should not rise to 168.209's bigoted baiting. As such, OneGuy should snicker at the baiting instead. I hope this satisfies all reasonable parties".

I have tried to reason with Mr Gerard in the past with no luck. I have tried to discuss issues and questions I have on his talk page and he simply replies with a one-line sarcastic remark.

Mr. Gerard claims that I am a bigot and was baiting, but please see Talk:Islamophobia for what I asked. Note that I was not directing my question at OneGuy, OneGuy decided on his own to jump in with his personal insults.

Is there anyone I can take my concerns up with about what I preceive as unprofessional and abusive behavor by a syscom member? 168.209.97.34 09:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're some random person editing through an ISP proxy. The ArbCom ruled you were severely baiting OneGuy and asked him not to rise to the bait. You are trolling for responses and validation - David Gerard 14:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Striver

Reverted the article 4 times despite being warned in the edit summary 1, 2, 3, 4 -- OneGuy 22:29, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, notified on Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unblocked; sent me an e-mail saying he wasn't aware of the rule, and thought it was just an attempt to intimidate, and apologized. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

CheeseDreams socks

Copied from User talk:Maveric149. Could admins please keep an eye out? Thanks - David Gerard 00:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And another one, Cheese -dreams this time. Blocked too. I assume he's using anonymous proxies to get around the autoblocker? I'll hack up the proxyblocker bot later tonight if I can stay awake or otherwise tomorrow, but apart from that, what can we do? Is blanket reverting legitimised by this behaviour or does that need ArbCom permission (or community consensus ofcourse)? --fvw* 01:29, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt action concerning Cheese Dreams. Now, I just found this: [13], a wholesale rewriting of the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article deleting everything I ever wrote, and accompanied by this explanation (as it were): "(Can you check this Clare? I'm still not sure this is quite right, but can you leave it until you come round for dinner on wednesday this time?.)" Clare = CheeseDreams (I know this because someone once left a message for her on her user page, calling her Clare). So I am guessing that this user is not a sock puppet -- but it is clearly a friend and it seems that s/he is in effect helping Cheese Dreams get around the ban. I reverted, but if this happens again I can easily see myself tempted to violate the 3 revert rule; I also hesitate to protect the page, not just because I have been involved in the dispute but because people of good will should be allowed to work on it. Any advice is welcome. Slrubenstein 19:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Use of proxy editors to evade a ban will not be tolerated. Give this person one warning and then if he/she does it again. block that user/IP as if it were CD. Sannse (the only other arb on IRC right now), backs me up on this statement. --mav

Thanks, Slrubenstein 19:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cheesedreams is now editing under User:Cheese-Dreams. I thought all the sockpuppets were blocked? I've blocked this one now anyway. --fvw* 23:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

This is just a new sock. Sigh - I don't think CD gets it. --mav

Darling, your so wrong, I get it very well, I just ignore you, darling. CHEESEdreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A couple of notes. About a week ago, I indefinitely blocked all of the CheeseDreams sockpuppets I could find. I felt this was the best response after CheeseDreams ignored her 8 day ban. Otherwise, it would force admins to hunt down 6-7 accounts every time she gets herself blocked. She's already wasted enough of everyone's time. Dante Alighieri later unblocked all of CheeseDreams's sockpuppets because he felt that these blocks were not supported by the ArbCom's decision. I think that it's common sense to block any other permutations of the name which CD creates, but apparently some people disagree with me. CheeseDreams has at least seven sockpuppets which I've seen, all of them slight permutations of "CheeseDreams", and all of them have been used to evade a legitimate block at some point. Several of them were used today to evade her current block.

Just to make things clear, I objected to the banning indefinitely of all of CD's sockpuppet accounts with the stated reasoning being the ArbCom ruling. I did NOT object to banning any accounts which CD used to evade a ban with the rationale of the Sockpuppet "rule". I even suggested that they be rebanned, but with a proper rationale... no one did this. All this is aside from the fact that a rotating IP makes true enforcement impossible and the fact that CD can easily create COUNTLESS more variations (I think User:CH3353DR34M5 is still available) makes it seem a bit silly to get worried about any specific sockpuppet account... especially given that CD isn't perma-banned. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:43, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Special:Contributions/User:CheeseDreams
• Special:Contributions/User:Cheesedreams
• Special:Contributions/User:Cheese Dreams
• Special:Contributions/User:Cheese dreams
• Special:Contributions/User:Cheese-Dreams
• Special:Contributions/User:Cheese-dreams
• Special:Contributions/User:Cheese -dreams
• Special:Contributions/User:CheeseyDreams
• Special:Contributions/User:CheezDreams

The other note is that CheeseDreams uses a dialup and this makes it impossible to block her IP range. She can redial as many times as she likes, and she doesn't need to use open proxies. Rhobite 04:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, you cant stop me now, darling. CHEESEdreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

support indefinite blocking of all these socks. They are time-wasters to the point of disruption; this is not what user accounts are for. dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that security is one of the most serious problem here. Developers should improve that part of software. The software should automatically catch all probable sockpuppet accounts and put them on a page that only admins can access. This is pretty simple to program (just keep the complete list of IPs linked with the user ID, and if one IP in the list matches the IP used by another account, it could be a probable sockpuppet). Why has that not been done? It should take less than 30 minutes for anyone familiar with the code to program that part. This would solves almost all the problems involving sockpuppet abuses. Also, there should be some better mechanism to deal with open proxies. OneGuy 08:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think I can speak for the ArbCom in saying that sockpuppet abuse meaning the blocking of all socks is entirely in line with Wikipedia:Sock puppets, particularly if a sock is used to evade a block stemming from an ArbCom ruling. Multiple accounts are not considered good practice by the community as is; any abuse is really something that shouldn't be tolerated. It would be nice if CD could just edit by the ruling - David Gerard 14:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

the problems with sugeestion are that IP adresses alone don't mean much. I know that at least one other poerson has edited from the IP I am currently useing.

I know that. That's why I said "probable sockpuppet". It would still help the admins catch sockpuppet accounts, especially if the sockpuppet edits the same articles and/or has similar password and e-mail. Currently apparently only Tim Starling can do these technical analysis. Admins should not have to rely on Tim Starling. This should be done automatically by the software for all users, and the results should be posted to a page that admins can access (without revealing the private information to the admins). This would help the admins significantly in catching sockpuppet accounts OneGuy 20:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is User:CHEESEdreams another sock puppet? Either way, this is about as low as it gets: [14] Slrubenstein 17:20, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Looking at that edit, my guess is that it's likely someone who's pissed off at CD, not CD herself. Looks like plain old vandalism to me. Noel (talk) 19:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PS: The userid which made that edit (User:CHEESEdreams) is also the one that just added a bunch of comments in this section, although they were signed "CheeseDreams". Since that userid may be a troll (given the nature of that change to the homepage), I have gone through and corrected all the sigs to the userid which actually made them ("CHEESEdreams"). Noel (talk) 20:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus's alleged breach of Arbcom rulings/Raul654's threats

User:Raul654 has threatened to block me for using Template:Offensiveimage on Autofellatio. As there is no approved policy on displaying offensive images, I believe the sanest thing to do is to replace the offensive image with this template. This template is similar to Template:Nonfreeimage. He has also reverted the inclusion of the template at Penis. —Cantus…☎ 01:04, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

You're flying in the face of consensus and deserve blocking for such unilateralism. RickK 01:18, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think unilateralism is covered under our blocking policy (though an ArbCom ruling may apply to Cantus....can't recall). If no ruling applies, consensus will win out and prevent unilateralism from persisting, as Cantus will run out of reverts before the community does (assuming this is truly unilateral). Jwrosenzweig 01:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No RickK, I do not deserve to be blocked for editing one page. And I don't recall any consensus on the display of that specific image. Heck, there wasn't even much discussion about the image itself in Talk:Autofellatio before I began discussing about it today. So, take your tough talk to newbies or anons. —Cantus…☎ 03:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there was quite some discussion of the image when it was proposed for deletion. See the image's talk page. TIMBO (T A L K) 03:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ...as Rdsmith4 just said below. Oops! TIMBO (T A L K) 04:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voting to keep an image in the servers is quite different from voting to actually show the image directly in the article. Don't draw false conclusions. —Cantus…☎ 04:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't; I was merely bringing up the fact that there was discussion of the utility/appropriateness of the image when it was listed on IfD. Of course, I hope you won't fault me for thinking that the "keep" votes meant "this image is appropriate/useful for wikipedia" or something to that effect. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In this particular instance, I think Cantus was right in inserting the offensive image template. Danny 03:20, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I nominated this image for deletion and it had consensus to keep (which I did not expect at all); however, I believe that the template could be improved dramatically and used to good effect - a sort of "to view the image click here" for images like this one that are clearly shocking to the average viewer. — Dan | Talk 03:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some people just lack common sense. The template has just been submitted for deletion. Please vote there if you want to keep it. —Cantus…☎ 03:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

There has been considerable discussion concerning keeping such images on the encyclopedia, and consensus has always been to keep. Cantus violated consensus. RickK 05:06, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

A poll on whether to keep this image on the server took place some time ago and some discussion arised from it. A different discussion—whether to display the image in the article—has not taken place until now. Your accusations that I have violated consensus are false. I can't draw conclusions from discussions about other images. —Cantus…☎ 05:30, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of users has decided to leave controversial images as they are. The idea of censoring them completely got almost no support. For more see Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. Thereby by inserting this template Cantus is going against the overwhelming consensus of Wikipedia users. GeneralPatton 09:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this is a content dispute. I think it is well arguable that the image is offensive. Were there another poll, I would vote for removal. Whatever consensus we may end up with, I see no reason for blocking Cantus over this. dab (ᛏ) 07:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm being naive, but exactly what kind of images were you expecting to find in an article with the title Autofellatio? I wouldn't mind a censoring template so much, if it actually had an option to click for people who wanted to see the image (as I believe User:Violetriga has on his/her user page). And I do believe that if the consensus exists to keep the image, it is implied for use of the image as well especially in the article to which it pertains. After all, Wikipedia isn't a place to store orphan images. Mgm|^(talk) 08:42, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's naïve to prefer that articles about sexual acts not contain photographs of sexual acts. In fact I think that's a reasonable place to draw the line that separates encyclopedia from porn: genitals: included: sex acts: not included. - Nunh-huh 09:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

agree. see Zoophilia for a good example of how it should be done. dab (ᛏ) 09:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just to remind everyone, the template in question does provide a link to the image removed. And to answer your question: I wasn't expecting any kind of image on this article and was greatly shocked and offended by what I saw. —Cantus…☎ 09:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I meant to say that I'd like to see a link to a place that shows a potential offensive image within the article. Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• sure, if this is the consensus, keep it (but don't let IZAK see it:) I still see no reason to block Cantus for reverting, it's just a regular dispute, and the 3RR applies like for ever other dispute. dab (ᛏ) 09:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. One is a content dispute, and there's nothing wrong with that and normally Cantus's behavior would be okay. Looking at the talk page, he has a lot of people who agree with him on the content issue.

However, the other issue is the two arbitration rulings against Cantus, which he is openly defying and soliciting support for his defiance. As Raul654 said:

• The first arbcom case against Cantus said Cantus is reminded to discuss matters in accordance with good Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and is instructed to not engage in personal attacks, harrassment, or provocation.. Cantus's response to an attempt to discuss the matter on Talk:Autofellatio was to accuse me of poor judgement. This was a personal attack and a provocation (although I did not rise to it).

• The second arbcom case against Cantus limits him to one revert per article per 24 hour period. Cantus removed the image at least twice in the space of about an hour.

Set the content dispute aside, and you have a user egregiously violating the terms of arbitration rulings. Do we have a new rule now? Arbcom rulings don't count if your edits enjoy popular consent? If so we should write this into policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

your first point -- please... you are waving with an arbcom ruling because he said you have "poor judgement"? This is schoolyard behaviour. your second point: yes, if Cantus violated a ruling by reverting twice, I suppose he will have to suffer a block for this. as far as I can see, Cantus reverted once so far. No violation. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Autofellatio for evidence I did not revert the article more than once. —Cantus…☎ 10:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's schoolyard behavior. That is precisely what he's been told by ArbCom not to do.

Cantus removed the picture twice. He'll argue that because he messed with the code and added a template it wasn't a revert. He'll be wrong. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:21, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I will not be wrong. From Talk:Autofellatio:

I'm sorry but you're wrong. I have only reverted this page once. In my first edit, I moved the image further down in the article and made it a link; that was reverted by User:Limeheadnyc. In my second edit, I replaced the image with the offensiveimage Template; that was reverted by you. And then, in my third edit I did indeed revert, for the first time, to a previous version of mine. And if you considered my earlier comment as a personal attack, I believe you completely lack a sense of humor. (Oh, and please, don't consider that a personal attack, lol) —Cantus…☎ 02:55, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

—Cantus…☎ 10:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that you did not revert twice. However, your previous arbcom ruling was for similar conduct in relation to images in the Clitoris article and it appears that you are heading in the direction of another with scope for all images you consider or appear to consider offensive. Please consider your actions before someone decides to take that route. Better to try to recruit new developers to implement the widely supported standard content tagging systems used on the internet. Jamesday 00:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did you or did you not make edits with the net effect of removing the image from the article more than once in about an hour? Incidentally, please edit your quoted argumentation above to make it plain that *I* have not reverted on that article. I have not even edited it in well over a fortnight. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cantus, you tend to ignore that what you did was absolutely against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of users that voted over at Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images. GeneralPatton 17:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First let me say I was not aware of that page before I began editing Autofellatio. Second, that page is a proposal to regulate a policy, it is not even a policy draft. The myriad of polls in that page don't suggest a single view of the whole community toward a single vision. Regardless, nothing on that page may be enforced. —Cantus…☎ 00:17, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else find it more than a little bizarre that the username User:Autofellatio would be banned (Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate_usernames, "Names which refer to sexual acts or genitalia") and yet an image of the same is perfectly OK? Someday Wikipedia will have to adopt an image policy more in line with real world sensibilities, but in the meantime Cantus will accomplish nothing by this course of action. -- Curps 20:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not I. It's just like all sorts of topics dealing with Nazism are acceptable article titles but not acceptable user names. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Further CheeseDreams Violations

User:CheeseDreams has repeatedly violated the arbcom ruling by making edits to Osiris-Dionysus (which contains 11 mentions of "Jesus", "Christianity" vel sim.) and The Jesus Mysteries.

CheeseDreams is going to attack me (and has already done so on my talk page) because I placed this request [15] for expansion of Osiris-Dionysus on her talk page after I had already complained to Grunt about her actions [16].

It's true, and I realize it doesn't look good. I will point out, however, that:

1. This was after she had already reverted 2 edits an edit of mine.
2. Editing The Jesus Mysteries (the more obviously Christianity-related of the two) was her own idea.
3. I'm not the one with an arbcom ruling against me.

Bacchiad 05:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thats hypocrisy for you darling. CHEESEDreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Personally, I don't consider Osiris-Dionysus to be a Christianity-related article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:44, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Was she putting Christianity-related material in? - David Gerard 14:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

at least Osiris-Dionysus#Jesus is quite obviously so. dab (ᛏ) 14:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Having looked at the article, I see that it actually has a section headed "Jesus", and that CD put that bit back in in her most recent edit. I don't see how the hell you claim it's unrelated while it's actually got a section on Jesus - David Gerard 14:31, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::It's not ABOUT Jesus or Christianity any more than an article on any other religion that compares/contrasts with Jesus/Christianity. Surely Islam is not a "Christianity-related" article, merely because it discusses Jesus? To take this position is to de facto broaden the ArbCom's ban to all pages dealing with religion. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The material in the article is quite definitely ABOUT Jesus and CD quite definitely put it there - if the article didn't have substantial Jesus-related content, it certainly does now. (This sort of logic-chopping is why arbcom injunctions these days are tending to be festooned in subclauses and extra cases saying "AND NO, THAT ISN'T ALLOWABLE EITHER." FFS, use your common sense!) - David Gerard 22:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::Interesting, so people who reach different conclusions than you or have different opinions aren't using common sense? I'll be sure to make note of that for future reference. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The part of the Islam article that discusses Jesus certainly is about Jesus. As is any other article section that discusses Jesus. And Cheese Dreams is clearly banned from editing any of those sections, at least. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::I think the "clearness" of CD's being banned from those sections is at issue, at least IMO. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:16, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

To quote the ruling: "Administrators are given discretion in determining what articles are "Christianity-related" and may enact blocks of up to one week for each edit." Please point out the ambiguous bit - David Gerard 23:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::::The ambiguous bit is where we define "Christianity-related" articles. See that bit about discretion? That's what I used. Discretion. Are you confused by that word? The point is not that it is clearly NOT about Christianity, the point is that, given discretion, and given that it could be reasonably interpreted as allowable, I thought that erring on the side of caution was called for. Thus, a 2 day ban and a warning. What exactly is it that you're in such a huff about? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I think the "clearness" is "at issue" only with you. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:::::::The wonderful thing about "thoughts" is that you're allowed to think anything you like. Congratulations. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:40, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and the same goes for the opinion you stated above. I could be wrong about this, of course. Anyone else here find it ambiguous? Please speak up now if you do. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Fvw had blocked CD for 1 week because of these "violations". I've reduced it to a 48 block on account of the peripheral and minor nature of the "violations". If we lay out a 1 week block for THIS we have nothing to use as incentive for her not to lay in to the Historicity of Jesus article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:50, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

The 1 week block was for editing the article with sock puppets while being blocked for violating the ArbCom injunction. I still think this is appropriate, though I haven't restored the block. --fvw* 18:18, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Thanks to the nature of the Blocked IP list, this wasn't clear to me. All I saw was the most recent ban with the explanation "ArbCom order violation at The Jesus Mysteries" and it wasn't clear to me that this was an extension. I have no objections to the week long ban in this case. I'm implementing it now, the timing will be slightly off, I would imagine, but it will be roughly 7 days from fvw's last block. fvw, sorry for misunderstanding. In the future, could you leave a note on the Talk page? Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:25, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Good point, sorry about that. I'll put more info in the block message (between <!-- -->'s if the user doesn't need to see it themselves) if that's ok with you, seems like a more appropriate place. --fvw* 21:07, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Good call on those not being related to Christianity (for anyone who doens't know it, Jesus is a prophet in at least two other religions). Now, if the edits had been about Jesus in the context of christianity or had been preaching or similar, that would have been a different matter and may well have made those edits Christianity-related. Jamesday 00:28, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

**ATTENTION**

Fine. I fucking give up. Despite the fact that other people DO indeed agree that Jesus is not the same thing as Christianity and that the ArbCom ruling was a bit vague (including at least one member of the ArbCom) I hereby recant all of my previous opinions on this topic. DG's opinion IS in fact the only reasonable opinion, and I was engaging on a solo agenda to bring down the entire Wikipedia by nit-picking and being a "rules-lawyer". So very sorry. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dont swear darling. CHEESEdreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Christianity has everything to do with the Christ, or as Christians know him - Jesus! What part of that don't you understand? Why is this so difficult?! I might just point it out to you (as you never appear to have had dealings with this user before) that part of the arbcom ruling was based on Historicity of Jesus - in particular her POV pushing in that article. I'd suggest you not get huffy when dozens of other admins who've been following her progress object to some of the things you are saying! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Ta Bu, since I was one of the very first Wikipedians to have an interaction with CD and have been following her progress since then, how about you do a little more research, huh? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:39, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Dante, I have been following CheeseDreams even more closely than you have! How about you do a bit more research? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:51, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, Im so scared. CHEESEdreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment wasn't directed at CheeseDreams, and if this is CheeseDreams then she should be editing at all. I doubt it is her, however. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:45, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christianity has everything to do with Jesus, but Jesus has nothing to do with Christianity. He didn't get a say in it, he was dead when they started it, you know. But this is irrelevant here, because CD's ban extends to Jesus-related articles, never mind Christianity. And of course any section entitled Jesus in any article is 'Jesus related' (Jesus!) dab (ᛏ) 10:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weeeellll... that depends on your perspective. If you believe (as I do) that Jesus rose from the dead you would probably not say that :-) But I see your point. I hope you see mine! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR by Emax

I believe the last edit of User:Emax in Michal Glinski was his fourth today. He was blocked for 3RR before, thus he is aware of it. I am not sure if personal attacks should be reported heren though. --Gene s 15:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted 3 times, pls stop with you lyings - im awaiting an apology for this.--Emax 17:20, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the edit history, and was only able to find 3 reverts for Feb 1, so it looks like you're right. However, edit summaries like "rv - you are a lier" are unnecessary inflammatory. Assuming he's after you isn't the way to go, and I doubt he'd apologize to someone who calls him a liar. Just point out his mistake in a friendly manner and I'm sure an apology is easier to get. Mgm|^(talk) 19:32, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I count 4 reverts in the 24 hour period between 20:39, Feb 1, 2005 and 00:27, Feb 2, 2005: [17][18][19][20] The reverts are not 100% identical, but always reverting a certain information. I would block him myself, except i am also in a dispute with this user about similar topics. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:16, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Nice to see you Chris.. i have reverted 3 times, on 13:37, 1 Feb 2005, 14:55, 1 Feb 2005, and 15:27, 1 Feb 2005 - You cant count my changes on 11:39, 1 Feb 2005 as a revert! I have edited the article and this is not a revert - Emax (172.176.58.8 02:09, 2 Feb 2005)

Now im not only awaiting an apology from Gene, but also from you dear chris (172.176.58.8 02:12, 2 Feb 2005)

Blocked for 24hrs. --fvw* 01:29, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Pls unblock my IP - Emax (172.176.58.8 02:12, 2 Feb 2005)

It is a revert. You added the same info again for the 4th time in 24 hours. BTW, don't use anon IP adresses for block evasion. (User:172.182.76.127,User:172.176.58.8 and User:172.182.76.177) Admins can be contacted by email in such cases. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:48, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the anon rule. Please let me take care of my own talk page, especially as you are reverting a good link into a broken link. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is a revert thats only your opinion (because you dont like me) could you show me that on 3RR? -Emax (172.180.199.158 03:46, 2 Feb 2005)

Its not! It was a simpy edit of the article! (and you know that) I have already sended an email to fvw but he did not answered. - Emax (172.179.51.254 03:01, 2 Feb 2005)

Could you show me on 3RR, the mention that editing of articles is counted as reverting? If not, why am i still banned? - Emax (172.180.199.158 03:35, 2 Feb 2005)

I counted the following 3 edits as reverts. [21], [22], [23]. His 11:39, Feb 1, 2005 doesn't seem to be a revert. IIRC there's still no official policy regarding reverting certain information over specific portions of text, so this block wasn't backed by official policy (just like previous controversial blocks). Personally, I can't see why having both the Polish and Russian version of his name in the article is such a problem. If it's in use it should be noted. I'll see if I can try some unofficial mediation between the two users in this dispute. I think we can probably let both blocks run their course and see if they've had some effects on the editors in question. Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

To MgM: Wikipedia:Revert is very clear about the situation: "Undoing any kind of change is a revert". Ghirlandajo added a lot of information here, some of which was reverted by Emax. Mainly the order of Mikhail Lvovich Glinsky and Michał Glińsk in the article has been reverted by Emax 4 times in 24 hours. Chris 73 Talk 11:13, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

While I don't support Emax in this case and I'd rather he joined the discussion more constructively, I'm also disappointed with behaviour of Gene s and Chris 73. Not only did they file this complain in order to push their agenda rather than cool down and wait for the outcome of the discussion, but the latter also reverted my talk page three times in order not to let Emax ask for help. Whether or not to count the 4th edit by Emax as revert, I believe he should be unblocked, especially that the matter is tricky and we can go either way here. In any law-abiding state all doubts are settled in favour of the accused. IMO Wikipedia should act the same way. Halibutt 12:33, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's standard procedure to revert all edits by blocked users evading blocks. If someone feels that they have been unfairly blocked, they can easily e-mail the admin concerned or another admin to request a review of the situation. Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have twice send an email to fvw, but he ignored my emails. The controversial article says: [24] nr. 3 If possible, contact other administrators informally to be sure there are others who agree with your reasoning. The administrators' noticeboard, IRC and email are effective tools for this. Chris 73 tried to silent me.--Emax 16:00, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Controversial blocks applies to the blocking admin, not to the blocked user. The latter one should honor the block and use email or IRC if needed. -- Chris 73 Talk 16:19, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, its applies for all banned users. [25]--Emax 17:48, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

You're misreading the pages you're quoting from. Wikipedia:Controversial blocks contains instructions for admins. How you could not realise this when the step below the one you quoted begins "Place the block" is beyond me. Proteus (Talk) 18:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While Emax should be punished for engaging in a rv war and breaking 3RR rule, I believe that Users Ghirlandajo and Gene s should also be warned that they should resolve their problems on the talk page and/or arbitration, and not by reverting. The fact is that they did the first change that lead to this silly rv war (aren't they all?), and working in tandem did more rv on the particular (silly...) name order case. See this for the start of the war (changing name order by Ghirlandajo). Emax stepped in and rvs, Ghirlandajo rvs, Emax rvs, Ghirlandajo calls Gene S for help: Please see how our Polish friends mutilate the page... :/ Isn't there any rule against group rvs? If Emax had called his friends to the rv war instead of doing the fourth rv, what could we do? Brrr...glad this was stopped so fast. We are now working on a compromise at Talk:Michal Glinski and hopefully this matter should be settled soon, but all 3 users who engaged in those silly rv should be punished in the same way. I think Emax should be unbanned, and a week restriction from editing this very page should be applied to everybody who participated in the rv war: Emax, Ghirlandajo and Gene s. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seems like a fair solution to me. Halibutt 13:44, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

From my own experience, Chris 73 is a dedicated and sensitive admin who has tactfully edited on some highly controversial articles, such as Kosovo smoothing some of the nationalist and biased POV. GeneralPatton 18:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are certainly not critising Chris 73. His cleaning up of mine and Halibutt talk page was a bit irritating, but this is a minor and past issue not worthy of mentioning. However, I'd like to know if we have any policies concerning group reverts (as mentioned above)? Since our primary goal not to punish people, but prevent pages history from becoming warped by rv wars (and article from becoming confusing), I think that we must develop a related policy. If a group of users within a short period of time carries out several roughly same reverts (more then 3 reverts total), even if each of those manages to avoid breaking the 3RR, they should be all penalised as if each of them had made all those reverts. Otherwise, experienced reverters may form unofficial clubs (or create fake accounts, we already have history of using proxies in rw), thus becoming immune to 3RR and go on happily and safely vandalising history pages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:30, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would support such a rule, although I see difficulties in formulating a clear rule. Even the rather clear 3RR is sometimes disputed ;) Chris 73 Talk 22:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, you should definitely draft a policy proposal and put it up for a review.GeneralPatton 23:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon and CheeseDreams

Tigermoon, a friend of CheeseDreams, is helping her get around the ban on editing Christian-related articles, see [26]. Please be on the lookout. Slrubenstein 15:51, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we 100% sure its not another of CD's sockpuppets? GeneralPatton 16:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, we are not. But if it is, Cheese Dreams has gone to some length to create the impression that Tigermoon is a real and distinct person. There is a record of brief conversations between them on talk pages. I think the crucial thing is that Tigermoon is, practically speaking serving as her sock-puppet. His edit summaries, and comments on her talk pages, indicate that he is following her instructions, and seeks further instructions. Slrubenstein 17:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling does not cover this. If CD can persuade others of her viewpoint, more power to her. Tigermoon is no more helping CD "get around the ban" than people collaborating to take turns reverting are "getting around the 3RR". --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:48, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

False - see Mr-Natural-Health 2. If someone is actually doing the edits for her, it's proxying. Even offering is looked upon dimly - David Gerard 22:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The ArbCom should cite relevant precedent then, and not assume that all Admins will know the outcome of every single ArbCom case... at the very least, they should publicize such and important ruling. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

You are flat-out wrong. If she or Tigermoon does this again I will block Tigermoon. Slrubenstein 18:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon (Ben) appears to be\a different user from CheeseDreams (Clare). (Is he Clare's gay ex-boyfriend she's mentioned? Anyway, that's just gossiping and not particularly relevant.) As Ben and Clare are friends, it's not surprising that they might share some views. There is nothing wrong in this. To ban Ben because he agrees with Clare would be an abuse of admin rights - and I'm quite sure it won't take them long to raise a quite justifiable RfC on you if you did!

If Tigermoon proves to be a problem (and I see no evidence so far that that is the case), we will have to deal with him separately. But for now, presumed innocent unless shown otherwise, jguk 18:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong. The ArbCom discussed this: "Use of proxy editors to evade a ban will not be tolerated. Give this person one warning and then if he/she does it again. block that user/IP as if it were CD. Sannse (the only other arb on IRC right now), backs me up on this statement. --mav" Slrubenstein 18:57, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The entries I have seen suggest that whilst Tigermoon has the same stance as CD, he is not a proxy - he has his own mind and does not just do what CD asks of him. There is a world of difference between CD asking Tigermoon to change something, Tigermoon considering it, coming to his own conclusions (perhaps in discussion with CD) and then editing based on his own conclusions; and acting as a proxy by posting something just because CD asks him to do it. Kind regards, jguk 19:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And the entry I am concerned with suggests that he is most definitely a proxy. Not only did he essentially revert the article to the much earlier version CheeseDreams advocated, but yesterday he left this message for Cheese Dreams (who later deleted it):

I have read your e-mail Clare, but I am not certain about some of the requests. What exactly is it that you want me to change? there seems quite a lot, and you know I don't have that much spare time since I moved in with Andrew. I do not know much about the subject area, so you will need to put it more precisely, so that I know exactly which sentances you mean. Can you show me when you join us for dinner this week? - Ben. 11:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and Cheese Dreams replied,

You didn't get it quite right Ben, there is some stuff you forgot about Mandaeans, for example. I will show you on Wednesday. By the way, from the comment below, I think you must have logged out when you made the edit. Its quite important to fix this. If your phone is working again can you text me? CheeseDreams 23:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clearly, this exchange suggests that Tigermoon didn't do everything Cheese Dreams asked -- but it also reveals that his intention was to do so, and that he had Cheese Dreams check to make sure he did it properly. This exchange, plus the fact that his edits involved deleting and rewriting most of the article; that his changes brought the article back to the state Cheese Dreams put it in before the article was blocked; and that he provided no explanation for his change, all suggests to me that he is indeed acting on her behalf. Slrubenstein 20:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, though I'm sure you appreciate that it wouldn't be a good idea for you to warn and, if necessary, block Tigermoon, jguk 20:32, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the ArbCom truly did intend this, I really think that they should have been more explicit in their ruling. I have no real objection to this conceptually, if they do intend it. Although it may not be the wisest move, slippery slope and all... how can we justify this ruling and then say that people "ganging up" to avoid violating the 3RR is OK? My strong objection was what I viewed as an unwarranted extension of the ArbCom ruling. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:35, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Getting other people to do edits you are banned from is a violation too (established in Mr-Natural-Health 2 last year - I put in my complaint that it showed gross disrespect for bans and the AC concurred ) - David Gerard 22:44, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tigermoon can still be Cheesedream's sockpuppet account. Trolls can go to a great extreme in creating multiple IDs and talking to themselves (even disagreeing and insulting themselves using different IDs). Anyone who has experienced dealing with trolls on USENET should know that. Why would Tigermoon reply to Cheesedream's email on her Wikipedia talk page? Why did he not reply via e-mail? Could it be because Tigermoon/Cheesedream wanted you to read the "reply" so you would think they are different people? As I suggested above, the software should automatically do some analysis (list of IPs used by an account, the time comparison, i.e. whether one IP was used by two accounts during the same day/hour or minute, email and password comparisons, etc). All this should be done automatically by the software for all the accounts, and the results should be posted to a page that admins can access (without revealing private information to the admins) OneGuy 21:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful suggestion... too bad it'll never happen. :( It's been suggested before, but *some* people (cough, Jimbo, cough) discourage "witchhunts" against sock puppets and returning vandals, so... it's like pissing into the wind at this point. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:14, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I already suspected that the reasons for miserable security holes in the software must be because someone like Jimbo is opposed to them, especially given the above suggestion should be really easy to implement for anyone familiar with the code. What does it take to become "developer" by the way? I bet I could do this pretty easily once I understand the source code. Without something like this, the admins job to control sockpuppet abuses is almost impossible OneGuy 21:34, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, and features are primarily developed as individual developers take their time, there really is no strong "central command". GeneralPatton 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not a witch-hunt, its just ensuring the Arbcom rulings are enforced and that problem users are not bypassing the system. OneGuy has a good point, persistent trolls frequently engage in elaborate schemes. Knowing the lengths to which Cheese Dreams goes, I'd not be surprised at all. GeneralPatton 21:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Given the nature of the communicatio nhere, it seems that it's at best one person editing based on explicit instructions from another person on what to edit and how. Tha'ts very different fro mtwo people with similar interests editing independently. Jamesday 01:00, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ironic that she's doing this, yet she posts this: [27]. I live in Sydney. What next? Is she going to accuse Ambi of posting anonymous comments on her page? After all, she lives in Melbourne. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:54, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So it WAS Ambi after all. CHEESEdreams 11:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

re 'conversations for the benefit of the eavesdropper', I had a similar hunch about Tigermoon being CD's sockpuppet, i.e. the Talk 'hi Clare - hi Ben - I'm moving in with Andrew - see you tonight' etc. seems just artificial. I don't put it beyond trolls to stage a whole soap to keep the sockhunters busy. It's all speculation, of course. Tigermoon was editing from a UK address when he 'forgot to log in' (in fact, it was mail.bpp.com). Are there similar known glitches of non-logged-in editing by CD? dab (ᛏ) 13:29, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from Tigermoon complaining that the block was unfair (I assume because I have previously undone what I thought were unfair blocks of CheeseDreams). It seems he didn't fully understand that the kind of proxying for banned users he was doing was not allowed. While he was warned that he would be blocked if he continued acting as CD's sockpuppet, he was not informed of the supporting policies or precedents, and since the warning came from an involved editor rather than a neutral third party, he may have thought it a personal threat rather than an official warning. I have explained the matter to him and reduced the block to time already served (about a day), which I think is a more appropriate block length for a first offense committed in partial ignorance. I have also informed him that he will be blocked again, and I will not unblock him, if he continues helping CheeseDreams evade the ban. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Almost his first action after being unblocked was to reinstate the CheeseDreams proxy edit. The ignorance excuse is no longer valid. I'm blocking him again. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's fair. He had explicit warning from a neutral third party, and for whatever reason he chose to disregard it. I'm certainly not going to unblock him now. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Heberw Wikipedia

Two Users are repeatedly taking it upon themselves to delete the comments on this User's User page. I can't read Hebrew, so I don't know what it says, but they claim it's an attack on an admin on the Hebrew Wikipedia. I keep reverting it, and have blocked one of the Users for vandalism, because as I've told them they need to take this to an RfC and not take it upon themselves to mess with another User's User page. Heberw Wikipedia doesn't have much in the way of history on the English language Wikipedia (one item was speedy deleted), but it doesn't seem right to me that they can just keep messing with another User's User page without the backing of an RfC. RickK 19:37, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

I can't read it either, but this username is close enough to "Hebrew Wikipedia" that it seemingly violates "No deliberately confusing usernames" at Wikipedia:Username. -- Curps 20:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've unblocked User:Krav-hanuka. He didn't express himself very well, but removing personal attacks (which this was) is not vandalism. It looks to me like User:Heberw Wikipedia is a troll. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A followup. Please see this set of edits. It seems highly unlikely to mee that Krav-hanuka can, as he/she claims, determine every page that a particular User visits. Am I correct in this assumption? I am also fed up with people who are always trying to assume some sort of personal bias when a sysop performs the actions a sysop (or any other User) needs to perform. And just for the record, I never visited the page in question until just after I read these rants. RickK 00:52, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like the two deserve each other. That said, there's no justification for user pages devoted solely to personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On the monitoring question: well, I know a little bit about how the Internet works. :-) There would be only a few ways to do this in exactly the way he describes ("monitor any visit and write the I.P of any web page you asks" - i.e. monitor clients, not servers, and record any place those users go on the Internet), none of them likely, I think:

• Mount an extremely widespread wire-tapping operation (something that the NSA and GCHQ couldn't desire in their wildest dreams) to tap traffic between any user they wish to monitor, and websites. This isn't plausible, of course.
• Users who have e.g. the Alexa toolbar, which counts page visits, might somehow be vulnerable, but... those services almost certainly do not keep info on individual users (for privacy reasons - e.g in the EU it's probably illegal to do so), so they'd probably have had to break into the servers of those services (illegally, of course).
• People who have spy-ware on their machine would definitely be vulnerable to having their site visits monitored, but of course that's a limited subset of the Internet user population.

So AFAIK they are blowing smoke. It would probably be easier to break into Wikipedia and add monitoring software, but their description says any server you visit, not just selected sites. And of course if you ask them how it is done, they'll say they "can't reveal it for security reasons". But you could always try - the response should be amusing, if nothing else! Noel (talk) 21:09, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured. RickK 21:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

User:Slrubenstein has just just broken the 3RR rule on race by reverting the article 4 times in 5 hours. He should now be blocked for 24 hours. Jalnet2 20:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both User:Slrubenstein and Jalnet2 have been blocked for 12 hours for violating the 3RR. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:51, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the page history, the "four reverts" are actually two sets of two reverts regarding different material. His latter two reverts each involved one word only. By the same token, I see no evidence that Jalnet reverted the same material more than three times. I don't think either of these blocks should stand. Mackensen (talk) 21:59, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not reverting to the same state or version, it's reverting the same article. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:22, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein also moaned about discussed the exact same thing on WikiEN-L (though apparently he is aware of the rule) so on reading the above I edited WP:3RR in the hope of clarifying it. Please read and copy edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) (fixed --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC))

If you think I was moaning, then you missed my point. Slrubenstein 16:21, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Fixed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oops! Looks like a difference over interpretation of policy. See Wikipedia_talk:Three-revert_rule#Different_reverts and User talk:Maveric149#3RR. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Harassment by CheeseDreams

Will someone please comment on CheeseDreams behaviour? Check out the following little bit of harassment and suggestion that I am posting anonymous comments on her page: [28]. For the record: I live in Sydney. I've also blocked a few people from harassing CheeseDreams! Those remarks are totally uncalled for, and CheeseDreams behaviour with listing RFArs on Slrubenstein probably show us all what we're all up against. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:52, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It appears that even though CheeseDreams has been banned, she is still attempting to harass me. Please see Special:Contributions/81.156.182.159, where she has posted messages to several users in an attempt to have them file ArbCom requests or RFCs filed against me. I have since blocked this IP address for another week! - Ta bu shi da yu 02:21, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Autobiography (Ashlee Simpson album)

Hate to be a tattle tale, but I think things might be getting out of hand. Everyking seems to be getting ganged up on. Everyking started a poll to try and get concensus on some bits for the page and User:Blankefaze added this section which Everyking most likely viewed as a personal attack (considering the history of the matter) [29] I've deleted it, and made a note to play nice, I just thought it should be brought to admin attention.

Also, the polls being conducted there I believe will be subject to some extreme "anti-Everyking" bias. I'm not sure how well it's going to go until people cool off. Just a heads up. No action is currently necessary I believe.

[[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 10:08, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Everyking started the polls. He has to live with the consequences. RickK 00:54, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Everyking doesn't have to live with the consequences of personal attacks. I've sent a message to Blankfaze about this issue: that's just not on. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:42, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was responding to the polls being conducted there I believe will be subject to some extreme "anti-Everyking" bias. So should somebody go there and delete the polls on the slim chance that somebody, sometime, might say something to hurt Everyking's feelings? RickK 05:07, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, people should keep their opinions to the topic matter and not attack another editor. That is the essence of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and you know it RickK. Personal grudges and comments about another editor are not the purpose of talk pages. And I don't care who they are, that's just not on. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ardent, he does have to deal with the fact that there might be a bias. It's not necessarily an anti-Everyking bias; some people are biased against Ashlee Simpson, pop stars, polls, and what they see as trivia. That's what happens when you...ask people for their opinions. They tend to give them. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|User:Premeditated Chaos/Sig]] 23:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's great. I was more talking about the fact that many of the comments like to border on personal attacks at Everyking while still talking about the subject at hand. It's a messy issue. Yes, Everyking has issues to deal with, but what I'm trying to say is this shouldn't be reflected in the article. That is all =) [[User:Consequencefree|Ardent^†_∈]] 07:59, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

82.35.247.5

Reverted the fourth time despite the warning: 1, 2, 3, 4

And keep an eye on the article. Since as it's going right now, he would probably revert again. OneGuy 21:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He might not have seen the edit comment (thought that's doubtful), but I've put a warning on his Talk: page that he can't miss now. If it happens again I'll block him. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:48, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ok, he apparently got a user ID User:Wells22 and reverted it back anyway OneGuy 23:26, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't exactly a revert, and the evidence it is him isn't 100%, but close enough. I've blocked him for 24 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:34, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Mac Mini on Wheels

You know the drill. Mess to clean up: (Mac Mini on Wheels | talk | contributions) -- Curps 23:19, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All done, and he's indefinitely blocked. — Dan | Talk 00:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anon attack

An anon, operating under several IDs, has been blanking several pages this morning. The IDs include:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=208.31.142.13
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.178.51.247
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=66.208.207.19
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.168.134.132

They don't seem to have any interest in stopping any time soon, but I'm only going to be logged in for a while more, so others should keep an eye out on the articles this person is attacking. These seem to be open proxies that have recently been subjects of tests on User:Fvw's page. RickK 09:57, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

User:66.20.28.21

User:66.20.28.21 appears to be violating the conditions of his arbitration committee ruling on a regular basis. I've just given him a 24hr ban, as per ruling, but I'm pretty sure he'll be back. DJ Clayworth 18:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Injune

If someone could, please delete or merge the entry for Injune. I added it without realising that Queensland towns have the format "town, state|town" As such, it's a duplicate of Injune which is the valid entry. Thanks and apologies for the cock-up. Peter1968 02:16, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was made into an redirect, so it now gets forwarded automatically -- Chris 73 Talk 04:41, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Violation of ArbCom rulings by Antifinnugor

It would seem that this violates this (I'm an involved party, someone else please look into it). dab (ᛏ) 12:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Antifinnugor just [30] violated the ArbCom ruling [31]. --Pjacobi 11:59, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, as per ArbCom ruling. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is an open arbitration procedure against user dbachman. Requests_for_Arbitration/Dbachmann He vandalized the critic in spite of this page again. antifinnugor 18:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration you refer to has not been opened; there is no evidence of it on the WP:RfAR page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

indeed. Here's another one who Just Doesn't Get It. dab (ᛏ) 08:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mirv has moved the orphaned RfA subpage into Antifinnugor's userspace. Please note that this is not a case of a technically-impaired editor failing to get his request reviewed by the ArbCom for lack of guidance! As soon as he'd created the page, Nyenyec [32] and myself [33] both posted helpful advice to Antifinnugor's talk page about how to properly file his RfA and get it reviewed by the ArbCom (while we also both advised him to focus instead on defending himself in the RfA in process against him), but were ignored and promptly deleted by Antifinnugor for our pains. Bishonen | Talk 12:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cheesedreams and Everyking

I must be a sucker for pain, but here goes: I have blocked all the CheeseDreams sock puppets for a week. I have also blocked Everyking for 24 hours for making a 2 edit revert on the Ashlee Simpson article. I figure that people may want to know this. Please keep an eye on both users while they are under their respective blocks. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, given your troubles with CD, it might have been better to get another admin to do that block - avoid the appearance of using admin powers against people with whom you have content disagreements, etc. I have to run off for a while at the moment, or I'd look at it myself now. Noel (talk) 19:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because it's pretty clear that she was using it to bypass the block, and besides which I just enforced an already existing 1 week block. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean my comment to apply to blocking the sock-puppets - blocking those was clearly the right thing. I seemed to have misunderstood what you wrote, and thought you said you blocked her main account for a week too. Noel (talk) 20:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why aren't all the sockpuppets just blocked indefinitely? RickK 21:19, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to know also. - Ta bu shi da yu 23:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's blatant abuse of sockpuppets - being created for policy violation, I (as an editor) see no reason not to block 'em at will - David Gerard 00:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

blocked another sockpuppet User:CHEESEdreams indefinitely, and rolled back her edits. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:46, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure that one's CD - see comments above, that one vandalized her User: page, so it may be a troll posing as her. Noel (talk) 20:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please note that there was no revert and that I was blocked for no reason. A person begins to get tired of these kinds of games after a while. Everyking 13:22, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there was. The reason I blocked you was because of these two edits: [34] and [35], which I counted as a revert in two parts. You were ordered by the ArbCom:

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

In my view, this was a revert and so I used my administrator's discretion to block you for 24 hours. It's nothing personal: I'm just enforcing an ArbCom remedy. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It was not a revert, and you would not have done it if it wasn't personal. Quit hiding behind that logic. Just because somebody hands you a gun doesn't mean you have to shoot anybody with it. Everyking 04:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know much about this conflict, but I don't see how you can claim it wasn't a revert. The phrase "is credited with co-writing each" was removed [36], and you've reverted that phrase back in twice [37] [38]; you were banned for 24 hours for the second revert. How, in your view, are these not reverts? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:47, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As well, a quick perusal of the Talk: page seems to indicate a clear consensus against including this phrase there: Talk:Autobiography_(Ashlee_Simpson_album)#Poll_3A; 10 votes to exclude it, to your 1 to include it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately yes, but that took place after the mini-edit war that was the subject of this matter. If people don't want it, I don't plan to restore it. Everyking 05:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, you may think it's personal if you like, but it wasn't. That is all I have to say about the matter now. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I had 24 hours to ruminate and stew over it, so I've got lots to say about it. Everyking 05:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, like others, I must admit I am baffled by this behaviour. You seem an admirable editor in every other circumstance; what is it about Ashlee Simpson articles that brings this out in you? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not the topic per se, it's the attitude and behavior of some of the other editors involved. Everyking 04:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism alert

Portugal is in campaign for Parliament elections. This means that wikipedia should expect an unusual activity in related articles. I'm going to be out of internet for the next week, so i ask the sysop's attention to the following articles: José Sócrates (the future PM, especially allegations about homossexuality, which are according to the man false) and Pedro Santana Lopes (the current PM). These articles are not watched by many people around here and they will be under attack for the next week(s). Thanks, muriel@pt 22:54, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I just checked both of these and they both seem OK at the moment. Noel (talk) 03:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)