Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive35

Contents: July 11, 2005 - July 13, 2005

Block of User:Pwqn

I would like to request a review of the 1 month block of User:Pwqn. The user has a 6 month history of 1700+ apparently good faith edits, and was blocked as a sockpuppet. Furthermore, the admin who blocked this user (User:Jtdirl) appears to have done so consequent to a dispute over a page (Government of Australia) which the admin himself has edited extensively. (Jtdirl also appears to be party to many disputes on that article's talk page). I also notice that there has been no warning or explanation placed on the blocked user's talk page.

The block should be reviewed for several reasons:

• Administrator blocking in a dispute to which he/she is a party
• Controversial accusation of sockpuppetry against an active editor with a substantial history
• The harshness of a 1 month ban for at worst raising a question that some had considered settled.

--Tabor 01:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by this block, and I'd appreciate it if Jtdirl could clear it up. Pwqn (talk · contribs)–while being on the 'wrong' side of the Australian head-of-state debate–seems to have a substantial edit history (>1700 edits, with >1400 edits in article space; uniform history of contributions back to December 2004 on a wide range of topics).

Is there any evidence that Pwqn is a sock beyond sharing an opinion on Australian Constitutional law? I've left a note asking Jtdirl to clarify his reasoning. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:43, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to unblock Pwqn. As far as I can tell, he's only made three contributions to the Government of Australia article (two to the article, one to talk) and he seems to have been trying to take a compromise position: [1]. In the absence of further information, I suspect that he inadvertently stumbled into this issue without realizing that there was a minefield present.

Unfortunately it's the wee hours of the morning in Ireland, so I haven't been able to get a reply from Jtdirl. If any admins think I've overstepped my bounds, or if there is any sign of sockpuppetry or revert warring from Pwqn, he can and should be reblocked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I support unblocking. Frankly it's difficult for me to see this as less than an abuse of admin powers. Everyking 07:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have sockchecking back. Since the block involves Skyring and Australian government edits, which are matters of AC interest, I can look. Pwqn ran Kangaroopedia as a sock. But neither appears to be Skyring. So Pwqn was in fact sockpuppeteering and fully deserves some sort of block for that, to contemplate his foolishness - David Gerard 18:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Reblocked for, (rolls dice) 4 days for disruptive use of a sockpuppet. Snowspinner 19:21, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, one thing you may not be aware of is that Skyring travels widely, so other identities can easily be used from other locations in the knowledge that they cannot physically be traced to him. He did specifically threaten the option of using different IPs from different locations near his home, stating

Wikipedia allows anonymous efforts, so all I would have to do would be to hop on my bike, trundle down Constitution Avenue to Civic where there are any number of hotspots, and enjoy a cup of coffee while I fixed up his latest idiocies. A different IP address every day.

In addition he threatened

Nor will it stop me from finding some other editor(s) to present the same facts.

The facts as presented by User:Pwqn, aka User:Kangaroopedia, bore striking similarities with the claims made by Skyring. Users may not realise but Skyring's arguments on constitutional law were monumentally misinformed, as everyone on all the pages could confirm. He misquoted references, misrepresented sources, claimed documents said the exact opposite of what they said, and regarded statements by media commentators as more authoritative than statements in law and opinions of Attorneys-General, etc. Pwqn used all the same dodgy sources as Skyring. Either s/he had become the only person anywhere on wikipedia to read the talk pages and not view Skyring's contributions as certifiable rubbish (and many many went to that page and all concluded his claims were garbage), they were being pushed by Skyring, as he threatened, to "present the same facts", or it was in fact Skyring. Curiously, where a real user is banned they immediately throw a tantrum and email the person who banned them saying "why did you do this?", Pwqn didn't do so, but created a sockpuppet. That is not how normal banned users who are innocent react. Their reaction, no outcry, just the creation of a sockpuppet, is very hard to explain if they were just an innocent user wrongly banned.

FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 20:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with a penalty for misuse of a sockpuppet account. On the other hand, I strongly object to blocks placed by admins who are party to disputes and who are willing to assert sockpuppetry without a sock check. It's still quite possible that Pwqn is–or was–a legitimate editor who created the sock because he was ticked off for being blocked. Honestly, if we're in a situation where we can decide if someone is a 'real user' based on our expected standard reaction to an incorrectly placed block...mayhaps we're blocking too liberally, eh? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:46, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Jtdirl should have presented evidence of these "striking similarities" to this noticeboard and asked that the situation be investigated; he certainly should not have taken the matter into his own hands. violet/riga (t) 20:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Using a sock to make one edit on a talk page is harmless. How does that compare to blocking a legit contributor on a false charge for a month? Which is worse? And good Lord we've got to get Snowspinner's adminship removed somehow. This stuff is downright destructive. Everyking 22:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

As I've said to you repeatedly, bring an AC case if you're so convinced you can back it up; if you can't back it up, you should probably stop showing such vast assumption of bad faith - David Gerard 00:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Me? I assume bad faith? And you're defending Snowspinner? What? When does he ever assume good faith? Seriously, can you think of an example? Tell me, David, if I did bring an ArbCom case, would you recuse? Everyking 00:41, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

If there was a reason to that convinced me (as there wasn't in EK 3) - David Gerard 00:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean the case that wasn't accepted. I don't need to convince you. Why should I have to? Anyway, I couldn't if I tried, because you already know what I'd tell you: that you consistently show strong bias in favor of Snowspinner. What better reason could I think up than that? If you wouldn't recuse in a case like this, that just goes to show you how much we need a mechanism to vote you guys out when you go bad. Everyking 01:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The case was, I believe, referred to mediation, which I'm continuing to hold out some hope is working, though I confess to growing more pessimistic. You seem to have abandoned hope on the mediation entirely. Snowspinner 01:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

If anything, Phil, you've become more aggressive. You were supposed to exercise greater caution. My criticism has gotten milder even as your behavior has gotten worse. Everyking 01:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Admins who are tired of this same old discussion appearing in every single topic longer than a few paragraphs around here, raise your hands. --cesarb 01:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a single vandal, sockpuppet, threatening user or abuser of Wikipedia you don't defend, Everyking? Is there a single admin you don't see as something akin to the lovechild of Pol Pot and Hitler? Your crusade of attacks against admins on this page and elsewhere is getting tiresome.

Or as User:David Gerard puts it, when dealing with your many other attempts to defend poor dear trolls,

Admins are to be regarded with the greatest of suspicion at all times, whereas trolls are to be treated as unique and beautiful snowflakes in the hope that this will cause them to magically transform into good editors, and have much greater claim to assumption of good faith than any admin ever will.

FearÉIREANNFile:Tricolour.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint)

This last comment was so asking to be put on BJAODN. Oh, and by the way, you lose. --cesarb 23:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Good God. Both of you—grow up!

• Jtdirl: Everyking wasn't defending a troll or vandal; he was defending someone with a long, positive contribution history. He's made some mistakes, but in this case he's quite right. You shouldn't have blocked someone for a month on suspicion of being a Skyring sockpuppet without better evidence, particularly since he only made a couple of edits, and you were mistaken.
• Everyking: Don't be so damned supercilious. Even when you're right, you insist on being insufferable rather than gracious. PwndPwqn did use a sockpuppet, which he shouldn't have. He also probably should have known better than to tangle with the page in question. Also, it's helpful to be more diplomatic in criticising others. If you're interested in improving the behaviour of our newer admins rather than just making enemies of them, try using a more diplomatic tone.

If the two of you have nothing better to do than bicker, then go to your rooms! Thanks to cesarb, by the way, for correctly calling a Godwin on this argument. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't let [your use of] "pwnd" go without a mention! ;) violet/riga (t) 00:01, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oops. THat's what I get for typing while irked. ;) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Zeno of Elea

Three revert rule violation on Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Zeno of Elea (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [DiffLink Time]
• 1st revert: [2]
• 2nd revert: [3]
• 3rd revert: [4]
• 4th revert: [5]

Reported by: Heraclius 03:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is my first doing this. Please tell me if I don't have the correct format. User:Zeno of Elea has reverted to his section on the "Treatment of prisoners of war" 4 times in the past few hours after being asked to discuss and source his section.

User:LickK

If it hasn't already been done, could someone please permablock LickK (talk · contribs)? This new account was just brought to my attention, and it is unquestionably not RickK, (I have verification of this via email). Please ban, per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Impersonation. Thank you. func(talk) 05:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Do we not have any sort of "Special:New accounts" page to watch for stuff like this? func(talk) 05:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Done, I'm surprised it wasn't blocked when it started contributing.--nixie 05:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh, there's a couple good edits, you wouldn't think it was a troll if not for the name. Oh well. Everyking 05:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The replica of RickKs userpage speaks of bad faith, I blanked it btw. --nixie 06:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:62.253.64.15

62.253.64.15 (talk · contribs) on Serialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 1 [6]
• 2 [7]
• 3 [8]
• 4 [9]

Two other users determined that this was "simple vandalism", and warned user to use the talk page. Stirling Newberry 05:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:61.129.44.201

Three revert rule violation on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 61.129.44.201 (talk · contribs):

Diffs as follows: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Sorry, best I could do. Too much like hard work pasting in times etc. Check out the history for thos.

Reported by: Grace Note 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Warned him/her on talkpage. Grace Note 05:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:N. Caligon

Three revert rule violation on Rob Liefeld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). N._Caligon (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [DiffLink Time]
• 1st revert: [15]
• 2nd revert: [16]
• 3rd revert: [17]
• 4th revert: [18]
• 5th revert: [19]
• 6th revert: [20]
• 7th revert: [21]
• 8th revert: [22]
• 9th revert: [23]

Reported by: --198.93.113.49 15:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Three-revert rule explicitly does not apply to elimination of simple vandalism. Reversions, as noted in the edit summaries, are responses to repeated vandalism which replaces the consensus page with an unformatted, mutilated version of the text. There is no good-faith dispute regarding the substantive contents of the page; instead, this is a campaign of harassment announced on the Rob Liefeld board several days ago and encouraged by the subject of the article. I requested page protection yesterday; no response to date. If admins rule that format-wrecking is not simple vandalism, I will not treat it as such; but I think it indisputable that repeatedly and deliberately removing all graphics and links from a page and changing the text format to substantial reduce its readability is obvious vandalism. I would also note that user 198.93.113.49 is one of the vandals engaged in this effort, and that his complaint here is not brought in good faith, but is retaliation for a complaint brought against him two weeks ago by this user which resulted in his temporary banning. User 198.93.113.49 is an experienced editor and knows how to change a page without wrecking its formatting; his conduct here is demonstrably bad-faith. N. Caligon 15:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Caligon has reverted three different editors. If he wants to make format changes that is fine, but he is making content changes as well. If he'd stop vandalizing the page with his constant reverts someone might be able to make formating changes to the version he doesn't like. But it's hard to make any progress with him constantly violating the 3RR rule. Please ban him in accordance with policy so that formating improvemants can be made without his interference.--198.93.113.49 16:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted "edits" (to use the term loosely) coming from a set of anonymous users identified only by IP addresses; the "edits" consist principally of removing all formatting, links, and graphics from the page (except for a picture of the subject of the article); there are also a few textual changes in the introductory paragraphs which are either verifiably false or obvious NPOV violations, but that can't excuse the extensive vandalism. User 198.93.113.49 was temporarily banned two weeks ago for misconduct reported by me, and his response to the complaint included verifiably false and malicious complaints regarding me and at least one other user. The complaint here is simply a continuation of that harassment. N. Caligon 16:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Please post links to the "diff" pages which show the changes and not merely the versions themselves. Also, if this truly is a content dispute, why do you not simply post your preferred content in a properly formatted manner so no one can claim to revert on the basis of vandalism? Gamaliel 16:35, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page until we sort things out a bit. Gamaliel 16:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Here's an example of the "diff" page; there are minor variations -- some of the vandalous "edits" leave a bit more of the formatted page in place -- but they're substantively identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rob_Liefeld&diff=18603555&oldid=18603415

N. Caligon 17:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Everytime N. Caligon gets into a dispute Gamaliel shows up to abuse his authority to protect him. Gamaliel should not be handling these disputes because he is completely biased. He once banned me from editing for a 3RR vilotaion when all I was doing waas reverting N. Caligon's vandalsim (he was constaly blanking a whole section). Now that N. Caligon is in blatant violation of the 3RR rule, gamaliel not only does not ban him, but page protects his version of the page!

Why is a 3RR violating vandal having his violation page protected?!--198.93.113.49 17:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

"Everytime" means once, referring to my block of 198.93... due to a clear cut 3RR violation: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive31#User:198.93.113.49. To avoid any whining about the appearance of impropriety, I will leave the resolution of the conflict at the Rob Liefeld article to another administrator. Gamaliel 17:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The page is still protected. How is page protecting the edits of a 3RR violater (9 reverts!) leaving the resolution for another administrator?

Please see [24]. Gamaliel 17:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, 198.93.111.49's version [25] is vandalism, as it removes every link from the article. Since the 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism, I see no reason for punitive measures against N. Caligon. If there's a content dispute, please use the talk page. Carbonite | Talk 18:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I could edit the page to include the concensus text with proper Wiki formating if the page was not locked.

User:Wikipedia Vandalism Warning Bot

Username block? --SPUI (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Rdsmith4 has already done it. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to thank David Gerard for rechecking this (he had done an IP check and blocked me because he thought I was the same as this user, then rechecked and realized the evidence didn't show that). However, after thinking about it, I am a bit concerned about the quickness to block; hopefully this won't happen with another user that's not willing to wait a few hours for the rechecking. --SPUI (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Emir Arven

Three revert rule violation on Srebrenica massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Emir Arven (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 15:31, 11 July 2005
• 1st revert: 15:39, 11 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 16:18, 11 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:27, 11 July 2005
• 4th revert: 16:27, 11 July 2005

Reported by: 62.243.243.144 16:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Please note: I am NOT user 212.200.195.14. 62.243.243.144 16:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Alfrem

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

• July 11: 3 Reverts
  1. [26]
  2. [27]
  3. [28]
• July 10: 2 Reverts
  1. [29]
  2. [30]
• July 9: 3 Reverts
  1. [31]
  2. [32]
  3. [33]
• July 8: 2 Reverts
  1. [34]
  2. [35]
• July 7: 3 Reverts
  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]

Reported by: Malathion 17:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• This user is in the midddle of an ArbCom committe RfA at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Alfrem. --Malathion 17:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Andy Milonakis

Going on several weeks now, nearly every other edit to the Andy Milonakis article is a revert. [39] Can this page be temporarily protected? If this is the incorrect forum to report such matters, please leave me a message on my talk page. Hall Monitor 18:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Temporarily protected. --Kbdank71 19:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Zephram Stark

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

• Previous version reverted to: 01:27, 11 July 2005
• 1st revert: 15:17, 11 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:43, 11 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:04, 11 July 2005
• 4th revert: 18:29, 11 July 2005

Reported by: BrandonYusufToropov 18:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Keeps inserting a table comparing "objective" and "subjective" versions of Terrorism at the top of the article. Has been reverted by 3 different editors, but insists that no-one has a "right" to remove his "objective" definition, they can only edit the "subjective" definition. Has been warned about 3RR several times in edit summaries and on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Appears to be using IPs to revert to his version as well, e.g. 206.176.211.72 (talk · contribs) Jayjg ^(talk) 19:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 19:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

User:12.73.198.28

Apparently this user disagrees with my determination that the CfD discussion of Category:Cinema by country ended with no consensus [40]. This user has reverted my edits closing the discussion [41] and reverted my edits on the main CfD page [42], calling me a vandal and a troll. I tried in vain to correct what the user had done, and even tried to communicate via their talk page. One of his problems is that the discussion was still ongoing as of this morning, and that the discussion should stay open for 5-7 days. I noted that the discussion was ongoing, but I didn't see it going in any particular direction, not enough to gain a consensus. As for the discussion staying open for 5-7 days, today is the seventh day since the category was nominated. Can someone take a look at what's been going on, and give their opinion or perhaps help out? Much thanks. --Kbdank71 20:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• That IP is working under the incorrect premise that CFD discussions are kept open until 5-7 days after the last contribution to them. Also he has a couple of things to learn about civility and wikiquette. Judging by behavior this appears to be an existing editor temporarily hiding behind anonymity to make his point. In other words, KBdank's behavior is correct, and a far cry from the vandalism that 12.73 accused him of. Radiant_>|< 09:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Hijacking User:BrandonYusufToropov

This user has repeatedly tried to hijack wikipedia editing process by enlisting the following users today to support his edits ( evidently through revert wars) on the Human rights in the United States page:

Check out BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs) 's edits of around 13:28, 11 July 2005 to the following users below:

LeeHunter (talk · contribs) - Toytoy (talk · contribs) - Irishpunktom (talk · contribs) -

Mustafaa (talk · contribs) - Viajero (talk · contribs) - Dbachmann (talk · contribs) -

Anonymous editor (talk · contribs) - Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs) - Farhansher (talk · contribs)

I am bringing this to your attention as this sort of hyena attack approach is undermining the integrity of Wikipedia.--Bertly 23:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

For the record, BYT's post to these users was:

Can you please ... ... take a look at my work here, and perhaps add it to your watchlist? Many thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 13:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC) - Update. User:Carbonite instantly reverted. BrandonYusufToropov 13:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

while Bertly's only other edit (under this name, anyway), apart from this and a "clarification on Yusuf Islam", have been to waste everyone's time by putting Human rights in the United States on VfD. No signs of a revert war are observable at that page. - Mustafaa 00:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

complete bogus complaint. BYT may ask me to comment on his edits if he likes. I went to look at them, and could only partially agree with them. Add the spurious vfd nomination, and Bertly certainly looks like a bad faith editor (or trolling "role account"). dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Asking for an outside opinion is precisely what people should be doing in case of a revert war. If the matter was too small-scale to report on RFC or the Village Pump, then BYT's action is a very good idea. Radiant_>|< 09:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

he did, of course, pick editors who he thought would tend to agree with him, but that's still within his rights. Anyone could have added the article to rfc if he thought BYT was just rounding up his buddies. dab (ᛏ) 09:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As stated in Brandon's message, I was the editor who reverted his additions. I had no problem with him asking other editors to take a look and give their opinions. I'm not sure why this is an issue. Carbonite | Talk 12:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Flowerofchivalry

Three revert rule violation on Nanjing Safety Zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Flowerofchivalry (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 08:38, 29 June 2005
• 1st revert: 11:57, 11 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:19, 11 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:30, 11 July 2005 as anonymous IP address 68.124.90.72 contrib
• 4th revert: 19:46, 11 July 2005 as anonymous IP address 204.210.33.122 contrib
• 5th revert: 21:11, 11 July 2005 as anonymous IP address 204.210.33.122 contrib - added by Hmib 04:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Reported by: Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Please note that the version Flowerofchivalry reverted to is the same as his earlier version, except with User:John Smith's's grammar corrections and my NPOV and accuracy tags. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Also, this is at least the third, possibly fourth time Flowerofchivalry has violated the 3RR. If I remember correctly, all the former 3RR violations were on Iris Chang, the first and second resulting in Flowerofchivalry getting warned, (twice), third resulting in page being protected, and Flowerofchivalry being warned (again). Previous 3RR logged here. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• In addition to that, it's the second time he's been using anonymous IP addresses as sockpuppets of sorts, in order to circumvent 3RR. I think a warning will NOT be enough this time. -Hmib 02:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Please provide diffs, not versions, as it is hard to tell what exactly he is reverting from versions. --khaosworks 04:32, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • Corrected. I apologise for the oversight. -Hmib 04:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Clear 3RR violation. I'd block for the usual 24, but I'd probably get accused of being biased because I'm a Singaporean Chinese. Someone else will have to take this one up. --khaosworks 07:54, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

This user, Hmib, has been doing personal attack for a long time by various ways. This silly false report is just one of them. He actually submitted the RfC last month, and despite the fact he advertised about that to his Chinese people, no person from a third party left any single comment as of now. This is one of his frame-up instigated by another extremist user, User:Markalexander100. This user also has submitted false reports, but no one has responded either. Flowerofchivalry 07:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

FoC, have you used either or both of those IP addresses? And is Pedant still your advocate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:55, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm blocking for 24 hours. This user has been warned repeatedly about 3RR. I've looked at the RfC, and there's evidence there of sockpuppetry to get round 3RR; some of the IP addresses used before resolve to the same area as those used here, and the ones mentioned above have been used only to repeat FoC's edits. He also made another revert to the same page after learning that this 3RR report had been submitted. I'll leave a note for him that he can e-mail me if he feels this is unfair. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:24, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Flower has created another new account, User:HarryWilson. One edit, reverting to Flower's version on this article [43]. Mark¹ 09:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked the new account indefinitely and reverted to the previous version of the page. By rights, FoC should have his block extended. The problem is I have no evidence it's him. It could be someone trying to cause him a problem, for example. I don't myself believe that, but without some indication, it's hard to proceed. With the IP addresses, I could see that they resolve to the same areas as other addresses linked to FoC, but with a user name, there's nothing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:39, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

This is one of his false accusations to vanish opinions he does not favor from Wikipedia. He has used the same tactic before. He claims any reverts which prefer my edit is my reverts. This is one of the results that he believes everything he believes are the truth. He ignores all the disussion but start labeling.

Besides, Hmib told Markalexandler100 to revert the same article when his limit was reached. This violates 3RR.

--Flowerofchivalry 07:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Dementedd

They are blocked for 3 days, till the end of the GNAA VfD. They:

• Made useless edits (removed spaces, etc)
• Posted a gigantic swastika on the GNAA VfD
• Blanked their user page to try to remove evidence of wrongdoing
• Shifted the VfD comment on Gay Nigger Association of America from the top of the page to the bottom, evidently in the hope that this won't be noticed in the future by new people who want to delete the page.

I suggest we keep an eye on that page and if, after they come back to Wikipedia, they do not start reforming we block for a week, then a month, then 3 months, then 6 months, then a year. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming that User:Mr._Delayer - (contribs) was also blocked for similar actions stated above? <>Who?¿? 10:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Alfrem blocked for 48 hours

I have blocked this user for revert warring on Libertarianism. I don't like blocking, but the editor should not be removing sources and adding unsourced information into the article. It is also making it difficult to edit the page. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

CSS/PHP exploit on User page

Hey, take a look at User:JacksonBrown and User talk:JacksonBrown. I don't know what he's done and I can't even access the edit box, but it needs to be sorted out. This exploit could be VERY annoying as I doubt a user without Rollback permissions could revert its use. Garrett^Talk 10:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the history, he's been refining his code quite a bit. However when I tried some of the diffs I got this...:

Line 3: Line 3:  Keep up the good work! Keep up the good work!
Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 100000000 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 12 bytes) in
/usr/local/apache/common-local/php-1.5/includes/DifferenceEngine.php on line 538

Has he hacked into the PHP too?!? Garrett^Talk 10:15, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, turned off my preview and it's just some DIV tags. Even so, needs... looking into. And this code evidently managed to screw up the diff interface. Garrett^Talk 10:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

For now, I blanked the page, so everyone can use history. Assumably, that's ok, otherwise rv :) <>Who?¿? 10:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's the code:

<font id='p-logo' style='z-index:+1;'>lol</font>
<font style="font-size:2500px; top: 0px; left: 0px; position: absolute; z-index: 3;">
<3 to YOU</br><font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding:
 .1em .25em .75em .25em;">G</font> <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family:
 sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">N</font> <font style="color: #e5e4e2; background:
 #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">A</font> <font style="color:
 #e5e4e2; background: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif; padding: .1em .25em .75em .25em;">A</font>­
<font style="color: #315b84; font-family: sans-serif;">™</font></font>
<font style="background: red; weight: bold; font-size: 32pt; color: white; top: 0px; left: 0px;
 position: fixed; z-index: 4; float: left;">FUCK<br/>WIKIPEDIA</font>

As you can see, it just blew up the text, effectively blanking everything else out. No worries.. I just used the url to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:JacksonBrown&action=edit

<>Who?¿? 10:29, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've removed all of the annoying text, with the help of a few others, and blocked him. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've offered to unblock him if he agrees to start making useful edits. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 11:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Germen

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

• Previous version reverted to: 11:14, 12 July 2005 and 11:12, 12 July 2005
• 1st revert: 11:12, 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:24, 12 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:36, 12 July 2005
• 4th revert: 11:40, 12 July 2005

Comments:

• Despite having been previously warned on several occasions about the 3RR (see user's talk page), Germen is reverting the VfD tag from this article and then moving the tag to the lower down the page and reverting those who move it to the top. Axon 10:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• • 24-hour block for vandalism. David | Talk 11:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Harvardian"

User:Harvardian has recently been on a POV-pushing rampage at History of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pagania, Zahumlje, Travunia, Duklja, Serbia and elsewhere.

The rationale and the behaviour is detailed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ARD and Jwalker.

The problematic bit here is that this is the third sockpuppet already, and because I've had to roll back his crap myself, I can't really reach for blocking tools myself. I'd appreciate if some other admin could have a look. --Joy [shallot] 11:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Dbiv

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

• Previous version reverted to: 11:14, 12 July 2005 and 11:12, 12 July 2005
• 1st revert: 10:13, 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 10:15, 12 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:25, 12 July 2005
• 4th revert: 10:41, 12 July 2005
• 5th revert: 10:47, 12 July 2005

Comments:

This nomination arises from my reverting vandalism by Germen who insisted on either removing the VfD tag placed on an article he was writing, or on putting the tag at the bottom of the article in contravention of deletion policy. All of the reverts were simple vandalism and none concerned the content of the article. David | Talk 11:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that it was simple vandalism to move or remove the VfD tag. Thus, I don't believe this is a 3RR violation at all. Carbonite | Talk 15:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Quod licet iovi non licet bovi. Germen 20:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Any Wikipedian may revert vandalism. Only an administrator may block. There comes a point when we can't allow continued disruption. Many of your edits are useful contributions. David | Talk 23:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

Three revert rule violation on Kevin Rudd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Adam Carr (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [44]
• 1st revert: [45]
• 2nd revert: [46]
• 3rd revert: [47]
• 4th revert: [48]

Comments In addition to the reverts, User:Adam Carr has been engaging in personal attacks in edit summaries and ignoring pleas to join the discussion on talk, both in edit sumaries and on Talk:Kevin Rudd. Cognition 14:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Gabrielsimon

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

• Previous version reverted to: 09:14, 10 July 2005
• 1st revert: 22:58, 10 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 11:21, 11 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 11:30, 11 July 2005
• 4th revert: 22:48, 11 July 2005

Reported by: Wikibofh 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• 3rd instance of 3RR, just on this page. Looking at the blocklog shows blocks from previous 3RR violiations on July 6, June 30, June 29 and June 14. This one is evidently part of an ongoing edit war with DreamGuy (talk · contribs) who does 1 edit and 3 reverts on this article. I believe this stems from the disagreements on Missing Sun myth/Missing sun myth/Missing sun motif Wikibofh 14:51, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 19:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • what the? this is worse than the BC(E)-wars... dab (ᛏ) 19:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• At least the 5th 3RR violation in a month, and he gets blocked for 24 hours? That's no different than a first violation. Wikibofh

• block log shows

• 22:44, 23 April 2005
• 19:48, 14 June 2005
• 18:22, 29 June 2005
• 20:31, 30 June 2005
• 18:24, 6 July 2005
• 12:36, 12 July 2005

This is ridiculous. Wikibofh 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Would it be appropriate to increase the block now? There must be a better solution. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 20:36, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:Cognition

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

• Previous version reverted to: 02:01, 12 July 2005
• 1st revert: 03:23, 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 09:00, 12 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 10:29, 12 July 2005
• 4th revert: 15:22, 12 July 2005

Reported by: Calton | Talk 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• LaRouche supporter constantly changing the description of a LaRouche activist. Blocked for 3RR violation only two days ago (see above). Calton | Talk 16:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Calton and Adam Carr refuse to discuss their edits. See User talk:Adam Carr for his statement that he will revert any of my edits without even reading them. I will revert all edits to all articles on my watchlist by the LaRouche cult "editor" Cognition, or any other recognisable LaRouche editor. I will do this until either the LaRouche cultists are banned from Wikipedia or I am. I don't much care which, since an encyclopaedia which allows crackpot cultists to edit its articles is not worth writing for. [49] This report is only an attempt to game the system in order to continue getting away without discussing their reverts on talk. Cognition 16:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes but you still chose to revert four times, he didn't, SqueakBox 16:22, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Adam Carr did on Kevin Rudd. [50] It is hypocritical to criticize me without calling for Adam Carr to be blocked for actually initiating these revert wars. Cognition 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. The fact that someone broke the rule on another article does not allow you to break it. The fact that someone "instigated" this edit war does not allow you to break the rule. The fact that someone doesn't discuss their revert on talk does not allow you to break the rule. Gamaliel 17:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• User:YeahRight picke up right where User:Cognition left off, simply reverting back to Cognition's versions. Therefore I blocked that account for 18 hours, about the same amount of time left in Cognition's 3RR block, on account of disruption. -Willmcw 23:45, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• • I re-blocked User:YeahRight indefinitely. An editor who shows up and starts immediately reverting pages is obviously a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Now Adam's considering whether he wants to continue editing. [51] This happened before because of HK. I know how he feels. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • Cognition's editing pattern so closely resembles HK that I think the ArbCom's February ruling applies:

    • • Herschelkrustofsky is restricted to one account for editing. All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely
      • If Herschelkrustofsky is discovered to have created or edited using any other account, or has edited anonymously, that account shall be blocked indefinitely and Herschelkrustofsky shall be banned for up to one week.'
      • If, in the judgement of any administrator, Herschelkrustofsky or any user who is considered a sockpuppet of Hershelkrustofsky edits any article which relates to Lyndon LaRouche or inserts material which relates to Lyndon LaRouche into any other article he may be banned for up to one week. Any ban shall reset the one-year ban on editing LaRouche related articles and the ban on inserting LaRouche material into unrelated articles. A one-week ban may be imposed for use of a sockpuppet for any purpose; such a ban shall reset both bans.

    This foolisheness has been going on long enough, Cognition has shown that his sole interest is in furthering LaRouche theories, just like HK. -Willmcw 00:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

    I agree about the foolishness, but the problem is that HK was in California and Cognition is in Florida, and an IP check has confirmed that. We'd have to show either the use of open proxies or that HK has moved. I think we're going to have to go back to the arbcom and ask them for a new ruling, or an extension of the old one to cover Cognition. Snowspinner's also talking on the mailing list about whether someone needs to ask the arbcom to clarify their ruling that LaRouche publications are regarded as original research. I would say that's not necessary and that we do clearly have the right to remove LaRouche material on sight from non-LaRouche articles. But we also need the right to block users who persist in adding it, though we're currently allowed to block for disruption, and I see no problem in interpreting what Cognition's doing as disruptive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:43, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

    Californians are allowed to travel and, if they've got the right papers, they are even allowed to leave the country. I don't think that an apparent geographic change of IP in any way rules-out HK. This editor showed clear familiarity with Wikipedia, has several of the same editing habits, the same interests, etc. The preponderance of evidence seems to be that this editor has the same editing pattern.-Willmcw 02:57, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

    Sure, I agree about the traveling and that it could be him. I found it interesting that Cognition gave him a barnstar and shortly thereafter he cooincidentally visited his page for the first time in months, and saw it. According to the wording of the arbcom ruling — "All other accounts showing the same editing patterns are to be blocked indefinitely" — Cognition ought to be blocked indefinitely, because there's no doubt that the account shows the same editing pattern. However, I don't think that's what the arbcom intended to say: I think they meant "shows the same editing pattern and is believed to be a sockpuppet of HK." It's this last part we can't prove. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • The language was written to cover the difficulty of proving sockpuppets. If necessary we can pull together a list of parallel edits, etc to prove the case. Just having a Florida IP doesn't even mean one is actually in Florida. It's not that hard to set up a midpoint IP, I hear. -Willmcw 03:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

• • A list of parallel edits would be helpful. If you want to go ahead with that, we can share the workload, so let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:209.183.212.194 (blocks broken?)

I've blocked 209.183.212.194 twice in the last 10 or 15 minutes or so and neither block seems to have worked as s/he keeps on posting. I don't see anyone unblocking on the block log so I'm not sure what's going on. Perhaps someone else could try blocking him/her? Gamaliel 18:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The edits he is doing is to his own talkpage. And I believe this is a new feature of the newest mediawiki version and not a bug. A blocked user can still edit hois own talk and userpage after being blocked. You can always lock his talkpage if you really want to stop him. Shanes 18:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I may do that considering that one of the reasons I blocked him was for changing a vandalism warning from another editor into a request for "buttsex". Gamaliel 18:17, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually I already did it.I figured I'd unprotect later after he get's the message Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 18:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I have added a small note about it to MediaWiki:blockiptext. --cesarb 18:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Whoops! I added a larger one by edit conflict... then saw yours and took it out thinking it was there previously but I'd missed it. I'd suggest we leave the larger note until people get used to the change. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yours will annoy people because they will have to scroll down to do a block. Perhaps that's a good thing. How about making the text blinking red? --cesarb 18:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, OK, but only if we can make the letters blink in sequence. H-O-T-E-L HOTEL HOTEL H-O.... heh. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command ;-) Theresa Knott (I can't believe I actually spent time making this crap) (a tenth stroke) 21:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Total waste of time, but a virtuoso performance! alteripse 00:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Theresa, its... its... beautiful, it's so retro. And pink, even. I'm touched. Thank you. I'll add it to the MW:BIPTx page. It's an admin-only page, anyway, so who could object? Also, on a more serious note, isn't there some page where this is being discussed? I seem to remember Tim Starling mentioning such a thing but I'm not sure where it is. We should have a link on the Blockip page. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It's just a little bit up here. --cesarb 05:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:216.213.99.100

Three revert rule violation on Washing machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 216.213.99.100 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 10:38, July 11, 2005
• 1st revert: 10:37, July 12, 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:06, July 12, 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:24, July 12, 2005
• 4th revert: 14:44, July 12, 2005

Reported by: Essjay · Talk 19:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• User wants Washing machine to be a disambig page between the article on the laundry device and an article on an album by the same name. I personally explained the situation on the article's talk page, and left the user notes (including a note warning him of 3RR) on his talk page, which he chose to ignore. Various other users have reverted his edits.

Reported by: Essjay · Talk 19:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

• It appears that the fourth revert was done before your message was recieved on the user's talk page. Given that, and the fact that once the message of Essjay's was read, the anon user changed the article in question to its previous, non-disambiguation state, I this is more of a newbie mistake than an actual violation. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 20:02, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Rob Liefeld

I'd like the intervention of another administrator at Rob Liefeld please. I locked the article due to an edit war between two (or more?) editors but I've decided to recuse myself due to allegations of favoritism. The allegations are unfounded of course, but I figured the move couldn't hurt, but then the anon has accused me of favoritism by not unlocking the page and allowing him to continue the edit war. Additionally, there are allegations that another anon is actually the subject of the article removing criticism of himself. Gamaliel 21:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article was protected appropriately. Would you like me to state that on the article's talk page too? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Liefeld has a reputation in the comics world, but I have to admit, I find the idea that he's anonymously editing to remove criticism kind of silly. He's MUCH too full of himself to be anonymous. :) Snowspinner 23:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have now listed this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment: the anon user is being hostile to anyone who disagrees with his point of view and I am not getting through to him. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 17:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Resurgence of Antonarian Concepts among Mid Western African American Wiccan Slaves

From: Queentumi To: Board

I personally deleted all pages concerning Anton which is an African American Wiccan name for God taken from Aten, to Anten to Anton. This name was passed down in my family who is African American and Blackfoot Indian by my Great Grandmother who lived to be 113.Unlike caucasions who are people of the book that is they use a book for spiritual guidance and history many native american and afircan cultures are people of the spirit that is things are passed down orally from generation to generation after various insults I personally deleted all information that I added to wikipedia because I do not enjoy arguing but I do enjoy sharing my heritage with others since I posted the information it is not vandalism to delete it if I personally feel there is a lack of respect for that information by people such as dfleck. I will not allow anyone to disrespect my heritage any further than it already has been. So take something away from folks who have a lack of respect for it is not vandalism it is obeying the wishes of the people such as defleck to protect my culture and the culture of Midwestern Wiccan Blacks such as myself from undo religious and creed persecution.

Queentumi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.217.208.172 (talk • contribs) 2005-07-12 19:41:47 CDT (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I follow, but unfortunately, if you contributed the content under the GFDL, you don't really have veto on whether or not it goes in now - if your contributions are seen as a positive addition by people, they're well within their rights to insist that they be included - in fact, it's what they should do. The best thing you can do now to help decide how your content is used is to continue participating in the discussions around it. If they're turning into arguments, I'm sorry to hear that - perhaps an outside voice would help. Can you link me to some of the articles? I'll have a look and see what I can contribute to the discussions. Snowspinner 00:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Dcokeman

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

• Previous version reverted to: 18:05, 12 July 2005
• 1st revert: 18:37, 12 July 2005
• (not a revert, removed other content and contested content instead): 19:09, 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:41, 12 July 2005
• 3rd revert (reverted content as newly formed line): 19:52, 12 July 2005
• 4th revert: 20:11, 12 July 2005

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Simple violation of 3RR. User wants 'FahrenHYPE 9/11' included in the GWB article, or to delete 'Fahrenheit 9/11'. Regardless of the strength of his/her conviction, such reverts are excessive and anticollaborative.

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 01:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• • In my opinion, Dcokeman's reverts are excessive and aren't accomplishing much, except for disruption. However, it looks like he's at 3 reverts right now. It's somewhat difficult to tell from the diffs provided (especially the first two and the previous version). In the meantime, I've warned him and will keep an eye on the situation. Carbonite | Talk 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks Carbonite. I checked the diffs and I believe they do show four distinct identical reverts (one of which included new content) and another that was a deletion, but I'm confident with your capable administration. Thanks! -- RyanFreisling @ 02:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
      • I suspect if I dig far enough into the article's history, I might come to the same conclusion, but I'm somewhat pressed for time and it is customary to warn on a first-time offense. Still, I strongly dislike when users game the system and will not be nearly so lenient should this behavior continue. Thanks for your confidence. Carbonite | Talk 02:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• It has been suggested [[52]] that DebateMaster may be a sockpuppet of Dcokeman, created after Carbonite's warning to revert the article in defiance of 3RR [53]. Can this be validated or invalidated? -- RyanFreisling @ 16:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

After an additional two reverts, I have blocked for 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 23:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User pages that must be locked permanently

The GNAA have found a new way of causing disruption in Wikipedia. Any pages that look like this must be editted to remove the HTML that is causing display problems and permanently locked. Please do not forget to add the {{vprotected}} tag to the page, add a note to the talk page and list the page on WP:PROT. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Is there a concievable way of stopping this from happening? Snowspinner 03:40, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

For those of us using the Opera web browser, it's simply a matter of toggling from "author css mode" to "user css mode", which disables all CSS on the page. From there, editing becomes perfectly normal. As a long-term fix, it's a matter of filtering out certain CSS attributes from HTML tags. --Carnildo 04:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Alt-E still works as a keyboard shortcut for editing the page. Rhobite 04:52, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, on CSS/PHP exploit on User page, you can always just use the action=edit url http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:JacksonBrown&action=edit. Works quite well. <>Who?¿? 05:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Mansour

Three revert rule violation on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mansour (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 17:40, 10 July 2005
• 1st revert: 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 04:37, 13 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 05:03, 13 July 2005
• 4th revert: 05:03, 13 July 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

We can all see how bright you are. You have reverted 4 times!! So you are asking a user to be banned for three reverts in 24 hours when you yourself have done 4 reverts in the span of a fraction of 24 hours?!

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR violations and personal attacks. I've also blocked Mansour1 (talk · contribs), which is more than likely the same user. -- Hadal 05:35, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Has been notified of the 3RR and asked to self-revert. Is making rather abusive edit summaries and Talk: comments. His response to my request that he self-revert was not very encouraging:[54] Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Can some admins please look into this? I believe User:Jayjg (an admin) and User:Hadal (another admin) work together to support each other's abuse. Please review the edit logs of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. User:Jayjg is clearly abusing Wikipedia and working in concert with a number of other users to promote POV in Wikipedia articles. User:Mansour

If you think either of us have abused our privileges, you're welcome to lodge a complaint. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Use of administrator privileges for more information. This page is not the place to air such complaints. I'm actually being rather generous tonight, in that I won't be blocking your IP unless you start vandalising or attempt to edit within the main article namespace. Please see the advice I gave you at User talk:Mansour#Wikipedia:Three revert rule. I really am trying to help here. -- Hadal 05:48, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And the reason that you banned Mansour for three reverts but you didn't ban Jayjg who has four reverts on the same article during the same dispute is?

Three reverts? You made four at Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. I concede that you had only made three reverts at Afghanistan at the time of the block, but you did break the rule elsewhere. You're also continuing to revert Afghanistan and making personal attacks—which was also a reason for your block—so I will have to block your IP. Please take some time to cool off. -- Hadal 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Jayjg

Three revert rule violation on Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jayjg (talk · contribs):

• For logs see the 3RR report immediately above, reported by the bright user himself in an entertaining example of self-incrimination.

Reported by: None other than Jayjg himself in the 3RR report immediately above this one. - User:Mansour 08:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Jayjg and your (Mansour's) IP for 24 hours. To Mansour: Please stop making personal attacks against other users, and please respect the block by not circumventing it to continue edit warring. -- Hadal 09:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• It looks like there are 4 reverts in a little over an hour. However, none of the edits are labelled as reverts, and I didn't inspect and compare the changes, so I can't say for sure. I do find it very disturbing, if true, that one contributor could be blocked for 3 reverts, but his admin opponent remains unblocked despite making even more reverts. Everyking 08:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Where are you getting "only three reverts" from? Mansour made four, as Jayjg detailed above. Furthermore, Mansour has made several personal attacks; he has also continues to make personal attacks and revert Afghanistan via IP. Jayjg had not broken the 3RR until later on; by that time I had stopped watching the articles. I will now block him for 24 hours, as he has indeed broken the rule. -- Hadal 09:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I see. So you had stopped watching that page by the time he broke the rule? So how did it work? You had that page on your watch list and as soon as you blocked the first user you removed that page from your watch list? It appears that you had blocked other users who were in a revert war with User:Jayjg and/or User:HKT before. They must just be lucky that you happen to "watch" the pages in which they get in revert wars. One more quesiton: Both Jayjg and HKT seems to be Jewish and ardently pro-Israeli (to the extent that they even "contribute" to Iran-related articles). Are you also a Jew by any chance? User:Mansour 09:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I temporarily "watch" most articles (those which I don't work on) the old-fashioned way, by refreshing their histories. I have a small watchlist for this reason; I find having a limited number to watch helps reduce wikistress. I had other wiki things to do today, so I did not check back until ca. 09:10 UTC. So sue me. I would think you (Mansour) would be happy now, as I've blocked Jayjg. Instead, you continue to question my integrity, and now my ethnicity! For the record, I have not (to my knowledge) blocked people in conflict with Jayjg or HKT before; but even if I had, you can be sure I would not be involved in the dispute itself. Jayjg and HKT's biases are their own business; I've declared my own biases on my userpage in the interests of full disclosure. I can only say that my biases were not a factor in this case (since when are leftists "ardently pro-Israel"?); however, I doubt I could ever convince you of this. I do have some Jewish ancestry, along with Moorish, Irish, and Anglo-Saxon. I'm a mutt—but why does that matter? -- Hadal 10:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough and slightly defensive explanation. Let me guess, you live in UK? Cuz you keep track of time in UTC. User:Mansour

No, Canada: born and raised in Toronto. I used UTC because that's the default time displayed in Wikipedia. You could say that many Wikipedians have learnt to keep track of time in UTC, given all the time we spend here. -- Hadal 10:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Defensive? How is someone supposed to react to your vulgar Jew-baiting? Honestly, the trash that is tolerated on this site.... --TJive 10:27, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mansour here. Nobody living in Canada thinks of time in terms of UTC. That puts your whole explanation under a question mark. Also your explanation about how you "temporarily watch" articles by refreshing didn't make sense. Why would you be watching that particular page by constant refreshes and stop watching it after blocking one side of the dispute? --RJW

RJW, it's not a question of whether people in Canada think in terms of UTC. Hadal wrote it in UTC as a courtesy because that's what used here. He's explained what happened, so please assume good faith and accept the explanation. Do you have a user name, by the way?SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think he wrote it as a courtesy, he wrote himself "You could say that many Wikipedians have learnt to keep track of time in UTC". I seriously doubt too many people would buy that. I have used UTC timestamp based tools for a long time and I never think in terms of UTC. Regarding user name, I don't have one yet, but yours is certainly an inspiration. :) -RJW

"I do find it very disturbing, if true". investigate, before expressing your disturbance. If you investigate and post unambiguous diffs here, even "admin opponents" will not go unblocked, as shown by Hadal. Stop suggesting (endlessly) that admins are protecting each other, unless you have clear evidence. Just because two people are admins doesn't mean they are less likely to want to block each other. dab (ᛏ) 09:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer-12 evading ban

This user was blocked indefinitely for repeatedly asserting that his talk page contributions were not licensed under the GFDL. See 68.46.123.33 (talk · contribs) who signs his posts:

 © 2005, Pioneer-12

Clearly he should be blocked for evading a ban. The introduction of copyright notices in signatures is a little worrying. Of course, all users retain copyright to material they release under the GFDL. Could someone infer from this notice that other user comments are not copyrighted? Should it be removed? Bovlb 14:39:56, 2005-07-13 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the copyright issue, however if this user is evading a ban by editing under an IP then the IP should be blocked. Is it the only IP this user edits under? Is this user the only user to use this IP? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely, though I should have made that a month, and I'll fix that. The copyright issue is unacceptable - he's destroying the ability of mirrors to function. Snowspinner 15:01, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Marking the contributions as copyright is totally moot—the author of any text automatically receives and retains copyright, unless it is explicitly transferred as part of a work-for-hire situation or the like. On Wikipedia, all of us retain copyright on our contributions. What Pioneer-12 would like to believe is that he can contribute copyrighted material without licensing it under the GFDL. Any incarnations of his that make that assertion should be blocked for not complying with Wikipedia's terms. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• And now 203.162.3.77 (talk · contribs). Bovlb 05:12:33, 2005-07-14 (UTC)
  • Blocked indefinitely since it is an open proxy. Rhobite 05:17, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer wrote this (for which I think he deserves a round of applause for boldness) on Snowspinner's talk: "Sorry, you can try all you want, but you can't block me. You can waste your time trying, though. :-) The initial block was immoral, and thus I refuse to heed it. Get mad if you want; I am practicing civil disobediance, and will continue to do so till the Wikipedia system comes to it's senses. Notice how I am CONTRIBUTING and being productive? Why would you want to block such a person? It's ludicrous."

Well, how do we refute that argument? Pioneer insists he's doing nothing wrong and says he's being productive. It's useful to look at the other side. I see here persecuting someone over a quibble. Everyking 05:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a government, and civil disobedience here is just disruption. Pioneer is being a nuisance by refusing to license his talk page comments under the GFDL. His choice is incompatible with editing here, so he is blocked. He is free to license his comments under the GFDL, as every other editor does, and he can resume editing. Rhobite 05:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer has already made some of these edits, so what's the status of those? If a person makes an edit, and claims copyright over it, then who wins, the user or the project guideline? I always thought by contributing you were effectively releasing your work freely, by that act, regardless of any statement to the contrary. Otherwise I don't see how you handle edits that have already been made. Everyking 05:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Refusing to honor the GFDL license and insisting that his contributions aren't under the GFDL isn't a quibble? This is hard ban material, frankly. The fact that every contribution is licensed under the GFDL is pretty much the most fundamental part of Wikipedia. It's something we can't afford any compromise on, or else we risk very bad legal problems. Snowspinner 06:15, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

He only said his signed comments are non-GFDL. He freely gives his article work to it. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Pioneer 12's beef, as I understand it, is ONLY over his Talk Page contributions. It's about as petty a complaint as I can imagine, but if he doesn't want to license those bits of deathless prose under GFDL, he's free to take them elsewhere. Why carve out a policy exception merely to accomodate his idiosyncracies? --Calton | Talk 06:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see why that deserves a round of applause. I've had plenty of petty vandals leave me similar messages after I blocked them and they popped up under a new IP address. The deliberate regard for community consensus (it's all of Wikipedia that must come to its senses, not him) merits censure, not praise. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:49, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Another IP. I am adding to Wikipedia:Banned users. Snowspinner 18:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to add a note that he's only banned until he agrees to follow Wikipedia's GFDL terms with regards to his signed comments. I think that's fair, considering that he doesn't dispute giving his article work under the GFDL. -- Netoholic @ 18:30, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Good call. Snowspinner 18:38, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Unicode imposters

This one is disturbing: [55]. On my computer at least, lower case "es" in Cyrillic renders exactly like a "c" (read about it here: [56]). I would never have noticed this RickK imposter except that User:Dbraceyrules mentioned it on RfC. I wonder if it is possible to have a list of illegal characters for usernames, especially those Unicode entities which render identically to Latin characters. Antandrus (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

How do we block this account?I tried putting Ri%D1%81kK as the user name in but the block didn't work. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 16:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I already did: look at the block log. I copied and pasted from the "RickK" at the top of his contributions list (that's the only way I know how to do it). Antandrus (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I believe this is getting out of hand, and that (at least on the English Wikipedia) we should forbid non-standard characters for usernames entirely. You can get plenty of variation with ASCII values 32 - 126. Grandfather it if there is any legit user with a nonstandard character in the name (which to my knowledge there isn't even) Radiant_>|< 17:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

  I'm pretty sure you're wrong; I've seen at least one user with a name in Cyrillic. Keeping it to ASCII only will still not prevent people exploiting the "I"/"l" identification, though, which is by far the most common trick. Adequately fighting homograph spoofing attacks while still keeping the system practical is not easy. JRM · Talk 19:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I guess I've been lucky for the past five years or so, but every web browser I've ever used on any operating system has rendered characters outside the Latin-1 set with a different appearance -- even homographs such as "c" and "es" -- in the case of the RickK impostor, the "es" is drawn using a much thinner stroke than a "c" would be. --Carnildo 21:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Here they are for side-by-side comparison:

RickK (Latin-1, third character is "c")

Ri?kK (third character is Cyrillic "es")

Antandrus (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Schnorrer

All you who remember the old Wik/Anthony edit/flame wars (or those who have heard the legends), please help. I just protected the Shnorrer article from what appears very much to be a renewal of hostilities...at least, I can't imagine who but one of those two would get fussed over that article and whether or not it links to Karl Schnorrer's page. I don't have time to stick around today and figure out if Wik's back, nor do I know the 3RR well enough (been away too long) to be certain about its application (and applying it in light of a possible resurfacing banned user is a sticky wicket anyhow). I'm sorry to leave you all the dirty work, but I know it's in good hands. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 19:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I unprotected and blocked the participants for 24 hours instead. Hottentot, by his user page, is an account belonging to one of Wik's other nemeses, Quagga (and what's more, the one whose behavior started the chain of events that led to Wik's vandalbot attack). He's been warned about the three-revert rule before, so he's fair game to block. Khoisan is an account that has never been used for any other purpose. This makes it obviously a sockpuppet trying to avoid the consequences of engaging in a revert war, so I concluded that a warning is unnecessary, in the interests of treating both participants equally. Whether this is Wik or somebody else makes little difference. --Michael Snow 20:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Sanctu (talk • contribs) is a reincarnation of Khoisan/Wik. -- Netoholic @ 21:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

User:198.93.113.49

Three revert rule violation on Roy Lichtenstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 198.93.113.49 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: 16:05, 11 July 2005
• 1st revert: 14:04, 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 14:26, 12 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 15:12, 12 July 2005
• 4th revert: 09:46, 13 July 2005

Reported by: Gamaliel 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is a simple dispute over how much to quote from a lengthy paragraph, but the anon user claims on the talk page that I have "a personal vendetta against me and is simply reverting my edit out of spite". Gamaliel 21:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Blocked for 24 hours, and noted at user's talk page. Bratsche^{talk 5 pillars} 22:06, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:134.161.144.50

Three revert rule violation on George_W._Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 134.161.144.50 (talk · contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [DiffLink Time]
• 1st revert: 15:54, 13 July 2005
• 2nd revert: 15:59, 13 July 2005
• 3rd revert: 16:02, 13 July 2005
• 4th revert: 16:07, 13 July 2005
• 5th revert: 16:12, 13 July 2005
• 6th revert: 16:21, 13 July 2005
• 7th revert: 16:24, 13 July 2005
• 8th revert: 16:30, 13 July 2005
• 9th revert: 16:35, 13 July 2005

Reported by: RyanFreisling @ 21:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Egregious #RR vio. -- RyanFreisling @ 21:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have already blocked this user and I'm trying to get him to play nice. Gamaliel 21:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

My local AV scanner triggered....

EDIT= WP's silly spam protector refused my msg due to my use of an URL redirect service (blantantly modified "http" prefix is below). The links point to my personal webspace and will display png images informing of suspicious page & detected infection type. You guys definately have to make it less of a labrynth to make simple tech alerts like this one. props!, Jonathan

This is not a wiki page but rather an off-site event that is linked to a wikipedia page.

While browsing the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalocyanine

I used command "R-clicked > Open in New Window" against the link titled as: Phthalocyanine Crystal Structures

Which points to: http://phthalo.mkengel.de/pcrev.htm

Which triggered my AVscanner @ TCP/socket scanner to report: h++p://jp04.notlong.com

And when I excuted the "Terminate/disconnect" cmd in the AV prompt (see above notlong link) it failed to close the window (I think the website relaunched same URL) and I my AVscanner @ Processor reported: h++p://jp05.notlong.com

Note that the infecting page has same appearance as Wikipedia design. Feel free to contact me if there is anything I can do. ~ lunch@pobox.com

NOD32 AV LOGS NOTE: IMON=Internet Monitor, AMON=Resident Memory Monitor.

Time | Module | Object | Name | Virus | Action | User | Info

2005.07.13 16:40:28 | IMON | file |http://www.unwantedlinks.com/parasite/parasite3.js | probably modified trojan JS/Minor.A | connection terminated | SOMEWHAT\Administrator

2005.07.13 16:41:20 | AMON | file | C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\VOPRUPV9\parasite3[1].js | probably modified trojan JS/Minor.A | renamed to C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.IE5\VOPRUPV9\parasite3[1].Vjs | SOMEWHAT\Administrator

CLIENT SYSTEM DETAILS NOD32 Antivirus System information Virus signature database version: 1.1167 (20050713) Dated: 2005.07.13 - Wednesday Virus signature database build: 5870

Information on other scanner support parts Advanced heuristics module version: 1.016 (20050616) Advanced heuristics module build: 1085 Internet filter version: 1.002 (20040708) Internet filter build: 1013 Archive support module version: 1.032 (20050623) Archive support module build version: 1120

Information on installed components NOD32 For Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 - Base Version: 2.12.4 NOD32 For Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 - Internet support Version: 2.12.4 NOD32 for Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 - Standard component Version: 2.12.4

Operating system information Platform: Windows 2000, Version: 5.0.2195 Service Pack4, Version of common control components: 5.81.4916, RAM: 383mb, Processor: x86 Family 6 Model 5 Stepping 1 (348 MHz)

PS: (Critical but serious) For the love of rational behavior could we please adopt a basic, familiar forum posting software package and do your manipulations of it on the backside? All I wanted to do was send an alert to somebody and even finding where to do it is an excersize in uncertain spelunking and then this editor? And the anti-spam killfilter? Ugh! Please just use a simple non-machine readable code generator like the rest of the planet and post a highly visible "virus, hijack, etc" reporting link ... or something that works for the general public.

At first glance this appears to be a false alarm from NOD32. parasite3.js appears to be some sort of script which detects whether a visitor is infected with an IE "hijacker" program. parasite3.js does not appear to be malicious; even if it were, Wikipedia has no control over the content of external links. I'm not sure why your virus software gave that alert - maybe parasite3.js contains the name of some trojan, and that was enough to set off the alert. I'm sorry you went to all this trouble reporting this, but there doesn't seem to be any problem here. Rhobite 22:42, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I have no idea how this forum functions ... and I mod phpnuke, Invision, Tbits boards. Hmph! I'll check the nod32 forums.

Socks

What is the policy concerning sockpuppets if they are singularly used in a revert war for repeatedly restoring a single previously merged article to independance (with no other supporters for the restoration)? This is relevant at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer.

~~~~ 23:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

With no other supporters for their restoration? What are you talking about? You are in a revert war with multiple users over that page. I've blocked User:Goodboy as it's clearly a sock and User:Watcher1 as it's clearly a role account but User:Gdr andUser:Mel Etitis are not sockpuppets. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 23:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis hadn't got involved at the time, and only did so when the sockpuppets posted to his talk page. Possibly as part of a continuing vendetta Mel appears to have against me (unfortunately I have no idea why Mel would have at the current time, but this is what the interactions with me suggest), rather than with regard to the merits of the article. ~~~~ 21:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The sockpuppets are, I allege,

• Poorman (talk • contribs)
• Watcher1 (talk • contribs)
• -Watcher1- (talk • contribs)
• Goodboy (talk • contribs)
• 202.176.97.230 (talk • contribs)
• Angel77 (talk • contribs)
• -Angel77- (talk • contribs)
• 202.176.184.118 (talk • contribs)
• 202.176.97.116 (talk • contribs)
• 203.144.210.225 (talk • contribs)
• Teenangel (talk • contribs)
• Mikefar (talk • contribs)

I allege them to be sockpuppets of

• Melissadolbeer (talk • contribs)