Contents: July 14, 2005 - July 21, 2005

Three revert rule violation onIsraeli terrorism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Guy Montag (talk ·contribs):

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

Reported by:Heraclius00:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

My so called third revert was actually a new version synthized with relevent information. It was not a blank revert. In all I have, reverted three times.

Guy Montag01:58, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Jeus (talk ·contribs) onIsraeli terrorism (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views):

• first revert
• second revert
• third revert
• deceptive 4th revert He reverted everything to his old version except the totallydisputed tag and used an edit summary in an attempt to hide his revert as legitimate.

Guy Montag01:57, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism andThree revert rule violation onWikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland

• 1st[6]
• 2nd[7]
• 3rd[8]
• 4th[9]

Reported by: --Witkacy02:00, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onList of Irish-Americans (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).64.109.253.204 (talk ·contribs):

• 1st revert:6:29, 14th July 2005
• 2nd revert:6:51, 14th July 2005
• 3rd revert:6:55. 14th July 2005
• 4th revert:7:35, 14th July 2005

Reported byLapsed Pacifist o07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments

• User insists on blanking entries after receiving sources sought. Has been accused of double standards byUser:Clawson for blanking entries with African ancestry. This user has also made a racist edit onIslam in Ireland. I have been involved in an edit war with this user on this article before, I have no wish to repeat this. User is currently aware of being in violation.Lapsed Pacifist07:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

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

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]
• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

Reported by:Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The same user was blocked for a very similar violation yesterday.Rhobite 20:12, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Already blocked for 48 hours for the 3RR and other violations byGamaliel.Bratsche^{talk5 pillars} 01:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onCommunist state (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Ultramarine (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:[17]
• 1st revert:[18]
• 2nd revert:[19]
• 3rd revert:[20]
• 4th revert:[21]

Reported by:17201:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:Ultramarine has serious ownership issues with this horribly written article. Even so, Trey Stone was brave enough to copyedit it. Ultramarine, whose English is poor, does not understand this; so he keeps on accusing both Trey Stone and me of "revisionism" and "censorship." The fact that someone would accuse well-known anti-Communist editor Trey Stone-- of all people-- of these things is a strong sign that he doesn't have a clue as to what is going on. His conduct on the talk page and implied personal attacks are enough reason to warrant a block.17201:14, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not violated the rule. I have added substantial new arguments in most of my edits. In contrast, 172 insists on reverting to his version which deletes many of the critical arguments. In addition, his version has an incomprehensible ending with numerous spelling errors.Ultramarine02:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine did violate the 3RR. Don't let his misleading edit summaries fool you. And the version is not mine; it's Trey Stone's.17202:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly get what UM is babbling about in his current edit summaries, but he's continuing the uninterrupted reversions.J. Parker Stone03:08, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I keep adding specific critique of the Communist states. Wikipedia should allow critique of a system that murdered close to 100 million people in 70 years.Ultramarine03:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

me and 172 have already explained this to you, i am through here.J. Parker Stone03:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ultramarine has just broken the 3RR onDemocracy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) as well. He makes a regular habit of breaking the 3RR in order to get away with his usual POV pushing.172 |Talk15:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, I add new arguments. It is you who make every attempt to revert the results peer-reviewed studies that you do not like. Thatliberal democracy andcapitalism produce good real-world results should not be deleted, even if it does not fit with Marxist theory.Ultramarine15:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Quit lying. I was citing Lipet and Rustow. No one has ever called them Marxists.172 |Talk15:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have supported my statements with the results of numerous peer-reviewed studies, including some by authors named by you. You have only insinuated that there are other studies but have refused to name any. Wikipedia should be allowed the mention the real-world benefits ofliberal democracy andcapitalism, even if this is contrary to Marx.Ultramarine15:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You are implying that I am objecting to your edits because I am a Marxist, which is a lie and an argument grounded in apersonal attack. At any rate, this page is not the place to carry out this discussion.172 |Talk15:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should mention all points of view and not endorse any of them, Ultramarine. That is our policy, and you constantly break it. --Mihnea Tudoreanu16:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

As noted on the talk page, those attempting to delete the peer-reviewed results showing beneficial effects of capitalism are now reverting without even trying to explain the deletions. If you want to argue against the studies by many independent researchers, do your own study, do not do original research in Wikipedia.Ultramarine16:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

We did not delete anything; merely tried to add counter-arguments which you try to either misrepresent or remove. The current state of the article[22] is ample proof of the fact that you are a POV warrior. If that section on 'poverty' is not POV, then I don't know what is. --Mihnea Tudoreanu16:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

This was reported a couple of days ago, but I was first asked to look at it today. I've blocked him for 24 hours because he's been warned and blocked many times, and in fact continued reverting after this was reported. The times of the reverts were July 15 19:53, July 16 00:00, 00:48, 01:03, 02:50, 03:06.SlimVirgin^(talk) 01:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onPalestinian terrorism and militancy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Guy Montag (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:02:16, 15 July 2005

• 1st revert:05:04, 15 July 2005
• 2nd revert:07:14, 15 July 2005
• 3rd revert:15:37, 15 July 2005
• 4th revert:01:12, 16 July 2005
• 5th revert:02:18, 16 July 2005

• Subsequent reverts:

02:01, 17 July 2005

22:42, 17 July 2005

22:11, 18 July 2005

01:59, 19 July 2005

Reported by:Heraclius02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

This looks accurate. Since Montag asked for (and received) a block on the other user, it seems fair to judge his own edits as well. On account of this and an excessively combative attitude[23]. I'm giving him a short block. -Willmcw 19:59, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have sent you a message already, but I want to make it clear that those edits are not a break with policy as they were made on two different days.Guy Montag22:03, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

They appear to have been with 24 hours of each other. Please remember that even three reverts is too many. And bragging about getting another editor blocked is not conducive to collaboration, nor is telling to "F*** off". -Willmcw 22:20, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Guy Montag reverted the article five times in a 24-hour period, and has and has done so an additional four times since then. This individual was blocked for violating the 3RR onthree prior occasions, so I feel that a one-hour block is insufficient. —Lifeisunfair00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

hmmmmm - and Heraclius got a 24 hour ban - for a 3RR breach by thesame admin. I thought he was treating them both the same (which would have been according to Wikipedia policy). How very revealing. I wonder how he justifies this?

All of this type of actions sends out out a message. And the message here that being a bully, telling people to "fuck off", repeatedly breaching a 3RR and then reporting another usrs for the SAME violation - is all better than if you are (as the admin seems to described Heraclius earlier) "a jerk" because of his POV. What a shame - policy is explicitly that the 3RR rule is blind to content in so far as possible.

His first action on the ban being lifted awas a third "revert" in 24 hours (so still "legal" but questionable) onPalestinian Terrorism and militancy so "message understood" I think.

If the admins are unfair (or percieved to be so) then people will disrupt, troll and otherwise be "anti-social" to make a point - because they feel that they have no other recource. It really is terribly disruptive to "community".

62.253.64.1406:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use different names. It makes it harder for the rest of us to understand what you're saying. Please note that I have responded to you on my talk page, where you raised these same questions. My advice to all of these editors (including Guy Montag) is to stop complaining, stop reverting, and find a way to write encyclopedia articles. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:40, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onTemplate:Football club infobox (edit | [[Talk:Template:Football club infobox|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Boothy443 (talk ·contribs):

Three revert rule violation onHarry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).68.163.207.106 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:16 jul 2005 13:47
• 1st revert:16 jul 2005 13:50
• 2nd revert:16 jul 2005 13:53
• 3rd revert:16 jul 2005 13:54
• 4th revert:16 jul 2005 13:58
• 5th revert:16 jul 2005 14:01
• 6th revert:16 jul 2005 14:06
• 7th revert:16 jul 2005 14:09
• 8th revert:16 jul 2005 14:21
• 9th revert:16 jul 2005 14:33
• 10th revert:16 jul 2005 14:36 (edit summary:I don't plan on backing down any time soon.)
• 11th revert:16 jul 2005 14:38
• 12th revert:16 jul 2005 14:41
• 13th revert:16 jul 2005 14:42
• 14th revert:16 jul 2005 16:26 (edit summary:You cocksuckers better put this back on the Crystal Ball page)
• 15th revert:16 jul 2005 16:33
• 16th revert:16 jul 2005 20:00
• 17th revert:16 jul 2005 20:03

Reported by:Aecis13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC) (but updated since)

Comments:

• 68.163.207.106 (talk ·contribs) possibly has a sockpuppet:68.163.177.38 (talk ·contribs).Aecis13:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation on the WikipediaSurrealism article by Stirling Newberry.

• 1st revert was:15 jul 2005 02:14

• 4th revert was:15 jul 2005 23:28

Classicjupiter215:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onAetherometry (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).4.232.6.35 (talk ·contribs)4.233.125.162 (talk ·contribs)4.249.18.157 (talk ·contribs)4.233.124.110 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:20:56, July 15, 2005
• 1st revert:05:31, July 16, 2005
• 2nd revert:14:32, July 16, 2005
• 3rd revert:17:01, July 16, 2005
• 4th revert:19:27, July 16, 2005

Reported by:Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is an anonymous contributor using different IPs --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Whereas the other parts of edits vary, note that in all four cases the "peer-review" halfsentence was deleted. --Pjacobi 20:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onMassacre at Hue (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).J Michaels (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:18:35, 10 July 2005
• 1st revert:10:27, 12 July 2005
• 2nd revert:16:25, 12 July 2005
• 3rd revert:17:20, 12 July 2005
• 4th revert:17:49, 12 July 2005
• 5th revert:18:09, 12 July 2005

and again:

• 6th revert:07:28, 16 July 2005
• 7th revert:20:58, 16 July 2005
• 8th revert:01:21, 17 July 2005
• 9th revert:01:33, 17 July 2005
• 10th revert:01:37, 17 July 2005
• 11th revert:01:40, 17 July 2005

and again:

• 15th revert:23:40, 19 July 2005
• 16th revert:03:31, 20 July 2005
• 17th revert:09:01, 20 July 2005

Reported by:GhePeU00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• UserJ Michaels sistematically removesdisputed tag from articleMassacre at Hue. He did all of his contributions, except one, in this article and curiously this user appeared just after userTDC was blocked because he repeatedly reverted other pages. NB: on the first occasion I reverted inadvertently four times.GhePeU00:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • UserJ Michaels still reverts every edit.GhePeU23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would like to call your kind attention on this.GhePeU07:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onMemoirs of Walter Bruce (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).70.146.54.128 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to: [Link Time]
• 1st revert:[24]
• 2nd revert:[25]
• 3rd revert:[26]
• 4th revert:[27]

Reported by:Zscout370(Sound Off)06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The IP blanks out the VFD tag that is on the article, I asked for page protection of the article.Zscout370(Sound Off)06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

4 reverts in 5 hours, onAncient Egypt (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views)

• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]

has been warned.reported bydab(ᛏ)

Palestinian Terrorism and militancy

1. (cur) (last) 22:42, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am done arguing with anonymous idiots. Follow policy or you will be reverted)
2. (cur) (last) 22:04, 17 July 2005 Heraclius (huh?)
3. (cur) (last) 09:22, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (tag removed pending outcome of RFC.)
4. (cur) (last) 09:10, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (you're right - when that much is in dispute{{totally disputed}} is a better call.)
5. (cur) (last) 02:01, 17 July 2005 Guy Montag (like I said. State the disputed sections or leave it alone. No hit and runs)
6. (cur) (last) 01:03, 17 July 2005 62.253.64.14 (If there aint no consensus then there must be a "Dispute" so tag is appropriate.)
7. (cur) (last) 02:18, 16 July 2005 Guy Montag m (I am not going to tolerate blatant disregard for polic.y. Either add detailed comments in talk or stop wasting people's time with hit and run tags. It is that simple.)

This appears to be only 3 reverts. Still too many, but not a violation. -Willmcw 05:21, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

All five edits toUser:SPUI onSpecial:Contributions/Jennet are the same edit, making the last four reverts (vandalism too). --SPUI (talk)11:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, I realise I'm complaining about being called aFucking Idiot after Icalled administrators the Same Thing. What can I say? I guess I'm just aFucking idiot.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySPUI. (talk •contribs)

Three revert rule violation onThe Sword of the Prophet (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Lapsed Pacifist (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:23:49, 17 July 2005
• 1st revert:02:31, 18 July 2005
• 2nd revert:03:16, 18 July 2005
• 3rd revert:03:49, 18 July 2005
• 4th revert:23:55, 18 July 2005

Reported by:Jayjg^(talk)00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Keeps reverting to a version cotaining a paragraph describing Trifkovic as "a former supporter of Slobodan Milošević. He has denied the massacre of several thousand Muslims in Srebrenica" etc. As with report above, games the 3RR by making minor changes to the wording while re-inserting the paragraph.Jayjg^(talk)00:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours.Thryduulf01:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

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

Clear cut breach of policy.

Guy Montag04:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Previously warned, blocked for 24 hours. -Willmcw 05:18, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Please note the two violations above from Guy Montasg, neither of which was acted on - this was NOT an "in good faith" report of a violation. The Admins are supposed to treat both sides fairly - so both should get a ban here. .62.253.64.1506:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I received your email and replied. I've asked Montag about it and will block if appropriate. However if it appears that you are using this IP address to circumvent a block then that is not good either. -Willmcw 08:41, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

AtJihad: not just violating 3RR and deliberately trying to evade it by dropping out to his IP address, but also tilting at windmills making false accusations of users being the banned user "Enviroknot."

• 1st revert - as BYT - Unsure whether this is connected, he protests otherwise on theTalk:Jihad page.
• 2nd revert - as 67.78.186.19
• 3rd revert - as 67.78.186.19
• 4th revert - as 67.78.186.19
• 5th revert and accuses user who reverted to the article's NPOV compromise of being "Enviroknot" - as 67.78.186.19
• 6th revert and another false accusation by BYT
• 7th revert: this time using the name EnviroFuck

Also took the time to make false accusations of sockpuppetry against Zeno of Elea on the article's talk page.

Signed:212.247.200.18516:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please do something on this, perhaps lock theJihad page? It's silly and seeing BYT's comments on the Recent Changes list is embarassing to Wikipedia.Existentializer16:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Additional: A new user namedEnviroFuck has appeared and is most definitely 67.78.186.19; this user is also patently guilty of 3RR violation on the page.Existentializer16:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've lockedJihad.SlimVirgin^(talk) 16:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Enviro#### ain't me.[32]. I'd like an admin to check in on the anonymous edits in question. Possible?BrandonYusufToropov17:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Envirowhatever is learning. This time he accuses others of sockpuppetry before they accuse him. Observe his 7th (!) edit[33]. This travesty has to stop. He must have about a dozen accounts by now.dab(ᛏ)22:35, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Dab, I have nothing to do with this. I saw an ongoing flamewar and OBVIOUS edits by BYT, and made the reversion because I thought it was warranted as per Wikipedia policy. When you are done making false allegations, please calm down and start dealing with this rationally. I wasn't even the one who reported this, someone else did, I only posted a concurrence and added the evidence as it kept piling up.Existentializer15:15, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah, well, you are, of course, a sockpuppet ofsomebody, so why don't you just disclose your previous accounts, this case is complicated enough as it is.dab(ᛏ)15:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Please come back when you have calmed down.Existentializer15:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

great, you have just convinced me of your identity. I'm not upset at all, because you will have no success. Anyway, there is an rfar headed your way, I believe, so let's just wait for that, and not jump to conclusions.dab(ᛏ)16:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, please calm down and cease making false accusations. It is highly unseemly for an admin, even one of your dubious stature.Existentializer16:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onEmilia Plater (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).

• 1 -[34]
• 2 -[35]
• 3 -[36]
• 4 -[37]
• 5 -[38]
• 6 -[39]

Reported by: --Witkacy21:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have warneduser:Tautvydas as it doens't appear he's ever been warned about it. You (user:Witkacy) have also broken the 3RR on the same article, and as you demonstrated above your awareness of the rule I've blocked you for 24 hours. I have also protected the article in question, as requested by a third party atWP:RFPP

Three revert rule violation onWolf hunting controversy (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Friday (talk ·contribs):

• four mods1
• 1st modification:13:18 19 July 2005
• 2nd modification:16:34 19 July 2005
• 3rd modification:16:45 19 July 2005
• 4th modification:18:33 19 July 2005

Reported by:Gabrielsimon21:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the 4th diff shows a workaround, not a revert. I was attempting to avoid the disputed term altogether, with or without quotation marks. Yes, I know that even 3 reverts is not good, however I was making a good faith effort to work through the dispute. SeeTalk:Wolf hunting controversy for a history of this squabble.Friday21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

response : i was dinged for four modificatipons in 24 hours, and one was totally different, so the rules catch you as well.Gabrielsimon21:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's a workaround. There is a substantive difference in meaning between "the hunt" and "game". --khaosworks 01:22, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onWikipedia:Votes for undeletion (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Kim Bruning (talk ·contribs):

• 1st revert:02:48, 20 July 2005
• 2nd revert:04:33, 20 July 2005
• 3rd revert:04:44, 20 July 2005
• 4th revert:04:50, 20 July 2005

Reported by:Lifeisunfair05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• As an admin, this individual certainly knows better. These reverts apply to a specific section, whichKim Bruning has repeatedly removed (in its entirety). This is highly inappropriate (irrespective of the 3RR violation), as it's an ongoing formal discussion regarding the proposed undeletion of a page thatKim Bruningdeleted (arguably against policy). As a result of this edit war,Snowspinner hasprotected the page (with understandable reluctance, given the overall ramifications of doing so). QuothSnowspinner, "The fact that there is an edit war here baffles and appalls me..." I couldn't agree more. —Lifeisunfair05:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• How do you find the first edit to be a revert?El_C05:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• It's a revert to theversion that existed immediately before the section was added, with two blank lines as thesole difference. —Lifeisunfair06:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I misread that, it seems. Blocked for 24 hours.El_C06:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onGeorge W. Bush (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).134.161.244.89 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:15:43, 20 July 2005
• 1st revert:15:45, 20 July 2005
• 2nd revert:15:58, 20 July 2005
• 3rd revert:16:01, 20 July 2005
• 4th revert:16:05, 20 July 2005
• 5th revert:16:11, 20 July 2005
• 6th revert:16:17, 20 July 2005
• 7th revert:16:21, 20 July 2005

Reported by:BMIComp(talk)21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The article is protected now... but this userKnows about the 3RR as he referenced it in his 5th revert edit summary. --BMIComp(talk)21:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This user was blocked by Angela for violation of the 3RR. --BMIComp(talk)21:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• In addition to the 7 reverts reported byUser:Bmicomp,User:134.161.244.89 has also made the several additional reverts to the same article within the past 3 hours, for a total of 10 reverts in violation of theWP:3RR. A full report of all ten is below:Hall Monitor21:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19245530&oldid=19244821
  • 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19251419&oldid=19251292
  • 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19253010&oldid=19252852
  • 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19254031&oldid=19253867
  • 5th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19254051&oldid=19254131
  • 6th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19255024&oldid=19254550
  • 7th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19255447&oldid=19255318
  • 8th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19255794&oldid=19255521
  • 9th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19256197&oldid=19256128
  • 10th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&diff=19256507&oldid=19256359

Three revert rule violation onTalk:David S. Touretzky (edit | [[Talk:Talk:David S. Touretzky|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) byAI (talk ·contribs):

• 1st revert:20:42, 20 July 2005
• 2nd revert:21:11, 20 July 2005
• 3rd revert:22:21, 20 July 2005
• 4th revert:22:24, 20 July 2005

Reported by:James F.(talk)22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Will put a warning on his talk page, but thought that I should give official notice as well.James F.(talk)22:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onTruth (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).67.182.157.6 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:15:09, July 20, 2005
• 1st revert:15:16, July 20, 2005
• 2nd revert:15:49, July 20, 2005
• 3rd revert:18:16, July 20, 2005
• 4th revert:20:08, July 20, 2005

Reported by:Rhobite 03:13, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Three revert rule violation onBosh (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).B0sh (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:10:47, 19 July 2005
• 1st revert:09:47, 20 July 2005
• 2nd revert:15:55, 20 July 2005
• 3rd revert:21:32, 20 July 2005
• 4th revert:08:26, 21 July 2005
• 5th revert:08:42, 21 July 2005
• 6th revert:08:46, 21 July 2005

Reported by:∞Who?¿?08:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• (All times given in UTC) CurrentVfd consensus is in favor of disambiguation version of this article to keep. Previous rv's have been performed prior to these.∞Who?¿?09:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onKarl Rove (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).214.13.4.151 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:06:49 21 July
• 1st revert:09:06 21 July
• 2nd revert:09:17 21 July
• 3rd revert:09:28 21 July
• 4th revert:current

Reported by:RyanFreisling@14:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This is just one example, in which the user has systematically reverted or added text more 'political' in nature to the Karl Rove article, including numerous reverts of the section above. In general, user refuses to work on 'talk' to resolve differences, and his/her edits are seriously damaging the article's integrity to protect his political POV. He has deleted this well-sourced, factual information numerous times.
  • Blocked, you should probably report the bluk removal of text toWP:VIP. --nixie14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. --RyanFreisling@15:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• The user appears to be in the Department of Defense. Unsure if/how relevant, but I'm putting it on the record.[40] --RyanFreisling@01:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onTemplate:Canada (edit | [[Talk:Template:Canada|talk]] |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Astrotrain (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:originally made 12:54, 12 April 2005
• 1st revert:10:43, 13 July 2005
• 2nd revert:07:07, 15 July 2005]
• 3rd revert:11:14, 15 July 2005
• 4th revert:12:02, 15 July 2005
• 5th revert:07:51, 16 July 2005
• 6th revert:13:03, 18 July 2005
• 7th revert:13:17, 18 July 2005
• 8th revert:13:46, 18 July 2005
• 9th revert:11:43, 19 July 2005
• 10th revert:13:52, 20 July 2005
• 11th revert:08:53, 21 July 2005
• 12th revert:10:56, 21 July 2005
• 13th revert:11:26, 21 July 2005
• 14th revert:11:39, 21 July 2005
• 15th revert:12:07, 22 July 2005
• 16th revert:14:54, 22 July 2005
• 17th revert:15:42, 22 July 2005

Reported by:THOR19:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I inserted all the reversions, as well as the last four that violated the3RR. I was prompted to the user by his reversion on a templateI was working on; wherein he proved dense and uncaring to proposals and discussions on talk pages.

Three revert rule violation onProtest Warrior (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).64.95.91.23 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:01:14, July 21, 2005
• 1st revert:13:35, July 21, 2005
• 2nd revert:13:48, July 21, 2005
• 3rd revert:14:24, July 21, 2005
• 4th revert:14:53, July 21, 2005

Reported by:Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• I did revert four times as well, but I didn't realize it. I reverted myself seconds later.Rhobite 19:01, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onChristianity and world religions (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Amin123 (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:03:50, 20 July 2005
• 1st revert:02:35, 21 July 2005
• 2nd revert:20:58, 21 July 2005
• 3rd revert:21:13, 21 July 2005
• 4th revert:21:17, 21 July 2005

Reported by:Jayjg^(talk)21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• On the section titles "Possible relationship with Zoroastrianism" keep removing the phrase "through Judaism", either deleting it entirely, or replacing it with "through Old Testament". Has been warned about 3RR and asked to self-revert.Jayjg^(talk)21:52, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Three revert rule violation onCranky Kong (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views).Existentializer (talk ·contribs):

• Previous version reverted to:19:20, July 21, 2005

• 1st revert21:03, July 21, 2005
• 2nd Revert21:31, July 21, 2005
• 3rd rever21:50, July 21, 2005
• 4th revert21:55, July 21, 2005
• 5th Revert22:08, July 21, 2005
• 6th Revert22:12, July 21, 2005
• 7th revert22:22, July 21, 2005
• 8th revert22:26, July 21, 2005
• 9th revert22:33, July 21, 2005
• 10th revert22:38, July 21, 2005

Reported by:Irishpunktom\^talk 23:07, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:Existentializer wants to add a piece reporting a contradiction by Nintendo. 3RR broken byUser:A Link to the Past too, who wants it sourced or removed. User knows about the 3RR and has attempted to have another user blocked because of it (see above[41])--Irishpunktom\^talk 23:03, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I admit to be the vandals in the Fort Bleakeley, Kaschner/Wellmann, Whodunit (and variants), and Doppelganger incidents. Though it may sound far-fetched, it is true. I take full responsibility for any directly and indirectly related damage, be it physical, emotional, or virtual.

In any case, I hope my positive and helpful attitude and contributions to Wikipedia stand out more than the negative results of my previous acts.JamesBell00:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Though I am as unfamiliar with these cases as I am with Mr. Bell's usual pattern of editing, I wonder if perhaps Mr. Bell's password has been compromised.The Uninvited Co.,Inc.18:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Bell left a farewell message on his user page on July 12, though he also made a couple of posts here (one to the Bank of Wikipedia section, above). I'm not sure what is going on here. --Deathphoenix12:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

An anon created a hoax article calledFort Bleakeley towards the end of March 2005. He complemented it with other supporting articles to make it look as if it were real. After the article was discovered to be a hoax, he made all sorts of weak arguments and insults to other users, particularlyUser:Plek, who discovered the hoax, andUser:RickK (who I believe has recently left). The anon, who called himself "Jake," was banned and tthe articles deleted; he evaded the block, recreated the articles, and created a decoy calledUser:JakeGHz. JakeGHz, because of the similarity to the anon's name, of his immediate involvement in the matter, and because he wrote an article on April 1st, JakeGHz was (correctly) branded as a sock of the mischievousUser:Jake0618.

Some gibberish left by my younger cousin, who somehow got my password and masqueraded as me. Disregard.JamesBell10:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

UserSlimVirgin is consistently taking a pro-Israel/pro-Jewish/pro-Zionist stance on various articles in edits, revert wars and even in locking the articles with what appears to be siding with the same side of dispute all the time. Can some responsible admins please look into this? She (I am assuming it's a "she", but you never know in cyberespace) has done it several times just today. I know that she is a famous op and probably some other admins will prefer not to risk their status, but if it is true that she is taking sides on issues, and she is an "important admin" (although an important person would not end up being an online junkie) this would be aVery Bad Thing for Wikipedia.Wiki2520:13, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Diffs? --Kbdank7120:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

For instance, the edit history ofGaza Strip,Israeli terrorism,Zionist terrorism,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- and this is just today in a short span of time.

This is a diff,SqueakBox 20:28, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter which version of an article is locked as page protection is not permanent. That aside, please provide links to specific instances of alleged wrongdoing. It would also help your case if you did not make snide asides about people such as your comment about being an "online junkie".Gamaliel20:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

No doubtWik25 (talk ·contribs) is alsoJoergenG (talk ·contribs),Joergg (talk ·contribs),Joerg2 (talk ·contribs),Testing124 (talk ·contribs),213.130.117.51 (talk ·contribs),61.129.44.201 (talk ·contribs),67.41.77.196 (talk ·contribs),219.94.39.114 (talk ·contribs),MichaelSlone2 (talk ·contribs), andMichaelSlone3 (talk ·contribs), who has used a series of proxies and sockpuppets to revertMahmoud Ahmadinejad about 50 times in the past week, while being reverted and/or blocked by at least 9 other editors. His other contributions, particularly using his earlier sockpuppets, are also quite "interesting".Jayjg^(talk)21:50, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, aren't you supposed to be blocked, Jay?Everyking22:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

James, for once could you possibly investigate something on your own before jumping to conclusions?Jayjg^(talk)02:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• "10:19, July 13, 2005 Hadal blocked "User:Jayjg" with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation at Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani)" - in other words, no, his block had already expired.Radiant_>|< 22:14, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• My mistake then. Nevertheless the point still stands: complaining about somebody else's revert warring despite having been blocked for it yourself.Everyking03:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  Come now. This is getting close to anad hominem tu quoque. As long as we know what Jayjg did, how does that disqualify him from pointing out the behaviour of others?JRM ·Talk13:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Your mistake? No. This is simply further evidence that you're nothing but a troll, Everyking.Tomer^TALK 07:37, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Everyking is not a troll.Sjakkalle(Check!)12:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

That's the second time Tomer has attacked me and I have never even encountered him in editing before, at least I don't think so. I'm not going to get into this trading of insults with someone I don't have any practical reason to argue with.Everyking14:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I've taken no admin action in relation toGaza Strip, and have only rarely edited it.Israeli terrorism was briefly protected yesterday after a spate of reverting and editing by anon IPs and new users who were adding POV nonsense to it (including thatRachel Corrie was a victim of terrorism and had been shot), and several of them looked about to violate 3RR.Zionist terrorism was protected because the same group of editors threatened to go there next, and I intend to unlock it today. I protectedMahmoud Ahmadinejad because of a 3RR violation by a user who keeps using sockpuppets to revert. Because I'm not able to prove that it's the same user, and therefore can't block — and even if I did, he'd come back with other accounts — I protected the page instead.SlimVirgin^(talk) 22:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think any Admins are important themselves, but they perform important functions. I am quite aware ofSlimVirgin, and she has been involved in pages I have been on, yet my experience she has been reasonable. I don't particularly recall her being supportive (which I would sort of like) or in opposition (and many here have had an opportunity to oppose me in one thing or another). If anything, I think she has leaned the opposite way of this complaint. As for an Admin, there is probably no one better at resolving disputes, and I suspect much of it goes on behind the scenes, which is probably the right way to do it. --Noitall 22:26, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree. I looked over the histories of the articles in question and I don't see anything from SlimVirgin except attempts to help the articles along. On the whole her involvement seems slight. -Willmcw 07:42, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

• People might be interested in the improper and flimsy (and incorrectly titled)Wikipedia:Request for comment/SlimVirgin (and in my worries about the way that RfCs are going onWikipedia talk:Requests for comment). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)12:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like I'm being pulled into my first real WikiDispute.User:195.22.151.1 (contribs) started editing on Wednesday. His first two edits were to change links onNorfolk Southern andTemplate:North America class 1. Since they were the first edits by an anonymous user, and they appeared to me at that time to be malicious in nature, I reverted them. The user then made more changes to Norfolk Southern and toCincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway; he moved the information from that article into Norfolk Southern in a new subsection entitled "Subsidiaries". I left comments onTalk:Norfolk Southern andTalk:Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway stating my belief that some subsidiary information is appropriate in Norfolk Southern, but that the other page shouldn't be made into a redirect. User:195.22.151.1 reverted my revert of the template and an unrelated edit toRailfan (seeTalk:Railfan for further discussion on that edit). He also tried to report me as a vandal disrupting editing on pages relating to American railroad history (a dubious claim if you view my ownuser page andcontribs). Another admin removed this allegation from the incidents page.

Other editors apparently agreed with my original reverts and with the sentiment that I expressed on the Norfolk Southern talk page and they have reverted edits by User:195.22.151.1 to these pages. I say "apparently" here because I made no effort to contact these other editors to inform them of the situation; instead, after my two reverts were reverted, I stepped back and let the community decide. This morning I see that User:195.22.151.1 has returned and reverted the other editors' reverts and reported me again, this time as a sockpuppet of another administrator. Other admins have decided that this claim was incorrect and removed the allegation from the incidents page. I've invited the user to join the discussion onhis talk page.

At this point, I'm continuing to edit as I have been editing for the last year, waiting for feedback from User:195.22.151.1. Is there anything further that I should be doing?slambo 12:40, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The lack of further comments and the evidence presented below suggests to me that I am doing the right thing. If I am misinformed, please let me know. Thanks.slambo 18:01, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

There has been been a rash of vandalism of railroad articles lately. One of the vandals of therailfan article isUser:195.22.151.1, who also listed a frivolous "vandalism in progress" falsely claiming that Slambo and SPUI (who have been reverting the vandalism onrailfan) are vandalizing the articles.

Three other vandals making similar edits torailfan areUser:69.17.55.21,User:129.35.45.12, andUser:212.137.71.44, all of whom have already been blocked as open proxies.

Another user who vandalized therailfan article by trying to move the entire article tofoamer and add some derogatory comments to the article on 12 June isUser:68.83.229.146, who if you look at their edit history isUser:Spotteddogsdotorg. Their user page claims to be a non-fixed IP but the edit history says otherwise.

Note also that 68.83.229.146 (who is Spotteddogsdotorg) nominatedRoger Moss for deletion, even thoughUser:Spotteddogsdotorg claims in a post to my talk page that he/she has no interest in Roger Moss. There was some controversy about the Roger Moss VFD a month or so ago, along with VFDs for several Philly TV personalities (Tracy Davidson,Doug Kammerer,NBC 10 Live at 5 and others); check the VFDs and you will see thatUser:Spotteddogsdotorg (or 68.83.229.146) was involved in every one of them and nominated most of them. During those VFDs there was a "bloc" of users such asUser:Melvis,User:Hohokus,User:ConeyCyclone, and possiblyUser:Toasthaven, who all voted as a bloc with Spotteddogsdotorg, and all have similar edit patterns and went straight to the VFDs not long after creating their accounts.

One of therailfan vandals,User:129.35.45.12, was also the user who added an IFD tag to Image:Tvsrr2.jpg at 12:34 on 14 July; this image then appeared with a IFD nomination at 12:37 byUser:FunkyChicken!. 129.35.45.12 has been blocked as an open proxy.

Meanwhile several anon IPs have been making frequent edits to thevanity plate article, repeatedly removing a railroad themed vanity plate image, and changing the term "railfan" in the article to the more perjorative "train spotter". They areUser:213.123.153.25,User:69.17.96.248 (who has already been blocked as an open proxy),User:212.44.58.71...and big surprise,User:Spotteddogsdotorg.User:213.123.153.25 listed a frivolous "vandalism in progress" report of myself, similar to the frivolous one thatUser:195.22.151.1 listed of Slambo and SPUI;User:68.83.229.146 who isUser:Spotteddogsdotorg then moved 213.123.153.25's listing from "low" to "severe" within minutes.

Other users that appear to be related and also need to be checked out:User:24.240.235.19,User:209.137.173.69,User:Toasthaven2,User:PhillyDude!,User:KiwiPunter, andUser: 203.98.57.97.

User:209.137.173.69 is definitelyUser:Toasthaven2 if you look at the message on Toasthaven2's talk page at 17:11 on 12 July. See here:User_talk:Mothperson#Re:_Roger_Moss for other users' views on 209.137.173.69.

User:203.98.57.97 isUser:KiwiPunter based on[42]. KiwiPunter vandalized thepsychiatry article on 5 July. 203.98.57.97 nominated several legit articles for VFD includingdefect detector, which is railroad related, andDoug Kammerer, which had just survived a VFD after being nominated by Spotteddogsdotorg.

My guess is that every one of these users is either the same person, or a small group working together. Also of note is that Spotteddogsdotorg left a message on my talk page (as well as those of Radiant! and Mothperson) on 7 July indicating a familiarity with open proxies and accusing us of being sockpuppets of each other. I suspect this user has a lot more open proxies or knows where to find them.

Spotteddogsdotorg left another message on my talk page at 14:14 on 15 July claiming "This username is no longer active, but this user is under a new name. You and your buddies are going to go nuts trying find the new name!". Given the prolific use of open proxies, my guess is there may or may not be a "new name" - or there may be several. I recommend that admins keep an eye on articles relating to these subjects for vandalism, frilovous VFD nominations, and subtle insertion of derogatory POV:

1. Philadelphia TV stations and TV personalities
2. License plates, license plate collecting
3. Railfans and railroads

For more verification see also:User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox,User_talk:Mothperson#Re:_Roger_Moss, and here and below on Mothperson's talk page:User_talk:Mothperson#User:Spotteddogsdotorg_and_minions.Kaibabsquirrel15:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Spotteddogsdotorg also vandalized my user page this morning.Kaibabsquirrel15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

User:WBardwin just got blockedagain, please seeUser talk:Bishonen andUser talk:Jwrosenzweig. WBardwin edits from an AOL proxy in the 207.200.64.0 - 207.200.127.255 range.User:UkPaolo edits from 62.252.0.0 - 62.255.255.255, an NTL range. They are only two of the highly virtuous contributors that keep getting blocked over and over, sometimes "indefinitely", when an admin blocks an IP in these ranges. Please take a look at WBardwin's talk page to get a sense of the scale of the problem that keeps hitting these and other good users! I could show you a pretty hefty pile of e-mails from these two, too, as they've taken to appealing very politely to me, which is fine if I'm at the computer, but sometimes I'm not. It says on the Special:Blockip page that blocks in these ranges should bekept to 15 minutes or less, but I guess admins miss it sometimes. I don't know what to do, but we really, really need to take this seriously. Two suggestions:
1. Could somebody who understands to edit special pages please put in a warning in red letters at the top of the Blockip page that says "Before blocking, please read the IP range box" (plus maybe a warning in purple that says "Please read the red text" and a warning in cyan that says "Please read the purple text")?
2. Would it be possible to implement a software feature that brings up a warning whenever an attempt is made to block these ranges for more than 15 minutes? E. g. "You are about to block an IP shared by many users, please see the IP range box. These ranges should not be blocked for more than 15 minues. Do you really wish to block it for 48 hours?" or whatever. (In some pleasing color.) Really. If I was WBardwin or UkPaolo, I think I might have left by now. :-(Bishonen |talk17:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think part of the difficulty in this case is the autoblocker (don't get me wrong, I think it is definitely a useful tool). I blocked WBardwin by blocking a reincarnated sockpuppet named Mickey654 (or something like that -- I'd have to check the log) -- in other words, at no time did I know I was blocking an IP range. The range got blocked as a result of my blocking a username. So all the flashing purple and cyan boxes in the world wouldn't have tipped me off. How can we deal with this?Jwrosenzweig17:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong either, I'm getting so I daren't block vandals at all, with all these supercomplications, and I'm certainly not offering my cowardice as the way to go. But what about my second suggestion? Might it be possible for the software to know what you didn't, about the IP range, and warn you about it?Bishonen |talk17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...I would like that, if it's possible. But then it raises some difficult problems. We have some standard penalties (say, a 24 hour block for 3RR violations). Do those not apply to users accessing from AOL? If so...the implications are not good. I don't know if there's an easy solution to this. I do agree, though, that at least knowing that I am blocking one of the ranges would be beneficial.Jwrosenzweig17:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The trick here is to think of them as containment measures, not penalties. That is, we are not being "unjust" for not blocking AOL users dutifully for 24 hours if we're doing it to keep open access for potentially dozens of innocent editors. Yes, it does mean that if you're a bastard coming from an AOL proxy, you have a lot more opportunities to be annoying than other vandals. That burden is on us, however.JRM ·Talk11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the autoblocker does more harm than good. I think it should be shut off or at least its operation made optional at the time a user is blocked. I also believe that we would be better served if IP blocks did not affect logged-in users. It is only important for them to affect IP users and users seeking to create new accounts.The Uninvited Co.,Inc.20:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that functionality should be implemented in the IP blocking systems to automatically detect when bans are made of users with a dynamic IP address. If the system detects that the IP being blocked is in fact served from a dynamic IP pool, or a whole IP range is being blocked, a message is displayed warning the admin that the whole range will be blocked. A number of technical approaches could be taken to do this; I would suggest parsing WHOIS query data from blocked IP ranges to determine if they are served from a dynamic pool.

The other approach would be to implement a change in the way that users are blocked for such matters. Username blocks would automatically block the IP ranges as they do at the moment; however, if a "username blocked" user tries to access Wikipedia, the wiki is still visible but it disallows article editing, thus allowing a registered user in good standing to log in with a different username and password and remove the edit lock.

These are only a few possibilities as to how this solution could be implemented and are by no means exhaustive. If anyone here requires any further input in these areas, please do ask; I am happy to assist. --NicholasTurnbull21:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It does seem to me that we should let logging in override the autoblocker. For obvious reasons we should not allow account creation. And eventually we may need to discriminate against very new users.Bovlb 23:01:27, 2005-07-15 (UTC)

I, too, would very much like the option to turn off the autoblocker on a case-by-case basis. If someone creates an account with an inappropriate name, for example, I'd like to have the option to permanently block the account but not trip autoblocks for IP addresses shared by it. Of course, repeat offenders could still be autoblocked, but it shouldn't just be always on.

Determining what IP ranges are dynamic or not is not something you can do fully automatically, neither is detecting proxies. But there's no reason why we couldn't have software support for admin-maintained lists of dynamic ranges, just as we do now, but with a bit more forced attention (compare thespam blacklist, another automatic feature with manual input). I feel the education program is not doing much good; too many admins apparently still can'tRTFM. I'll see if there are any feature requests onBugzilla for enforcing a warning/hard limit on block time per IP address range, and add one as appropriate.JRM ·Talk11:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't find a relevant earlier bug, so this request is nowbug #2879. Add your support and comments there as needed.JRM ·Talk11:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

_ _ I've never noticed the least mention of whether there are reasons for not solving the AOL problems by some software that would require negotiation with AOL.
_ _ IMO it is in their interest to prevent the current kind of inconvenience to their innocent users, so it's a matter of mutual self-interest, not of our choosing between going to them begging vs. threatening the nuc-u-lar option of blocking all editing from AOL IPs.
_ _ As a first approximate conception, think of putting a front end with two doors between the user and what we have now. One door just checks against AOL IPs, and when it finds one, responds to attempts to edit with a msg about AOL having a second door. The second door may not even have a URL, let alone a WWW one, but could use IPs to communicate between our servers and theirs. Their users could invoke that door only after at least once going to an AOL Wiki-access page; they'd be informed there that AOL would enable them to edit Wikis only thru the second door and only with every edit to a wiki being accompanied by a "WA" code unique to the combination of wiki and AOL account; the wiki could use it as a substitute for a fixed IP, i.e., a basis for blocking and banning. Perhaps it would be worthwhile making the WA unique instead to the combination of the "wiki group" and AOL acct, so that e.g. WikiMedia Foundation could choose to be a wiki group, and have the option of blocking or banning a vandal from WikiMedia wikis they haven't yet edited.
_ _ I implied that all the screen-names of a given acct would share the same WP WA; that's not ahorrible idea, but it is not necessary if the number of WAs you can get by renaming screen-names is limited, e.g. they get recycled to the same acct. (On the other hand, is it worth pushing for two accts paid for with the same credit card getting no extra WAs? Or for denying the second door to customer whose credit cards come from numeric ranges include prepaid (and thus effectively anonymous) cards?)
_ _ Some users, especially if they don't always use AOL, might find it advantageous to have an AOL frame around their Wiki pages, to remind them; others may prefer AOL being visually transparent; AOL could of course offer those options. AOL could also choose to add value, e.g., building a WYWSIWYG wikiwiki editor into the client software and replacing or automatically supplementing the edit pane on edit pages with that.
_ _ There's no such thing as aSMOP, but if nothing like this has been considered seriously, shouldn't such a concept be looked at hard?
--Jerzy·t 21:14, 2005 July 20 (UTC)

• I agree that AOL is a special case and have suggested before that that some sort of identification of AOL users may be called for, such as email confirmation of their identity. This would require no coordination with AOL and would stop most of the vandalism. There has been no interest in this from the developers, and little support from the broader community.
• I believe that the possibility of AOL working with us on these issues is remote, because they are facing serious business issues due to the ineroxable decline and fall of dialup.
• Vandalism from dynamic IPs is likely to become less a problem with time again due to the decline and fall of dialup. The pools of IPs assigned to broadband users tend to be shared by smaller groups of users and it is more difficult for the end-user to force an ip address reassignment.

The Uninvited Co.,Inc.18:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• Very helpful, tho not definitive:
  1. You don't even give a WAG about these timescales
  2. My concept preserves more of AOL users' privacy (which may or not make the dev'rs more interested)
  3. Not clear that AOL's troubles are as preoccupying as you suggest

In any case, shouldn't this probably move off here? Perhaps to wherever your previous suggestions landed.
Thanks
--Jerzy·t 22:57, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

• Timescales. AOL's lost, idunno, 20% of their peak dialup subscriber base. And may lose another 20% this year? Guessing. The industry rags have projections that would be more helpful than mine. I brought up before on the mailing list, you're welcome to try, you sure won't do any worse than I did.The Uninvited Co.,Inc.23:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Many people will probably be aware of a plague of sock-puppets — accounts created only to harrassChadbryant and vandalise his User page. A string of them have been blocked over the last few months (I've compiled a list below from the History of his User page, though I might have missed one or two). Now a new one has turned up:Archived Chad (talk ·contribs). Aside from the name, his only edits have been to Talk pages, and all concern Chadbryant. This time he's not doing his usual outright vandalising, he's just baiting Chadbryant (and indulging in some childish insults aimed at me on his Talk page). Could someone check to confirm his identity with:

1. Chad "Dink" Bryant (talk ·contribs)
2. Derek Duggan (talk ·contribs)
3. Mel Etitis Is An Asshole (talk ·contribs)
4. Steven Owen (talk ·contribs)
5. Bubbles The Wimp (talk ·contribs)
6. Bubbles The Chimp (talk ·contribs)
7. MichaelJacksonMolestedMe (talk ·contribs)
8. Julian Delphiki (talk ·contribs)
9. 172.173.150.224 (talk ·contribs)
10. Worst Poster Ever (talk ·contribs)
11. The Lone Stranger (talk ·contribs)
12. Oops I Crapped My Pants (talk ·contribs)
13. Luigi Mottola (talk ·contribs)
14. Fark dot com (talk ·contribs)
15. Smell Etitis (talk ·contribs)
16. John Henry DeJong (talk ·contribs)
17. Chadabryant (talk ·contribs)
18. Chad Bryant (talk ·contribs)
19. CBryant215 (talk ·contribs)
20. AnaleaseBryant (talk ·contribs)
21. DickNWitham (talk ·contribs)
22. Dick Witham (talk ·contribs)

I assume that his behaviour so far isn't enough to make it sufficiently certain that he's another sock-puppet and justify a block. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)21:31, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I thought his behaviour so far quite enough to block him as a personal-attack troll, andprobably the same sock -David Gerard00:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

His response to your block was:

"Well I see you douchebags finally blocked me anyway. No matter; Wikipedia is an easy target for name creation, and Chad will always be the antisocial douchebag sociopath everyone knows and hates. In fact, I think later this week I'll target his page again, just for the sheer hell of it. --Archived Chad01:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)"

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)10:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Please seeUser Talk:Redwolf24#Papal Styles and Illegal Block.Jtdirl blockedHisHoliness with reason, but without warning or even a note on his page saying he's been blocked.Redwolf2422:55, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Apologies. We had a powerfailure here in my building for a couple of minutes not long after the block, as I was going back through my watchlist to find the user's page to leave a message, so needless to say I was off Wikipedia. When I finally got back on to Wikipedia I began a short edit of an article that has turned into a major rewrite and it slipped my mind to leave the note on the banned user's page.

The reason for the ban is simple. A set of allegedly unconnected users have been editing thesame set of articles repeatedly to make thesame changes that breach the MoS. They donothing else butrepeat the same change over and over again, leaving the similar edit summaries, but no other explanation. When one goes, another mysterious individual appears, does the same again, then disappears, etc etc. It is not a serious attempt at ending anything (they contribute to nothing else, leave no other messages, just make identical text deletions and disappear). This one (they could all be the same one under different names) didn't just make the same edits to the same pages (yet again) he even used a nickname to show what he was after. I judged that what is happening is nothing but a (probably organised) attempt at vandalism. When I sawyet again another new anonymous user appear and do the same edits on the same pages, I simply hit the block button and imposed a 24 hour block to stop the nonsense. But as I said, before I was able to leave an explanation on the page the power in my building went out so I was knocked off Wikipedia.

Some serious users have raised issues about the pages, and I have explained the situation to them. But this batch of (one or more) anonymous are just playing games with Wikipedia articles to see what they can get away with. I judged it a waste of time, given that what was happening was identical to past times, to go through the motions of issuing warnings. If they had shown the slightest interest in contributing to anything else I would have given them the benefit of the doubt and presumed that maybe they were just a misguided user who needed to be told that Wikipedia disapproves of vandalism. But at this stage, the constant repetition of the behaviour led me to the conclusion that the person was simply a troll screwing around again. Indeed it would not surprise me to find that the same person is behind the anonymous edits all the time.FearÉIREANN\^(caint)23:28, 15 July 2005 (UTC)