Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive28

Contents: June 7, 2005 – June 12, 2005

User:Space Cadet

Three revert rule violation on Amber Room (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Space Cadet (talk · contribs):

• Original insertion of material 19:19, 6 Jun 2005

• 1st revert: 20:48, 6 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 22:43, 6 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 02:06, 7 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 02:39, 7 Jun 2005

Reported by: Noel (talk) 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

Another one of these stupid Polish/German name reverts. According to Talk:Gdansk/Vote, the name Danzig should be used "between 1308 and 1945", which this is (the Amber Room was built in the early 1700's).

For the record, here are my three reverts:

• 1st: 22:02, 6 Jun 2005
• 2nd: 22:57, 6 Jun 2005
• 3rd: 02:30, 7 Jun 2005

Technically, I guess I'm allowed to keep reverting (since my version follows policy), but out of an abundance of caution I'm going to let someone else do it. Noel (talk) 03:00, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

User:Marcperkel (I)

Could someone warn Marcperkel (talk · contribs) that he's violated the 3RR on Faith-based[1]? I'd do it myself but as I'm the doing most of the reverts on his self-promo I don't think it would be appropriate or effective. --W(t) 06:27, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)

He hasn't technicaly broken the rule.Geni 20:29, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Guy Montag (I)

Three revert rule violation on 1982 Invasion of Lebanon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Guy Montag (talk · contribs):

• Version he keeps reverting to by Jayjg [2]
• 1st revert: 21:25, 7 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 21:36, 7 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 21:44, 7 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 21:54, 7 Jun 2005

Reported by: Yuber^(talk) 22:04, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments: This is a complex revert. Basically, Jayjg's version removed the quote by putting <-- --> around it. Then Guy Montag deleted the quote no less than 4 times. So therefore he is reverting to Jayjg's version by removing the quote without trying to find consensus. As other users have been banned for complex reverts, so should Guy Montag.

User:Noitall

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

• 1st edit: 07:45, 7 Jun 2005
• 1st revert: 22:52, 7 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:08, 7 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:10, 7 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 23:28, 7 Jun 2005 (now switched to 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs))
• 5th revert: 23:50, 7 Jun 2005
• 6th revert: 23:50, 7 Jun 2005

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Noitall reverted three times, then suddenly 129.7.35.1 took over, making the same edit three more times. It seems clear that Nooitall simply looged out and continued reverting aninymously. Perhaps someone could check, if proof is needed? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I encourage Wiki, if it is possible, to trace the IP addresses. I have never edited in secret or as any other IP address or name. Mel Etitis appears to be an apologist for the illegal actions and continued vandalism of Yuber, who even vandalizes User pages, see [[3]]. Many others have cited Yuber and there is an effort from many others to ban the editor from Wiki, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Mel Etitis is hanging out with a bad crowd. --Noitall 23:39, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The "vandalism" that Noitall is referring to seems to be the addition of a sockpuppet tag. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. for the reasons for the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 Jun 2005

User: Guy Montag (II)

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

• 1st revert: 02:48, 8 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:18, 8 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:44, 8 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 06:23, 8 Jun 2005
• 5th revert: 06:48, 8 Jun 2005

Reported by: Calton | Talk 08:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:32, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Marcperkel (II)

Three revert rule violation on Faith-based (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Marcperkel (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 07:39, 2005 Jun 8
• 2nd revert: 07:51, 2005 Jun 8
• 3rd revert: 08:01, 2005 Jun 8
• 4th revert: 08:05, 2005 Jun 8

Reported by: --W(t) 08:09, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Comments:

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:MONGO

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

• 1st revert: 07:48, 7 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 20:58, 7 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 04:08, 8 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 06:42, 8 Jun 2005

Reported by: JamesMLane 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• The previous version to which MONGO keeps reverting is found here. The dispute was over the level of detail of the coverage of substance abuse issues. Several editors participated in reaching a compromise (see discussion). MONGO keeps removing this compromise text in favor of his preferred version. He has also referred to another editor's restoration of the compromise as "vandalism" (in this edit summary) and has deleted another editor's comment on the talk page. JamesMLane 11:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Blocked for twenty-four hours. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This was used as a tool to silence, nothing more. I was engaged in a disagreement with JamesMLane who recommended the block and he provided the evidence simply as a weapon. After I was blocked he reverted back to what he calls a consensus which is a falsehood. His efforts to block me and to make misrepresentations here were solely to try to put icing on the cake per se. My edit in which I called another a vandal was due to that editor who edited over me and called it "Ditched MONGO's edit". I deleted another editors comment on the talk page as I thought that his comment about me not thinking before I acted needed to stop, and seeing that he is a rare contributor, took it as a personal attack. I then apologized to this editor for the mistake. JamesMLane himself performed 3 reverts in a 24 period as well on the same article...skirting dangerously close as well.--MONGO 20:03, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mel Etitis

Mel Etitis (talk · contribs) is guilty of 3RR violation at Islamist Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Diffs:

• 08:51, 8 Jun 2005 diff
• 16:01, 8 Jun 2005 diff
• 17:01, 8 Jun 2005 diff
• 17:22, 8 Jun 2005 diff

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 Jun 2005

Yes, he did make 4 reverts inside 24 hours, but I'd like to hear his side of the story first. I note from your talk page he has accused you of vandalism, and reverting vandalism is excempt from the Three Revert Rule. Thryduulf 17:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He didn't accuse me of vandalism, I reverted HIS vandalism and mentioned that in my edit summary, so he sent a "look up vandalism" note. He was also kind enough to send me a note on the 3RR so I checked on his edits, and as it turns out he's in violation. Are you going to enforce the rules or are Admins exempt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 Jun 2005

He is not exempt, but I agree with Tryduulf that he should have the opportunity to put his side of the case. I don't personally see that the insertions are vandalism, just POV, but I would prefer to hear him out. I think respected users such as Mel deserve this. smoddy 18:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The "electric fence" is only for non-admins, different rules apply for Admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 8 Jun 2005

the rules are the same for admins and non-admins. There are occasions where any user can revert more than 3 times without breaking the 3RR (e.g. reverting vandalism) and not every case is clear-cut. As Mel is a respected editor I (and Smoddy also) feel that to be fair we should allow him to put his case, depending whether or not we agree with it he could still be blocked. Thryduulf 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He can still revert himself and avoid being blocked, presuming he hasn't a good reason for his not to be blocked. smoddy 18:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't phrase my previous comment brilliantly. I also don't see what he did as reverting vandalism, but if it is then that is excempt. Not all vandalism is obvious though and since I've not been involved in this article, I don't know any background to it or to Mel's claims, but I'm assuming good faith and presuming he has some reason for making them. I've put a message on his talk page asking him to reply here so, fingers crossed this will be sorted shortly. Thryduulf 18:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:129.7.35.1 has reverted 6 times in less than 24 hours on this article. Looks like a hotbed of fun. Wikibofh 18:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I spotted the large amount of editing going on and was wondering whether it would benefit from a short spell of protection. Thryduulf 18:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then shall we add these to Mel Etitis' record as well? Looks like 7 to me.

• 22:27, 7 Jun 2005
• 22:50, 7 Jun 2005
• 22:51, 7 Jun 2005

Not including the edits by Yuber, that's quite a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.35.1 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 8 Jun 2005

1. I was about to make the same point about more reverts.

2. Yuber is not Mel's sockpuppet; stop your personal attacks. smoddy 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's utterly ridiculous. Mel was edit warring without any restraint and far beyond the 3RR. Blocked for 24 hours because nobody else will do it. And I'm mighty pissed about that. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:31, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It appears to be a straight forward case. The comments on the talk page don't seem to give any reason.Geni 18:40, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kudos to Tony for doing the right thing: Mel Etitis (ME) is an excellent editor and a worthy admin, but that shouldn't put him above the rules. I'm guessing that since the edits were separated in time, ME did not recall them, but the onus is on reverters to make sure. --- Charles Stewart 19:28, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) (corrected Charles Stewart 17:56, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC))

another posibility is the one day/24 hours confusion.Geni 20:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've also had a look at the guy he was warring with, 129.7.35.1 (talk · contribs), and blocked him too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*sighs* How pointful. Hopefully the members of both parties will stop reverting.

James F. (talk) 20:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I think Mel made a genuine mistake here, and wasn't (so far as I know) warned that he'd done it, plus it was a first offense. Would you consider unblocking if he apologizes, or at least reducing the length of the block? 24 hours for a first offense with no warning seems harsh. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Not that I like people being blocked, but as someone that does lots of blocking for 3RRs, Mel is well aware of the rules and has clearly reverted seven times within 24 hours. I don't think it can be seen as vandalism, either. 24 hours does seem somewhat harsh, true, but if we don't enforce that then we are just looking for accusations of admins being above the rules. violet/riga (t) 23:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't do WP:3RR normally. I make a special exception for egregious edit warring--five or more reverts in twenty-four hours is way over the top. I can believe that he didn't realise how badly he was behaving, but he shouldn't need a warning, having blocked three users for breaking WP:3RR today. Yes, it's harsh. When an administrator makes this kind of mistake he needs the lesson more than most. I've blocked both parties in the revert war, and I think the article could do with a rest from their constant to-and-fro. I considered a shorter revert but, seeing that the custom seems to be to make a 24-hour block, I decided not to send an ambiguous message by a shorter block for this particular user. Seven reverts, first offence or no, would probably get a 24-hour block here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I should add that I'm in contact with Mel Etitis by email and he has apologised. I will not shorten the period of the block but I do not engage in block wars. I only ask that anyone considering unblocking also give some consideration to the other blocked party. We're admins and he isn't, so we should examine our behavior very carefully. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, without any justification except to protect vandal Yuber (who is seems is intimately connected to Mel Etitis, if not a sockpuppet), made unfounded accusations about me on this page above. Mel Etitis is not the benign Administrator that some have asserted on this page. --Noitall 01:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I don't like block wars between admins, so I won't be unblocking, but hope you might reconsider the length of the block in the morning. Noitall, I assure you that Yuber is not a sockpuppet of Mel Etitis, nor are the two closely connected. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:39, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

People should not be given indulgent treatment for being admins, nice guys, friends, respected contributors, etc, etc, etc. If anything, being an admin means you must stick to the rules even more and sanctions must be enforced even more strictly. Otherwise, why should non-admins take them seriously? — Chameleon 11:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would seem that Mel agrees with you:

Admins. The vast majority of admins with whom I've had contact have been helpful, considerate, and professional in their approach. They're human, though, and occasionally one will develop a blind spot with regard to some issue, or a far from disinterested approach, and act against Wikipedia rules. What seems to happen then is that either their behavior is ignored by other admins, or (especially when the clamour of ordinary users is loud) they're subjected to a mild finger-wagging. If non-admins had behaved in the same way, they'd likely have been blocked from editing for a while ? either generally or on a specific article or topic. Simple fairness demands the same treatment for the same behaviour ? but given that admins are in fact expected to behave better than ordinary editors, it would seem right that they should be treated more strictly when they fall well short.

Now that I am an admin, I hold the same view, incidentally.

(From his user page.) Proteus (Talk) 12:11, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mel Etitis was in contact with me this morning by email about a blocking problem concerning some other users. He is taking this enforced break stoically and admirably. I do think it's in the interests of Wikipedia that all rules should be seen to apply to all editors, without preference to nice guys and admins (of both of which Mel Etitis is a prime example). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:37, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to agree, you have no idea how much *evil grin*. But Drat! This sets a bad precedent, and I'm not going to lower my standards just because the other guy does.

Blocking users is not a punishment, it's a method to give people a time out. Once they've caught their breath they should be able to come back again.

I should have kept my eyes open for this one, now my comments are too late. Oh well. For the record then! :-) Kim Bruning 21:19, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ibrahim 'Ali Salman

Check out this page. Is this some sort of agenda-pushing? Original research? RickK 20:54, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• The comments on the talk page makes this seem like it is original research, but the actual article seems to be a fairly straighforward biography. I can't confirm any of it on Google, but Sudanese poetry doesn't have a big Internet presence. His name in Arabic gets a bunch of Goolge hits and his moniker "Genius Diwan of the Manasir" also gets some. I can't read Arabic so I can't confirm if these hits are actually relevant. This user's other contributions (e.g. Manasir) seem good, if in need of some formatting. I am also loath to discourage anyone working in these areas since we have so few people working on such topics. - SimonP 21:12, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

User:69.157.254.XXX

Three revert rule violation on X&Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by User:69.157.254.XXX:

• 1st revert: [4]
• 2nd revert: [5]
• 3rd revert: [6]
• 4th revert: [7]

Reported by: --Madchester 21:02, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Comments:

• Someone with a set of dynamic IP addresses keeps adding a non NPOV opinion of the critical and public response from the album, without making references to any official sources, let alone any unofficial public or fan responses. It's difficult to gauge public reaction, when the album has only been out for 3 days in Europe, 2 in North America. Sales totals for the first week aren't even in yet! It appears the anonymous user is inserting his personal obervations and first impressions into the article. -- Madchester 21:02, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

403 = Blocked?

The wiki mirror at OmniKnow.com seems to be getting an HTTP 403 Forbidden in response to all calls to Wikipedia; the entire OmniKnow project is thus in jeopardy.

Could someone please email me a.s.a.p., at email@owlcroft.com , to let me know what the problem is/was, so we can get back on the air as soon as is practicable? We have always striven mightily to scrupulously observe all terms of use, so we are mystified as to what might be the issue.

Thank you very much.

63.174.56.22 21:19, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Postscript: I believe the calling IP Address would be 209.68.29.47

Request for a block

The below was posted to my user page, by User:Idont. I'd say some kind of action should be taken, but I thought it prudent to ask for opinions here first. Radiant_>|< 21:31, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Radiant, I've been tangling a lot in VfD with User:198.234.224.6. This guy has engaged in quite a lot of vandalism (contributions), multiple votes on several VfDs without signing into an account, personal attacks against me even though I've warned him several times, and creating nonsense vanity articles on purpose (and fighting me ridiculously to try to keep them). He's done all this even since he was blocked for 24 hours about 2-3 weeks ago. Anyways, I'd like you (or RickK, or any other admin who's on VfD a lot, so that he recognizes their name and gets the point) to block him indefinitely. I'd also like to let you know that he uses several sockpuppet accounts (I'm assuming User:Runner06 is one, as are some others; see WP:VIP for my listing), so those can go on the block list as well in case they continue to cause trouble. Thanks (and thanks for the pie; it was good :-) ). --Idont Havaname 19:41, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • 1. Don't block IPs indefinitely. They do get reassigned from time to time.
    2. If you block the IP, the socks should also be blocked.
  • I'd give a final, stern warning, then block for 40 days, myself. smoddy 21:44, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• User:198.234.224.6 has kept adding nonsense to the 'pedia after being repeatedly told not to. I've blocked him for 24 hours. It is alleged that he is the same person as User:Runner06, User:24.93.170.246 and User:152.163.100.197. The first two haven't done anything wrong (in fact, haven't done anything much at all), but their behavior suggests that they are the same user. Maybe a sock check would be appropriate. I'm presently investigating the last one, who has a somewhat longer edit record. Radiant_>|< 11:12, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:204.210.189.130 is also alleged to be used by the same user. Again, behavior appears similar, but by itself that IP hasn't done much of anything. User:152.163.100.197 had been given a 24-hour block earlier this month for adding nonsense to articles. However, it has also made legit contributions. Possibly it's a shared IP. Radiant_>|< 11:23, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Edit War at Khmer Rouge

There is a very nasty edit war going on over at Khmer Rouge. the page might need to protected. It all seems to be coming from one person using abbreviations in place of the words "Khmer Rouge". A lot of people are reverting the abbreivation changes and then teh opposing party will wait just outside the window of 24 hours so as not to be in violation of the three revert rule. The history page is no full of nothing but reverts and coutner-reverts. A protection might be in order. -Husnock 03:23, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've protected it for the time being. --nixie 03:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Looks like someone has once again tried bring a little bit of real neutrality to this article and met with the usual opposition. At least we got protection and not a block here; this will hopefully push matters toward discussion and workable solutions on talk (ever notice how when you block somebody, they are rendered incapable of discussion?). Everyking 04:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm looking at a different version than Everyking, but replacing mentions of the Khmer Rouge with "FUNK" or "CPNLAF" isn't exactly my idea of neutral. If the article is about the Khmer Rouge it should say so, plain and simple. Mgm|^(talk) 20:28, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh dear, if only anything in this life were plain and simple. Having someone's putative political beliefs used as a snarl word to try to discredit their edits without discussing them may or may not be helpful. That person's "communist" additions may or may not be accurate. The only thing that I can see here that approaches the condition of "plain and simple" is that mud has beeen flung in advance of any attempt to arrive at mutual understanding, never mind consensus. DIsputes like this can too easily become a question of who can win, rather than what's best for the project (i.e. Wikipedia, a hopefully accurate encyclopaedia). Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:57, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:129.100.224.148

Three revert rule violation on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 129.100.224.148 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 22:46, Jun 8, 2005
• 2nd revert: 23:07, Jun 8, 2005
• 3rd revert: 23:13, Jun 8, 2005
• 4th revert: 23:26, Jun 8, 2005
• 5th revert: 23:33, Jun 8, 2005

Reported by: Kelly Martin 04:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Spotted on RC patrol. I reverted the 4th revert to what appears to be the consensus version. User appears to be pushing a pro-Pakistani POV. Kelly Martin 04:33, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Addendum: user does not appear to have been warned in advance on user talk page; I recommend not blocking unless further reverts are forthcoming. Kelly Martin 04:37, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

This guy is now trying to do the same thing under different IP addrsses (mostly similar) or under the sockpuppet Napoleon12 who also has the same tendency to revert to previous or POV versions with some blatant lies. And he is doing the same to almost everything related to India pakistan war or skirmish etc. --Idleguy 05:43, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Multiple users

Three revert rule violation on Creation science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by Ec5618 (talk · contribs), Bensaccount (talk · contribs), Wdanwatts (talk · contribs), Pollinator (talk · contribs),

• Too many reverts to list; please see article history.

Reported by: Ghakko 17:46, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ghakko, if you want admin action, you'll have to give the diffs showing four reverts in 24 hours to a previous version, plus a diff to the version reverted to, by one of these accounts, or evidence that two or more of the accounts are controlled by the same person. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:23, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm withdrawing the report, as things seem to have settled down now. Sorry about the fuss.

—Ghakko 14:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Napoleon12

Three revert rule violation on Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Napoleon12 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 00:33, 9 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 01:04, 9 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 09:20, 9 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 12:41, 9 Jun 2005

Reported by: AreJay 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This guy's sockpuppets are also 129.100.100.92, 129.100.224.146, 129.100.224.148, 129.100.100.98 and 129.100.100.102 (All of these IPs eminate from London, Ontario, Canada). I am reporting this 3RR incident after wiki administrator Kelly Martin reported him on June 9, 2005 at 4:37 UTC (please see above post). The administrator had recommended not blocking this user unless said user indulged in further reverts.

• This rule, as is obvious from the evidence, has been violated again -- not once, but 4 times. Large enough for me to start another 3RR thread on his repeated violations. If we count the number of reverse edits undertaken by this user with the inclusion of the previous 3RR violation reported by wiki administrator Kelly Martin, it adds up to 12 reverse edits within a 24 hour period.

• Clearly the user will not listen to reason. Please block him. The integrity of the article has been jeopardized. The user has also uploaded and added images to the article that are in violation of the image use policies of Wikipedia. Please see image "65war_paatkhemkaran.jpg" (the image even contains a watermark of the possible copyright holder -- PakDef.info).

• This user has been tormenting serious wiki authors that have spent considerable time and effort researching and writing an article on an event on which unbiased sources are few and far between. Now there is a sense of helplessness and exhaution amongst us. Please help us by blocking this user and his sockpuppets as soon as possible. Thank you. I don't know if I can make a stronger case for blocking this user.

AreJay 19:59, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More instances of vandalism

This user has been a consistent vandal across all India pakistan military related articles. he has repeatedly reverted to the blatant POV articles and copyvio images (one article even had the partial name of the website from which it was lifted, in the paragraph) The articles are

1. Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2. Indo-Pakistani War of 1947 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3. Kargil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
4. Pakistan Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
5. Pakistan Air Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and other articles where he has started to resort to biased views in a very small way. Unless he is stopped and his sockpuppets banned we will have our time full with him without any useful contributions. --Idleguy 02:42, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:67.121.92.246 / User:Economist123 / etc.

Three revert rule violation on Jawaharlal Nehru. User:67.121.92.246 (now Economist123 (talk · contribs)):

• 1st revert: [8]
• 2nd revert: [9]
• 3rd revert: [10]
• 4th revert: [11]
• 5th revert: [12]
• 6th revert: [13]
• 7th revert: [14]
• 8th revert: [15]
• 9th revert: [16]

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:47, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Comments: The user who posts from a dynamic IP address in the 67.121.* block continues to revert the Nehru article to include a uniformly rejected rambling about Nehru-Stalinism. The page has been locked repeatedly to prevent this, but 67.121.* resumes the same behavior (despite frequent) warning, each time the page is unlocked. This was previously reported under the IP addresses User:67.121.95.80 / User:67.121.93.63 (same IP block, obviously same human being at issue).

Followup: The usually anonymous user from 67.121.* rarely signs talk comments, but once in a while does as "Economist" or similar. The 9th reversion listed is by the "new user" User:Economist123. I presume this user name was added in response to Mackensen's IP block. I don't know how to tell whether some IP spoofing or proxy was also created. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:38, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

User:Economist123 has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet created for the purpose of policy violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The IP resolves to Pacific Bell. I'll block for 24 hours, but it probably won't do much good. Mackensen (talk) 04:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Would that be one of these?:
    • 66.127.58.169
    • 67.121.92.254
    • 67.121.95.80
    • 67.121.93.63
  • These are some of the other IPs he uses (presumably from home, with the other range being, I assume, his work IP). --Calton | Talk 08:42, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Al-Andalus

Three revert rule violation on Mizrahi Jew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Al-Andalus (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 01:28, 10 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 03:24, 10 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 07:17, 10 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 18:06, 10 Jun 2005

Reported by: Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Note: Keeps inserting into the 3rd paragraph the disputed phrase "except among Mizrahi minority circles promoting a revival of Arab Jewish identity" and disguising it through complex reverts/other minor changes. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. smoddy 20:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to astroturf?

Take a look at http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2005/06/09/wikipedia_authority_and_astroturf.php and Talk:Symphony OS. I have real misgivings about this, but what if anything can be done? Should anything be done? -- ChrisO 20:39, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is something that is in alpha get it's own article in the first place? The software is in alpha-test according to the site. Should every Sourceforge project that might get somewhere get their own page without having released a major version of some kind? I'm tempted to VfD it. Inter\^Echo 20:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. Does EliasAlucard really have to go toe-to-toe with Clay Shirky? The content is not Shirky's to dictate, but he is a pretty influential blogger. I wish editors could show enough restraint not to personally attack well known web personalities on talk pages. Rhobite 20:59, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I just posted to Shirky's blog strongly suggesting his homework for the evening was WP:VFD - David Gerard 00:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd be pleased if editors could show enough restraint not to personally attack anyone on talk pages. Alas.... --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:19, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where the solution to undesirable speech may really be more speech. If somebody wants to piggyback off Wikipedia (and Slashdot) like this, they should remember that they no longer control where they're getting carried off to. See Symphony OS#Promotion efforts. --Michael Snow 05:37, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Honestly speaking: I don't have anything to do with Slashdot, never have, and most likely never will. This is the entire reason I'm pissed off at Clay Shirky. I don't care if he's an influential blogger. What he posted on his blog is a complete lie. Whilst it might be true that the slashdot article editor was trying to promote Symphony OS, I was not. I created the Wikipedia article, simply because I wanted facts about the OS, without having to post on various Linux forums and get answers that very well might not be true. That's it. Clay Shirky comes long, posts a contrived story about me and the article, as if he knew me in person, and my thoughts. So why am I pissed off at Clay? Because if anyone actually believed him, they'd probably delete my account for advertisement. Not that it would make any difference, since I can always edit without an account, or just register another nickname, but still, I don't want to loose my entire edit history which I've put a lot of time and effort into. Either way, if anyone looks at my edit history, you can all see that I've been on Wikipedia for just about a year, I've learnt a lot from Wikipedia, and I want to improve it in every way I can. Creating an article about an OS isn't advertising, if it were, then put a VfD tag on Windows XP and Linux because they've probably given more advertising than this tiny article. EliasAlucard|Talk 16:56, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody's going to delete your account. I'm hard-pressed to find anything on Shirky's blog that resembles a lie — please don't make inflammatory accusations without evidence. --Michael Snow 17:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I say the same about Clay Shirky. He's making accusations without evidence. I dare anyone to prove that I was advertising. If you cannot prove it, then don't buy into his crap. EliasAlucard|Talk 19:54, 11 Jun, 2005 (UTC)

I've never said anything about you advertising; what the article says is that some (unidentified) person took advantage of Slashdot for that purpose. --Michael Snow 17:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Mateusc and User:24.125.136.245/User:Marvelvsdc)

Three revert rule violation on Sega Dreamcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mateusc (talk · contribs), 24.125.136.245 (talk · contribs)/Marvelvsdc (talk · contribs).

Mateusc:

• 1st revert: 13:22, Jun 10, 2005
• 2nd revert: 13:43, Jun 10, 2005
• 3rd revert: 14:33, Jun 10, 2005
• 4th revert 14:57, Jun 10, 2005

Marvelvsdc aka 24.125.136.245

• 1st revert: 10:56, Jun 10, 2005 as 24.125.136.245
• 2nd revert: 13:36, Jun 10, 2005 as 24.125.136.245
• 3rd revert: 14:05, Jun 10, 2005 as Marvelvsdc
• 4th revert: 14:54, Jun 10, 2005 as 24.125.136.245

reported by: K1Bond007 21:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

They've been repeatedly reverting each other for the past few weeks over an image at the top of the page. I attempted to bring a compromise to the problem, but was either quickly dismissed as having "no argument" or claimed to be "personally attacking" User:Mateusc. User:Marvelvsdc posts on the talk page routinely under User:24.125.136.245 and is obviously the same person. K1Bond007 21:27, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

You make me personal attacks and use offensive words many times in talk page and now decide to report my revert edits simply because you don't have argument and agree with the vandalism to revert to your image. Why you just reported this in past days? This is bad faith, after all, your agressions, provocative and personal attacks are registered on Talk:Sega_Dreamcast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateusc (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 Jun 2005

Would an admin please look into this so called personal attack stuff too please. If I have done any wrong doing I'm fully prepared to take whatever punishment is handed out. Rather that than be constantly accused of this. K1Bond007 21:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I will wait for this. Because you use offensive words and personal attacks to justify the use of your image, Instead to prove that it contains information instead redundance. --Mateusc 22:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The user above is new, he has been here for a month and is accusing everyone of personal attacks. He updates images efficiently on Xbox 360 and other well-known systems but is confident in his approach to a false design. The picture he puts up is not web designer friendly and encyclopedic. It is not sixth generation, and proposes a 32-bit era, better yet a 16-bit era article definition with false justifications of console origin next to its context.--Marvelvsdc 22:24, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're talking with excessive nonsense. See my list of Contributions before say something about me and get education and know the rules first. --Mateusc 22:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've protected the page, so please use this time to find a consensus. I'll also be putting a warning about 3RR on each of the user pages. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

Having read all the talk pages now, it's clear that K1Bond007 has not made any personal attacks, but in fact has been trying to seek compromise. Mateus, you've come close to making personal attacks yourself, so try to avoid that in future please; and Marvel has made a comment threatening to delete material he has uploaded if anyone annoys him, which I've asked him to clarify. There's a consensus on the page not to use the image(s) Mateus wants, so I've asked him to abide by that, and hopefully that'll be the end of the matter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:17, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

User:Anglius

I've been seeing the conflict around this one and looking through the contributions. Almost everything the user has added is blatant trolling and fostering of conflict, deliberate NPOV violations or adding unreferenced and apparently spurious information to articles. Remonstrations on his talk page are like water off a duck's back. Is there any evidence this user is anything other than a trolling account? - David Gerard 00:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should avoid overuse of the label "troll"...a user can be very wrong and very obnoxious without being a troll. The troll label seems to be intended to put someone on the fast track to banning. I haven't seen anything from this user (except the laughable vote on RfA—I think I would sooner say we should only vote women into the job), but in any case I think the distinction has to be made, and caution applied. Perhaps someone could conduct a private e-mail discussion with him, which might be more productive. Everyking 01:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestion - I think you should contact him. Guettarda 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion concerning Anglius would be to just ignore him for right now. He hasn't done anything "wrong"; yes, he's eccentric and his point of view/behavior is obsolete by about a century, but he isn't breaking any rules. I will keep an eye on him, and I will correct him if needed. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 01:43, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Per the user page note saying "Anglius previously appeared 'under' many other 'names'" plus the pattern of behaviour, this is not a newbie who happens to be eccentric. I'd recommend keeping that in mind while watching him and trying not to feed the troll. Jonathunder 01:50, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

What do I know about any of this? I'm not going to contact him, I don't even know the basis of the dispute. I was just outlining some general ideas about this kind of thing. Everyking 02:30, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlike just about everyone else, you haven't pre-judged him. If there is any chance of getting some good out of him via dialogue it shouldn't be someone who has already declared him guilty. Guettarda 02:48, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I (and lots of other editors) are closely watching his (fortunately sparse) edits. His point of view on the world borders on bizarre, as does his writing style, but his edits have been mostly harmless and occasionally beneficial. I am not inclined to believe that any administrative actions is warranted at this point. If he is a troll, I would only wish that all other trolls would be as well behaved as he is. Kelly Martin 17:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Awais141

Awais141 (talk · contribs) is uploading a large number of images and labeling them as Public Domain without explaining why they are PD. Does not respond to requests for provenance. RickK 06:40, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Rogue Administrator RickK

Rogue administrator "RickK" has reverted homonazi to his preferred version (maybe 3 times) and used his administrative power of blocking to ensure that his preferred version stays. His claim is that he was "blocking a vandal", but he has not disclosed what he finds "vandalistic" or in fact involved himself in any communication. Is this sort of maverick administrator allowed to block at will, with no one ensuring that he doesn't run roughshod in this way over "ordinary" users? - Bella Donna 07:24, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, admins are essentially allowed to do whatever they like regarding this sort of thing, we don't have checks and balances or anything like that. That said, I'm not quite sure what you're fighting over. You believe this should not be an article? Why not simply wait for the VfD process? Also you shouldn't have "Hitler" in your user name (some admins would consider this prohibited, I would prefer to merely discourage it strongly), so there's another strike against you. Everyking 07:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, admins are not essentially allowed to do whatever they like regarding this sort of thing. This is why the issue came up with your editing of a certain article. My 2 cents. (I'm not commenting on homonazi, which I know nothing about). func(talk) 21:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of using my admin abilities in that dispute? Whether you think I was right or wrong clearly I stayed within the boundaries regarding that. The Arbcom itself said they could not order a revote on my adminship because I had not abused any admin powers. Everyking 21:56, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My appoligies, Everyking. I was concerned with how you characterized the nature of adminship responsibilities, and I brought an incorrect and unnessesary characterization of you into it. I'm sorry. func(talk) 23:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Judging by the edits he was reverting, he was reverting simple vandalism, which is hardly "rogue" or "maverick" behavior. I see nothing wrong with it. --Carnildo 07:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not quite vandalism, but certainly very POV commentary of a kind which is wholly inappropriate for Wikipedia. -- ChrisO 09:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That article will undoubtedly deleted soon, but it's still in the name space. In adhering to some semblence of professional standards, RickK was right to revert it, as vandalism, which it clearly is: the additions tunred it into a narrative that editorializes itself (POV is one thing; commentary is another). Even answers.com, which I love, would not pay us money for that. Unimportant tidings, at any rate. El_C 10:33, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It always makes me feel good to know that the vandals and trolls hate what I do. RickK 19:33, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Don't be too proud of this editorial terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a vandal is insignificant next to the power of the Wiki. JRM · Talk 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Sorry for that one. And I'm not even a fan. JRM · Talk 19:43, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Not a fan of answers.com? Wau. El_C 01:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Wragge

Someone seems to have taken over this account and changed the password. Is it OK if I block it from editing, leaving a message for the real User to contact an admin when he turns up, so that he can regain control of it? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know what the account's password was? ~~~~ 15:21, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taken over? Yeah, maybe s/he was having a party and someone drunkingly typed that in jest, hard to tell. El_C 01:07, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could be that Wragge was drunk. I can't see any dodgy edits apart from to the user page. It would do no harm to block just in case: he can always contact Mel to get unblocked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:08, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Strom in green tea cup, me thinks. El_C 02:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Storm in a glass of vodka, more like. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

See, I really don't like this attitude towards blocking, I don't think it's something to be done so lightly. If no account takeover has happened, then this will cause a lot of annoying trouble for Wragge. So it would do some harm. A block isn't something you just throw around with thinking. Everyking 04:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are explanations for this besides that his account has been taken over. Of course that is one possibility. I think the block was a bit excessive; nothing extreme was going on, like article vandalism. For all we know it was Wragge having a little fun on his own user page, which I think we would agree is harmless. Everyking 04:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Everyking, I don't think the user was actually blocked. I agree that one shouldn't block without thinking; that's why Mel Etitis brought it up here for our advice instead of just blocking Wragge. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, OK, my mistake. Everyking 04:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No problem! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I've seen a number of people making fun of themselves on their userpages. I always revert such things just to be safe and have been contacted by the users in question, it was them having fun. Let's watch out and make sure the user doesn't start any serious disruptive actions and only block when he starts disrupting processes or articles. (Maybe reverting the userpage is a good idea too if it can be offensive to Wragge). Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• The edit was not only out of character, but was stylistically wrong. I still doubt very mucch that it was Wragge. I protected the page against editing, until Wragge returns; of course I didn't block him (as my message above indicates, I was asking for advice, not reporting my action). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt there's one person here, who, while drunk, can correctly distinguish between your and you're. :) El_C 14:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • You're replying to him. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Your reply is noted! Noel (talk) 18:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • There, now that everybody has demonstrated their grammatical skills, will they agree that they're not going to do this again? -- Cyrius|✎ 23:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, but did you write the above while drunk? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mystery solved; the rogue edits were made by his daughter. Phew! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:IlluSionS667

IlluSionS667 (talk · contribs) has suddenly appeared making edits to a range of article concerned with "Supremacism" (David Duke, Black supremacy, White supremacy, etc.), including creating Jewish supremacism. When I VfDed the latter, he moved the contents to "Jewish supremacy", and made the original article into a redirect. I doubt that he's a newcomer; could someone do an IP check to see if he's one of our old friends? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:09, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After meeting opposition to his attempt to delete external links from Supremacism, he went straight to Wikipedia:Third opinion — again, not the action of a newcomer to Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will look into the situation right now. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:43, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

User:69.233.169.62

Three revert rule violation on Maryam_Rajavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 69.233.169.62 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: Time
• 2nd revert: Time
• 3rd revert: Time
• 4th revert: Time
• 5th revert: Time
• 6th revert: Time
• 7th revert: Time
• 8th revert: Time

Reported by: RezaKia 15:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• This guy is reverting but also using abusive language in the Talk pages. His IP is 69.233.169.62 -- RezaKia 15:14, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • All of those incidents are your own reverts, genius. One would have to be a moron not to see you belong to the MKO terrorists organization -- just one quick look at your history is enough to see this. You cannot hide the shameful history of your terrorist organization by injecting lies into Wikipedia articles. Crawl back to your terrorist cells in Iraq now. Buh bye mujahed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.24.198.9 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 Jun 2005
    • Both the above users are blocked for 24 hours – RezaKia for 3RR on the page, and the anon for avoiding a block on the same page, imposed by me earlier today. smoddy 15:32, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User: 67.121.92.159 / User:67.121.95.125 / User:67.124.244.78

Three revert rule violation on User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (edit | [[Talk:User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 67.121.* (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: [17]
• 2nd revert: [18]
• 3rd revert: [19]
• 4th revert: [20]
• 5th revert: [21]
• 6th revert: [22]
• 7th revert: [23]
• 8th revert: [24]

Reported by: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:48, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

Comments: Our same friend who has frequently violated 3RR on the Nehru page has taken to vandalizing my user page (and that of several other editors also) to include his rambling "Nehru is Stalin" screed, presumably because Nehru got locked against vandalism because of him. Unfortunately, as in the other reports, our vandal has dynamic IP addreses. They initially seemed to all fall in 67.121.*, but now at least one is from 67.124.* as well. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:53, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

• User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters (edit | [[Talk:User:Lulu_of_the_Lotus-Eaters|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now page protected. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, also my user talk is under similar attack. But I'd hate to lock that, since people need that to make legitimate comments. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:05, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei

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

• 1st revert: 17:37/17:39, Jun 11, 2005
• 2nd revert: 18:11, Jun 11, 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:20, Jun 11, 2005
• 4th revert: 18:37, Jun 11, 2005

Reported by: — Instantnood 19:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• First I must apologise for making the trouble. Briefly, I added Hong Kong and Korea to the lists, and my addition for Hong Kong were reverted by Huaiwei (in two edits for the first revert). He challenged that a dish or a drink has to be original and invented in that country in order to be listed [25], and he challenged if the drink that I've added is really original [26]. He also questioned on the definition of "nation" (in the edit summary [27]). — Instantnood 19:02, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, your complaint was actually invalid. My first "revert" of sorts was actually a deletion, and you merged two edits into one and called it a "revert". The first act of a revert was actually done by yourself at 02:03, 12 Jun 2005. I dont see how I could be violating the 3RR?
  • Secondly, I removed one line, and added an explanation of its removal. Then I saw the other one, and did the same. When you did your first revert, you appear to see no reason in explaining this action, and failed to answer any of my queries. As we can see in subsequent discussions, my inquiries were actually very valid, and has shown to require greater investigation on our part. Were my deletions not justified? If so, then talk it out in the relevant talk page (and NOT in my talk page), instead of simply doing reverts without any explanation.
  • Thirdly, I do not quite understand what your "apology" was for, to be honest.--Huaiwei 05:14, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • In that case you're regarding the first revert not as a revert on technical ground (while it is in nature). If it is certified by an administrator or a manager of this notice board that on technical ground it really wasn't a revert, I'll withdraw this violation report. Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for joining the discussions at the relevant talk pages. — Instantnood 18:06, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

User:BrandonYusufToropov

At Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs) and as 24.34.164.83 (talk · contribs)

I've blocked Brandon for 12 hours as this was his first block, but I didn't warn him first because he seemed to be gaming the system, inserting in the edit summary "3rd revert of the day" when in fact it was his fourth. Concentrating on one part of the text he was reverting to for the sake of clarity — that Eric Robert Rudolph was a "radical Christian extremist" rather than "Christian Identity follower" — the diffs are:

• Version reverted to 14:24, Jun 10, 2005
• 1st revert 01:22, Jun 11, 2005
• 2nd revert 01:39, Jun 11, 2005
• 3rd revert 12:54, Jun 11, 2005
• 4th revert 19:20, Jun 11, 2005

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:54, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Brandon and I exchanged e-mails about this, and it seems he did make a genuine mistake, not realizing that the first partial revert would count. He's also indicated that he'll think more carefully before reverting in future, so I'm unblocking him as a gesture of good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Ephestion

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

• 1st revert: 01:10, 11 Jun 2005
• 2nd revert: 17:57, 11 Jun 2005
• 3rd revert: 18:33, 11 Jun 2005
• 4th revert: 22:03, 11 Jun 2005

Reported by: llywrch 22:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

• Ephestion is pushing his own POV concerning the languages of the Roman Empire; rather than showing that there are sources which also share this POV or even acknowledging that there may other POVs, he insists his the only correct one & therefore the only one that should appear.
• Attempts to discuss this with him by me & others have not been productive.
• I don't know if he is aware of the 3RR rule. llywrch 22:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any warnings on his talk page, and he hasn't been blocked for it before, so I'm going to leave a warning for him. I'll put the page on my watchlist and he'll be blocked if he does it again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Letter writing

Recently I saw this article had been transwikied and now consisted of only an interwiki link (grounds for speedy delete, by WP:CSD, article, #3). In fact there had been a VfD ruling to the effect of transwiki and delete. Only after the I put the tag on and it was speedied did I realize what I had gotten myself into, when Woohookitty informed me of the previous conflict with the article's creator, and the vandalism that ensued. He wrote to me:

"I will keep the speedy deletion intact, but if the guy who kept trying to recreate the original article comes back...have fun. :) He literally put every article I've ever written up for deletion in retaliation. In early February, I put the article up for vfd as a way of stopping this guy and the solution was to keep it as a wiki interlink. is the vfd discussion on it. If you still want to speedy delete it, go ahead, but as I said, if Richard pulls this crap again, have fun. And see, Richardr443 wrote on the talk page about it and is now threatening to recreate the entire article. So I'm going to take the speedy delete off. I know it should be deleted, but this moron is going make my life hell (again) if it's speedy deleted. And actually as I typed this, the article just got deleted. So here we go again. Thanks."

Now the original content of the article, not just the redirect, has been recreated by an anon, but it must be that original author/vandal (User:Richardr443), judging by the fact it was than exact copy. Do you think someone could take a look at this situation? And to be clear, it is a how-to, and not an encyclopedic article, and exists on Wikibooks. --Dmcdevit 06:24, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, the anon that recreated the article did vandalize Woohookitty's page in the past, and both the anon and Richard have RickK's vandalism warnings on the same day. They must be the same person. --Dmcdevit 06:28, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am the person that Dmcdevit is referring to...the one who has been vandalized by Richard several times. Admins, if there is any way to stop this from reoccuring again and again, please do so because frankly, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this jerk. I would suggest banning him myself. This is the third time he's recreated this article since January. The article is not encyclopedic in the least. We have already tried making the article a interwiki link and then we tried to make it a speedy delete...and both times, he came back. For now, I will leave the article as it is until you guys come up with some way of stopping this. --Woohookitty 07:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I think, based on this, all this editor needs is a bit of explaining why it belongs on Wikibooks and why it didn't show up in a search immediately. Also, it may be a good idea to tell them how to make the page more visible. Wikibooks isn't just some obscure "other site", it's a Wikimedia project for textbooks. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• I wish it was that simple, Mgm, but this guy has been unyielding...no compromise whatsoever. --Woohookitty 19:18, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Query about my behaviour

I was upset about the non-neutral language and content of Zoroastrianism, so I noted what I was unhappy with and placed an NPOV tag on the page. I noted that there were several weasel words. I said:

"The timing of Zoroaster's life is significant for understanding the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs. Should it be before 1300 BC (prior to Akhenaten), then Zoroaster would be the earliest monotheist known in any religion. Even a later date could make Zoroaster a template for Biblical figures who introduce monotheism over henotheism. Traditional Jews and Christians typically seek to place Zoroaster's life at as late a date as possible, so as to avoid the conclusion that much of the theology and morality of the non-Torah parts of the Old Testament derive from Zoroastrianism, the ideas having flowed into Judaism during the Babylonian captivity which happened shortly after 600 BC. Even the first commandment reflects the henotheistic nature of early Judaism. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me" implictly accepts the existance of other gods."

So much for not reading in our own points of view!

Let's have a look at other POV statements:

• Many modern scholars believe that Zoroastrianism had a large influence on Judaism, Mithraism, Manichaeism, and Christianity because of Persia's connections to the Roman Empire and because of its earlier control over Israel under rulers such as Cyrus II the Great, Darius the Great and Xerxes I.
  • Which scholars? Weasel word.
• Because Zoroastrianism is thought to have emerged from a common Indo-Iranian culture that preceded Vedic Hinduism, many scholars also use evidence from Zoroastrian texts to reconstruct the unreformed earlier stage of Indo-Iranian beliefs, and therefore to identify the culture that evolved into the Vedic religion. This has also informed attempts to characterise the original Proto-Indo-European religion (e.g. the god Dyeus who became Jupiter, Sabazios, Zeus, and Tyr).
  • "many scholars". Weasel word.
• Zoroastrianism teaches many concepts we today find in the major Abrahamic faiths, concepts of Heaven, Hell, Day of judgement, the concept of Satan, the prophecy and coming of the Messiah and the extensive teaching of Angels and Evil spirits.
• Implies that these concepts in Abrahamic faiths comes solely from Zoroastrianism. Most evangelicals, Roman Catholics and Muslims would dispute this.

Until these can be fixed (and the whole tone) with proper footnotes, I doubt this will be an NPOV article. It's going on my watchlist, btw. --Ta bu shi da yu 04:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got this response from User:Paul Barlow:

Your arguments are little more than an attempt at censoring entirely commonplace scholarly views about Zoroastrianism. There is nothing NPOV about them, nor does the phrase 'many scholars' in any way constitute "weasel words". In fact they mean exactly what they say. It is very easy indeed to find examples of such many scholars. I will do so later today or at the weekend. In fact the point about Proto-Indo-European religion is so utterly commonplace you can find it throughout Wikipedia on the many pages devoted to Indo-European studies. It has been a fact of the study of religion ever since Max Muller.

I personally find this to be ludicrous. However, I would like to find out from admins what they think of my comments and whether I was really trying to censor discussion. I was not aware that I was actually arguing anything, and as I hadn't actually taken any thing away from the article at that point and just expressing my concerns, I was suprised to find that I was a censor of Wikipedia!

Would someone please tell me whether I was incorrect in placing my concerns on the talk page? Has something changed in Wikipedia's general policy of raising concerns on talk pages during my absence? Also, Paul B has stated that my post to the talk page was arrogant and inflammatory. I might be a bit close to the situation here, but I was positive that the first bit was POV writing, and I'm pretty certain that my tone wasn't arrogant in pointing out weasel words in the next few points.

For the record, Paul B wrote the following on my talk page:

I had read it yes. And have explained repeatedly what I was attacking - the tone of your initial comments and the assertion of "POV" before acquainting yourself with the subject. Useful comments, IMO, do not take the form of your interventions, which were were almost bound to have a negative effect because their over-excited and judgemental tone. Paul B 09:22, 12 June 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, feedback here would be much appreciated. If I have apologies to make, then I'll make them. I just want to find out from a 3rd party, and I figure that most admins are pretty good at looking at things like this objectively. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:15, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I find the text OK. It is a well-known theory that Zoroastrianism may have preceeded and inspired Judaism and Christianity, or at least that it was an important contributor to Christianity.--Wiglaf 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK... I'll take that into consideration. I guess I more want to know if my behaviour was out of line. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apart from sounding a little bit testy, you should ask for sources. That is what improves Wikipedia. I can't see that you have done anything wrong.--Wiglaf 07:01, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't the right place to ask about a content dispute. But IMO you are justified in asking for specific citations for the phrase "many scholars". If many scholars hold this belief then it should be very easy to cite. Rhobite 07:17, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think I would say every word Rhobite just said. - Taxman ^Talk 23:16, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :-) That's why I was specifically asking people to comment on my behaviour and whether I was out of line. I appreciate everyone's feedback. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Be careful of the term "weasel words" It sounds negative, and it implies that the writer is trying to distort the truth somehow. If it's true that "many scholars" believe something, then that's a fact, not an attempt to be weasely. Someone familiar with the scholarly literature won't feel the need to cite a source, because to them it's obvious. There probably aren't any surveys saying "46% of scholars of Zoroastrianism believe X", either.

Also, remember that bold comments in a subject you aren't well-read on isn't always the best idea. Better to ask questions, and make statements only once you're sure of your footing.

All that said, I don't think this is a terribly big deal. Certainly not an attempt to "censor" anything. Isomorphic 03:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I'll take this on board - that's good advise! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, last note: Paul B has won. I was going to assist with the issues that I saw in the article, but after reading the following:

"Paul B wrote the following:

"Quoting of rules, guidelines etc is not done by objective Pan-Dimensional Beings. It is done by people with POVs, because they feel strongly about particular positions. The demand for NPOV is often in practice motived by resistance to one POV or the desire to promote another one. It is hardly a coincidence that you, Guy Montag and "Ta bu shi da yu" have been challenging particular passages and insisting on references is it? This is surely the very problem of systemic bias. People with strong religious opinions tend to be very committed to promoting or defending those views."

I'm stepping away from this article while people believe that I am acting in bad faith. Out of interest, how does he get away with such outrageous statements? - Ta bu shi da yu 23:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Maybe stepping away is best, but maybe you could still be effective as long as you try to keep the relevant policies in mind, which I am sure you are doing, just keep it in mind. You are obviously involved in the dispute so as long as you don't exercise admin powers on the article, you should be fine. As far as "getting away with" anything, nothing in the above quote is abusive or improper. It may be off the mark (though I don't think it is), but that is not a behavioral issue. As far as the comment quoted above, he is correct in many cases, but that same statement can also be used by someone that simply doesn't feel like doing enough research to back up their material. I suspect that may be going on too. And again, nothing in this conflict appears to have ever needed admin rights, so please look for other ways to get extra input on the dispute instead of this page. - Taxman ^Talk 12:25, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Fine... understood. Please be aware that I will not be using any admin powers on that page. Mainly because I'm not an admin. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Eyeon and User:70.177.90.39

I blocked Eyeon (talk · contribs) also editing as 70.177.90.39 (talk · contribs) earlier for 3RR at Feces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He's e-mailed me to say it wasn't a violation, so I'm posting the diffs here in case anyone wants to check them. The edit being reverted to is a photograph of a human turd that Eyeon keeps inserting. He organized a poll to decide the issue, but it went against him, so he's ignoring it.

• Edit reverted to: 06:17 Jun 10
• 1st revert: 06:33 Jun 11
• 2nd revert: 08:18 Jun 11
• 3rd revert: 08:59 Jun 11
• 4th revert: 04:26 Jun 12

What these links DON'T show is that the photograph changed between the third and fourth revert, to respond to claims that the photo was not representative. To see the difference, you will have to view the IMAGE HISTORY. Eyeon 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I DID NOT organize the poll. Another user called for a poll. And the poll SUPPORTS MY POSITION with 16 votes. Other positions get 10 and 3 votes. Eyeon 02:21, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is Eyeon's second 3RR block in eight days. He's also created a couple of nonsense articles: for example Dieter Manisprechensie, a non-existent philosopher, now deleted. When I asked on his talk page if he had a source for the article, he deleted the enquiries and didn't respond.

This was my second block, EVER. The 'nonsense article' was on a philosopher that was too obscure for Wikipedia. My mistake. I deferred to the better judgement of the community. It was deleted. I didn't respond because I was too busy on other matters. Eyeon 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then supply a source now showing that Dieter Manisprechensie exists and is a philosopher. The contents were nonsense too, and it's not the only nonsense article you've created and had deleted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:47, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

I am not going to waste time defending an argument I have already conceded. What other nonsense articles do you accuse me of creating, or was this just a slur? Eyeon 21:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He set up the Eyeon account on June 3, when his first edit was to remove another editor's vote from a poll. [28]. Typical pages he edits are Feces, Anus, Penis, Masturbation, Defecation. User: 70.177.90.39 started editing on May 5. Similar pattern.

That is my IP ADDRESS. I have never claimed it wasn't. I started using Wikipedia before I had an account. This is not sockpuppetry. I DID NOT REMOVE ANY VOTES FROM A POLL. Check the subsequent edit, do not look at that one edit in isolation. The vote was restored, I was reformatting the text because it was all screwed up. Eyeon 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another editor has also wondered whether Eyeon is trolling with the human turd issue and hoax articles. It's reminding me of User:LevelCheck. Not suggesting it's the same person, but the editing style is similar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon is a poo-obsessed troll. He needs to be permanently blocked. — Chameleon 12:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's also a comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Images of feces about his (mis)behaviour:

[...] I think Eyeon has made it very clear that regardless of the existence of an article for the purpose, he will continue to insist the image be inlined on the Feces article, and back up that insistence with bad behavior (as he has done on this vote by changing votes: [29] [30], and on the talk page by forging a vote [31] and voting as a sockpuppet [32] [33]; Eyeon admits to being 70.177.90.39 [34]) Demi ^T/_C 18:21, 2005 Jun 11 (UTC) cesarb 13:17, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No votes were forged. No sockpuppets were used. 70.177.90.39 is simply my IP address, and when I forget to log in, my edits are stamped with that. When I go back and try to sign then under my account, I get accused of vote fraud. Nice. Eyeon 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jfdwolff raised the issue of Eyeon (as 70.177.90.39) trolling: something to do with superglue and flatulence. He also wondered about Eyeon's sanity. [35] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:30, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

The smears continue. Eyeon 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Proper wiping technique can reduce this problem. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:Eyeon and User:Fecologist

I've blocked Eyeon again for 3RR at Feces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), this time using Eyeon (talk · contribs) and Fecologist (talk · contribs). Six reverts in 10 hours. I'll do the diffs if anyone wants to check them. I've also protected the page in case he comes back with another sockpuppet, but I'll leave a note on talk saying I'll unprotect if any regular user wants to edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Eyeon has e-mailed me and the mailing list insisting she's not Fecologist and asking for an IP check. More details written up by another editor on WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Fecologist is not my sockpuppet, and you should be ashamed for scaring away a newbie. Did you do the IP check? Does 'due process' mean anything to you? Eyeon 02:13, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73

Three revert rule violation on most Szczecin suburb articles: Szczecin-Lekno etc. (he reinstalled again the German name "Stettin", just in other place, so the first addition should be counted as a revert)

Reported by --Witkacy 18:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the previous dispue was on the name Stettin in the middle of the article, i looked up all the former names of the actual suburbs, and added e.g. Szczecin-Dąbie (Stettin-Altdamm) to Szczecin-Dabie. This also falls under the 3RR excemption as voted on Talk:Gdansk/Vote. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Balcer just proposed another compromise [36], which I am also perfectly fine with. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Since the previous dispue was on the name Stettin"

The previous dispute was on the name Stettin at all, not about the place for it--Witkacy 18:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This also falls under the 3RR excemption as voted on Talk:Gdansk/Vote.

Yes....., see Halibutt block above. See also: [37]--Witkacy 18:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think editors can vote to give themselves exemptions from 3RR. Have any administrators acknowledged the validity of that poll, in that regard? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

User:Chris 73

Three revert rule violation on Szczecin-Bukowo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Chris 73 (talk · contribs):

• 1st revert: 19:05, Jun 12, 2005
• 2nd revert: 19:22, Jun 12, 2005
• 3rd revert: 19:26, Jun 12, 2005
• 4th revert: 19:47, Jun 12, 2005

Reported by: Halibutt 18:19, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

See comment below report above by Witkacy. -- Chris 73 Talk 18:22, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Can you supply the diff to the version the first revert was a revert to? Otherwise the first revert could be a first edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:23, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

VfD trolls

We have had three brand new accounts created in the last two days who have all headed immediately to the VfD pages and began casting votes with no prior Wikipedia edits. You have to wonder if they're doing so to build up their Wikipedia edits in order to qualify for page moves. One of them has already been blocked for finally succumbing to vandalism after their VfD vote spree. They are ShureMicGuy (talk · contribs), ConeyCyclone (talk · contribs) and Jinkleberries (talk · contribs). Jinkleberries is the one who was blocked. RickK 23:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

Might want to add Chubby Chicken (talk · contribs) to that list. RickK 23:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

• this edit by Jinkleberries makes me a little worried because this user adds xys name to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I would also suggest taking a look at User:Melvis, User:Hohokus, and User:Toasthaven. Although they have (a few) other edits, those accounts appear to have been created primarily to vote on VfDs. Toasthaven headed straight to the VfD pages for his/her first edit, a majority of the others' edits are VfD votes. All have few edits and accounts were created within the last three weeks. Kaibabsquirrel 23:57, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, both Melvis and Hohokus deleted the welcome messages other Users put on their Talk pages, without a thank you or any other comment. RickK 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

So, we finally have it coming. I've seen quite a few even smarter new users, who, when a particular VfD starts, sit and make cosmetic edits, and then proceed to VfD. Still other accounst are dormant, but periodically reactivate during some VfD. Something must be done with the policy. It worked so far, since so far vandals are not consolidated. But I smell massive attacks coming. mikka (t) 01:12, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this is much of a problem, personally: if someone has made only a small quantity of edits someone will be sure to point that out (because the opposition is always looking for any way to disqualify a vote), and that vote will either not be counted or given reduced weight—particularly if the account's edits are only very minor ones. On the other hand, if someone wants a vote and they are willing to do a reasonable about of wiki-work so that their vote will be counted, that's fine by me; even if I don't like the vote I'd still say we're better off to have someone making good edits, even if they are opportunistic. Everyking 01:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But as I said above, and as I think Mikkalai is trying to say, these users seem to be collecting edits to give them enough valid edits to be eligible to make page moves. RickK 04:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I often wonder if it would be worth having a minimum edit requirement before you can vote on the various -fd pages (even if it's low, say 100 edits). The only groups that head straight there with little prior wiki-ing experience seem to be the creators of the pages, vandals, and sockpuppets. Grutness...wha? 05:15, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind if the author of an article on VFD would vote there. So I oppose a minimum edit requirement. When they can provide proof their page is factually correct and belongs to wikipedia in a detailed rationale, I'm all for it. It's the people that vote keep without explanation (or those who stuff votes) when all others vote delete that annoys me. (forgot to sign earlier - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC))
  • Well, there can be an explicit exception that the creator of the article gets to vote unconditionally, but for others they need to have some edits on record to show that they have some substantial interest in editing besides just that one article on VfD. Everyking 08:36, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I think we might not even need an exception for the creator, if we were to state that anyone is allowed to discuss on VFD, but only established users can vote. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Anyway. The usage of role or sock accounts for *FD voting has been alleged to in the past, and I can see it becoming a substantial problem (because if not stopped somehow, some people might react by doing the same thing to counter opposing socks). I think the only feasible way of stopping it is sockchecking. Immediate banning of suspected role accounts is too harsh since some of them would be legit, but calling for an IP check would solve that problem. I realize sockchecking is somewhat controversial because of privacy issues, but maybe we should discuss that anyway. Radiant_>|< 09:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

  I cannot see it becoming a substantial problem. We've had the problem (and the discussion) for quite some time now. The worst that can happen (has happened) is that a VfD vote gets stuffed with nonsense votes. But keep in mind it's not really a vote; the administrator who closes the discussion is who decides what happens to the article, based on the legitimate input of the community. A blanket "keep" or "delete" counts for very little (nothing if not from an established account), and "me, too" votes are usually only as strong as the original argument. IP checks are still no match for common sense. I think it would be too much to hope that we can identify a small number of people who consistently ruin votes, and ban them. Of course, if people want to spend time and effort on checking this, good for them; I think no essential solution to the problem exists, however, other than trusting in the good sense of administrators. JRM · Talk 12:39, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

  • Not entirely. The issue of a single VfD vote being spammed with socks happens occasionally (in particular when an article on a web forum is up for deletion), and isn't really a problem, since it goes away in a week's time. However, what IS a problem is users creating a secondary account for the purpose of double-voting. There has been a recent inrush of new accounts that vote on a lot of different VfD discussions. The first few times they are recognizable by their low contribs record, but after a week or so that becomes difficult. Radiant_>|< 14:21, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • VfU has a very simple and reasonable suffrage policy, as stated on Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy I can't think of any reason why the same policy couldn't/shouldn't apply to VfD as well. It would sure cut down on the sockpuppets and trolls. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:26, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, why not? ··gracefool |☺ 00:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)