You blocked this user for a violation of 3RR. While it was technically a 3RR violation, his reverts were obviously correct (the content was borderline vandalism), and this was a very inexperienced user who was likely not aware of 3RR (he didn't get any warning at all) and seemed to be editing in good faith. This block looks a little bitish. I urge you to reconsider, and to unblock and give him a 3RR warning instead (remember that you are not obliged to block for 3RR). Anyway, you're doing fine as an admin so far :) Melsaran (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reconsidering. I hope the user in question will be a little more careful from now on :). I'd actually say that the other edit warrior appeared to be a vandalism-only account, but why not AGF and see what happens after his block expires. Melsaran (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to respond... I have no issue with the block on me - I broke the 3RR so fair enough and I do appreciate the fact that it was reduced - thanks. I know about the 3RR but didn't at the start of what became the edit war. I did try to contact the other user via their Talk page and also requested a semi-protection on that page once I saw the situation was escalating. My concern was primarily that the non-encyclopaedic POV stuff would be left on there when the protection went on and I felt this was unfair to the Charity. I should say that I work for them but I have always tied to keep my contributions in keeping with Wikipedia's POV rules. I felt the stuff the other user was adding did not and could also be potentially harmful to the Charity's work.
I would have alerted others if I knew who to alert and how in this situation but my searches on Wikipedia came up dry - perhaps I am looking in the wrong place. Can you enlighten me please? Ta Crimperman08:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC) (talk)[reply]
Just so you know it seems the other user came back and inserted the same POV into the same page ( Contact a Family- although in a different place. I have corrected that now but I do not want to get into an edit war. I have also requested admin assistance. Crimperman08:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - thanks for the advice. I thought that persistent POV editing was vandalism? Not been through a dispute on here before so your help is appreciated. :o) Crimperman12:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in here if that's okay ... Vandalism is defined as an edit or actiom that intentionally damages the quality of the encyclopedia. POV editing violates policy and needs to be corrected, but it's rare that the editor is doing so for vandalistic motives; more commonly he or she just doesn't realize for whatever reason that the material isn't NPOV. "Vandalism" can be an inflammatory word that leads to making disputes more bitter rather than resolving them, so it should not be used except where it clearly applies. Hope this helps and good luck resolving the issue you're involved in. Newyorkbrad12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. I did understand that and I wasn't being argumentative when I asked the question you responded to. I was just checking. I've taken Penwhale's advice on board and won't be calling POV vandalism any more :o). The other user has been given a final warning by an admin and hopefully that's all that is needed now although it does appear the account was created to insert this POV stuff. Crimperman10:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I unblocked him early for his 3RR vio on 1929 hebron massacre. If you object, please go ahead and reblock, with my apologies. Jaakobou explained what happened to me, and it appears that he is inserting valid sourced information into the article, which is being reverted without so much as a reason why, with the other user logging out to attempt to bypass 3RR. As I see it, removing sourced information is vandalism, which is an exception to the 3RR; however even without that, I felt that he was apologetic enough to warrant an unblocking. Please let me know if there are any problems. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.23:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thanks to you both for handling this matter. I am puzzled or bothered by one thing in Swatjester's account, which is Jaakobou's claim that the reverts are "without so much as a reason why" -- if I'm not mistaken these reverts directly concern the disputed sources in the 3O discussion. There, the opposing party is clearly giving reasons. While Jaakobou may not like said reasons, the point is to discuss, not to revert or edit war as if the information is sourced. Do you see what I mean? Again, I leave the blocking decision up to you folks. Thanks muchly. HG | Talk00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't do much about their edit summaries, but I apologize for not being more clear about this in my 3RR request. Thanks for your work on this. HG | Talk01:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Since it was a 24 hour block, I don't think there's any action further to be taken really, other than us not cluttering up Penwhale's talk page any longer. As a note HG, other unblocking processes beyond the unblock template, include m:OTRS Unblock queue, unblock-en-l mailing list, and #wikipedia-en-unblock IRC channel. Penwhale, my apologies for holding an extended conversation on your talk page, that's rude of me to do.⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.04:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the page protection had already gotten them talking a bit differently. Shameless pitch: If you (or your readers) know any third parties who would like to comment at Hebron, that would help. Thanks again for the protection & your efforts, Penwhale. HG | Talk12:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
您好/どうぞよろしくJust for the record. I was waiting for a 3RR block on my page, and on Jaakobou's page, withholding further editing, and none appeared. I had denounced myself for violating the rule, inadvertently, because I do have trouble with it, and no one seemed to notice. HG took the case up, and apparently only Jaakobou got the rap (though there is no evidence he was blocked on his page). It took me sometime to clarify the mystery, since I am not familiar, and do not much care about denunciation pages at arbitration sites, preferring to simply argue my differences with other editors on the page. It's unfortunate that, by initiating a self-block, I involved a block on another editor while I got off scot-free. In my day doing that makes me look like a 'dobber'. Regards/晚安 Nishidani16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bother. A request for clarification. Can a person who has been blocked appeal privately to another administrator, (I can see no record on User_talk:Swatjester's page, or Jaakobou's page of any complaint registered about the action, though Swatjester's remarks indicate Jaakobou did contact him?), and can that administrator then act without a public record being given on the appropriate pages? Perhaps I have missed something, but I like to keep my records straight,(and my record straight) and have failed to find a trace of Penwhale's 24 hr block, and the subsequent cancellation of that block on Wiki. (I suspect it is my incompetence). Nishidani17:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About your first comment: I had a checkuser to check who the IP was, and it didn't match you, so you didn't violate 3RR. Second, some administrators regularly patrols WP:AN3 and will investigate on their own. Also, Jaakobou could've emailed Swatjester. The lack of warning is fault on my part. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps17:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way.
Passed 5-0 at 20:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't over-react
22.1) Wikipedia users and administrators are expected to have made a realistic appraisal of the risks involved in volunteering for Wikipedia, to take appropriate precautions, and to deal with external pressures in a mature way. For example, it is predictable that Wikipedia and its users will from time to time be subjected to harsh, and occasionally unfair, criticism. This comes with the territory, and it is unseemly, even ridiculous, to react harshly to predictable phenomena.
You warned this user last month that the restrictions imposed by the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 Arbcom decison now apply to him/her as well; however, the user made two reverts today without discussion:[1], [2]. I know this is a violation since I have been blocked before for reverting without discussion.--ΕυπάτωρTalk!!19:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have also locked that page. I have been watching Race of Ancient Egyptians for some time now. I am amazed that no wikipedian involved on that page has engaged a professional egyptologist to help in the matter (I know several myself). I think Dbachmann was not being a bully as some have suggested. He was simply asking that scholarly mainstream sources be used when writing WP articles and that highly controversial speculation be separated from well-established scholarship. That kind of maverickspeculation has very little place in an encyclopedia. He brilliantly rescued European people, which became European ethnic groups, by his hard and patient work: he completely and masterfully rewrote the article. The same problem has now appeared at Race of Ancient Egyptians. It sends out a very strange message when you start reacting to editors/administrators like this in such a hasty way, when you clearly were not fully aware of the academic [rather than procedural] issues involved here. BTW why did you become an administrator if you didn't want people to talk to you on your talk page? --Mathsci07:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, the spirit of 3RR is to prevent edit-warring. He made some edits but provided no detailed explanation on the talk page, which does not help in any cases. That page is currently protected, not by me, though I think that I could've page-protected instead of blocking him. Second, I've came to an agreement with dbachmann, so I consider this incident over (i.e., I don't want to have to explain myself over and over). He does brilliant work, but that is still no excuse for violating various policies. Calling other editors trolling never won someone an argument. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: 3RR
Phew! Well THATS a relief. If I was blocked I'd have nothing to do tomorrow XD
I thought It might of been unnecessary, but after I had to move to Mexico for calling my father an idiot, (seriously), I kinda learned that, if I intentionally break a rule, I should be prepared to face the consequences. ;D So sorry. Just felt I had to. Dengarde ► Complaints 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Penwhale. We seem to have achieved a stable edit among the editors of this article. I don't think we need to worry about another edit war on this particular issue. If you'd care to look over the appropriate section of the talk page, and at your discretion, remove the full protection. Thanks. Coreycubed20:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. At the time of request, things seemed quiet. From the looks of the talk page though and achieving WP:LAME, I'd have to agree with the full prot! Coreycubed21:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Given your recent good advice on my talk page, where is the best place to respond to this? I don't really wish to encourage Perspicacite in his pattern of behaviour and leave half-truths and false accusations unchallenged, but, equally, it seems unfair to raise this other than on his talk page while he is blocked and can not respond elsewhere. I'd welcome a judgement of Solomon. Alice.S 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll trust that competent and diligent folks like yourself, Henry, will keep an eye on things and defend my integrity - if necessary, and as I've already seen happening.
I guess I just wrongly assumed that this site was just too big to keep an eye on every problematic user.
With one exception, I'll just stick to what I came here to do - try and make a better encyclopedia by improving articles that I can improve and leave the guidance and social aspects to other, much more experienced, folks.
I like your picture by the way, even though it makes you look a bit militaristic - do you work out?Alice.S 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, do you know a good on-line source for explaining current idiomatic US English?
With a couple of notable exceptions ([3],
[4]) User:Perspicacite seems to be better behaved recently. I do hope we can continue to educate him as to our most important policies, so that the the stress levels of other editors are reduced, since he can be quite diligent at times. Alice.S 07:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher had banned User:Tajik with no reason. Now, he is accusing me of being Tajik, while I am not. User:Tajik lives in Hamburg. He has even used various IPs from the University of Hamburg; the same IP was also used by the Wikipedia admin known as User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who is also German and works at the University of Hamburg. In fact, he and Tajik know each other in person (ask him if you do not believe me). I am writing to you from Kassel in Hessia (if you check my IP, you'll see that I am right) - I know Tajik from various forums (I am also from Afghanistan, just like him). Thatcher's claim that Tajik is the same person as User:Tajik-Professor is more than rediculous. Thatcher simply needed a reason to ban Tajik in order to support his favourite Wikipedian: User:Atabek. And because Thatcher did not have ANY proofs, he simply took the similar name to accuse Tajik. Everyone who had followed Tajik's edits knows that User:Tajik-Professor was a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand. His edits are totally contradictory to those of Tajik, and various socks of NisarKand had already vandalized Tajik's page. Tajik has requested twice an unblock in order to explain his situation, but Thatcher has refused to give him a chance. Instead, he is continuing to further expand his pointless accusations. Interestingly, last week, User:DerDoc was also banned as a suspected sockpuppet of Tajik. The funny part is that DerDoc is a medical doctor from Vienna in Austria, using 193.xxx IPs. Any checkuser file would prove this simple fact. But like in the case of Tajik, DerDoc, too, was banned without any checkuser file. Not even NisarKand (this time in the shape of User:Rabeenaz) claims that DerDoc is Tajik, although he has (with the active support of Atabek, as one can see in his contributions' history) tagged various accounts without any permission, claiming that all of them are socks of Tajik - just like Atabek. Prior to DerDoc's case, another user, namely User:German-Orientalist, a German Iranologist from Dortmund, was also banned because of the same reason. The only proof against him was a weak checkuser result, saying that a link to Tajik would be possible. Interestingly, Thatcher - the one who has banned Tajik because of false accusations and whose wrongs have been exposed - was enganged in almost all of the cases mentioned above. I've talked to User:E104421 who was part of the ArbCom which endorsed Tajik's ban, and he was shcked as well, because it was very clear from the beginning on that he and the ArbCom were used by certain admins to get Tajik banned. In order to muzzle Tajik, admin Thatcher131 used a wrong accusation against him and got him banned. In the following process, Tajik was prevented (by Thatcher) from defending himself in the ArbCom, and was banned indef. The same Thatcher131 did not mind to ban known vandals of the Azerbaijan-Armenia ArbCom for only 1 year, even though many of them used sockpuppets. However, in case of Tajik, only one wrong accusation of Thatcher was enough to get him banned forever. This is very very very very very suspicious and does very much look like a conspiracy against User:Tajik. And everything points to admin Thatcher:
Thatcher131 initiated an ArbCom along with a few others
Thatcher131 made up wrong accusations against Tajik (i.e. that Tajik is Tajik-Professor, a claim that has been proven wrong twice since then!)
With this accusation, Thatcher got Tajik banned and prevented him from defending himself in the ArbCom
Thatcher's accusations also forced the judges to endorse Tajik's ban (the same ban that was initiated by Thatcher)
7 checkuser files were requested against Tajik, and 90% either proved that the accusations were wrong, or did not have clear results (... possible ..., ... likely ...', ...unlikely ...), the other 10% were rejected anyway
Thatcher refuses to request a checkuser file in case of DerDoc, German-Orientalist, and Tajik-Professor. The reason is very simple: since these 3 people are NOT the same person, they CANNOT be Tajik's socks at the same time. That means that Thatcher's accusations are wrong, and that he abused his admin rights to get a user banned whom he did not like (or maybe what he had to say).
Thatcher's edits seem to be coordinated with those of Atabek. And Atabek's edits are certainly coordinated with those of User:Rabeenaz. Anyway, this case needs to be investigated. Other admins need to take a look at this, and many other Wikipedians need to urge neutral admins to have a look at Tajik's case, and Thatcher's admin rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.177.136 (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I responded on my user talk page. Please do not support socks in their troling of me, it won't do the project any good nor any of us. Thanks, SqueakBox01:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you wish to continue on in this vain I suggest mediation as step on dispute resolution, otherwise it'll be rfc for failure to understand your recently acquired admin responsibilities, as your approach is a troll dream, ie assume good faith when you know you are dealing with a sock, and I think this editor sums it up well. Thanks, SqueakBox01:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't want this to be personal, I'm out for the night right now but will be back, as ever. Best wishes and hope you appreciate I am not disobeying your requests. Thanks, SqueakBox01:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification but please do not assume I cannot make accusations on the relevant talk pages, that is the place to do it and while I am not 100% accurate I am 95%; from your track record you are strongly opposed to trolling on wikipedia so I look forward to co-operating with you in ensuring that no trolling blocked users (PPA or APA) troll the PAW pages ever again. Thanks, SqueakBox02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Betacommand has been tracking a particular set of linkspams, and this IP address falls within the range that he asked me to block, which I did after looking at some of the contributions. You'll be able to get a much more detailed idea from Betacommand, though. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps09:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
