The featre article has been vandalized with pornography when the article is opened.—The precedingunsigned comment was added by216.227.90.99 (talk)01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I think the best way for requesting protection, semi-protection of article is onWP:RFP. Thanks.Daniel5127<Talk>04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think this page was indeed the most appropriate place to report this. I don't think this was a request for protection, but rather a notice that severe image vandalism (via templates, I'm sure) had hit Today's Featured Article. This page receives far more attention than theWP:RFP page and was, in my opinion, the best location to quickly alert a watchful admin. --tariqabjotu04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this can be fixed only with admin authority.

This article (redirect) was nominated for deletion on November 23 2006:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard (fantasy). The result was keep, and the chief reason was that the edit history had to be preserved.

The Wikipedian who proposed the delete has now moved the article toList of wizards in fantasy (and redirected it to a new article), and then created a brand-newWizard (fantasy) redirect, which is naturally lacking the history. This seems to me to violate the spirit of the deletion request. I asked if there was a reason why the edit history was thus being cut off, and the Wikipedian has not responded, despite being on Wikipedia. (EditedMagician.)

(This has occured in the midst of -- spirited discussions about the place it should be redirected it, after equally spirited discussions about its content had led to the creation ofMagicians in fantasy.)Goldfritha01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion is atTalk:List_of_wizards_in_fantasy (long). Themajor edit history for what used to beWizard (fantasy) now resides atthe history for List of wizards in fantasy. Lookhere for the first version of the 'Wizard (fantasy)' article. The edit history is still there, but becoming increasingly hard to trace through all these splits, merges, redirects and moves. I might use this as a case study for how to trace the edit history of a sample piece of text through numerous moves and redirects. As for how to resolve this, I have suggested before that the editors involved sit down and plan the final article structure they are aiming at, rather than stumbling blindly along, arguing as they go. Otherwise they are destined to end up onWP:LAME. The sad thing is, there is some good content there, if they could just concentrate on editing it. Sorry to sound so negative.Carcharoth03:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why use it as a case history? Why not just take "Wizard (fantasy)"'s history and put it back at "Wizard (fantasy)"? No reason was given for splitting the article and its history up, even after I asked.

That was all that would be suitable for administrator intervention. The discussion of what is the final structure is ongoing.Goldfritha04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the point where text was cut and pasted fromWizard (fantasy) to several other locations. You probably want to readWikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves. I think this is a complicated case though, too complicated I fear for a simple history merge to fix. You might just have to let this one go. If there is a 'history merge specialist' admin around, I'd second your call for them to have a look into the histories, just to see if they can untangle anything.Carcharoth04:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Carcharoth, I am referring the event that just happened: namely, the moving of "Wizard (fantasy)" to "List of wizards in fantasy" and the creation of a new "Wizard (fantasy)". What is so complicated about that? Remove the new "Wizard (fantasy)" and move the old one back.Goldfritha04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that? :-) Sorry, it's a bit confusing keeping track of all the moves and different names. Sorry, I'm fresh out of ideas. Hope someone else can help.Carcharoth04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

YodachuThis article keeps being deleted then recreated, each time it contains either nonsense or personal attacks.Request article locked from being created and user block. (I don't know if this is the right place to list this)Oliver20206:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Locked.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}06:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have had it withNixer (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and his use of sockpuppets to POV push against the concensus onAxis Powers.

Suspected socks

• Planemo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
• CaesarRosso (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Nixer has a milelong blocklog and isnot a user in good standing.Here he is seen changing his signature because he accidently logged on as Nixer instead of Planemo. This was after a series of account changes by him that morning.here CaesarRosso is seen removing my question about this strange change of signature. He has been invited to talk about his proposed reorganization of the article which is currently against concensus and from previous edit warring we know that such edits must be discussed first. Nixer knows all this already though as he has participated in the development of the article during that period. he is using his socks in bad faith. Also note thatUser:Zoe had previously blocked him for sockpuppetry in December and that the account Planemo has been used on the same articles that triggered that block but this was not discovered at the time so the block was reverted by another admin. Nixers history of abuse is mile long and this needs to end now. No more temporary blocks that he can just evade using sockpuppets. The Planemo account has been used to evade Nixer's previous blocks and it went undiscovered until I caught him in the act when he changed the signature on the talk page. I'll refrain from reverting him until this is settled by the community.MartinDK08:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I must concur that Nixer has used sockpuppets to edit war in the past, as when I was more involved with the astronomy articles during thedwarf planet ruckus this summer. I had requested a checkuser performed on himhere in which it was proven that he did use a sockpuppet to game 3RR. I would suggest that another checkuser be performed to prove or disprove this fact, just toassume good faith despite his massive blocklog.—Ryūlóng ()08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmsPlanemo (talk ·contribs) andGhuter (talk ·contribs) are the same as Nixer, but probably not CaesarRosso.Dmcdevit·t08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Planemo and Ghuter as sockpuppets.Luna Santin10:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This person should have been banned 3 months ago,[1]. —Centrx→talk •08:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that it is proven, what should be done?—Ryūlóng ()08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The two sockpuppets are blocked courtesy of Luna Santin, and this "request" has been added toWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nixer. Cheers,Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I recommend an indefinitecommunity ban for Nixer. He should have been indefblocked long ago, has a history of over 30 blocks, - see hisblock log - and has now used socks to edit war. It's time we got rid of him once and for all.Moreschi^Deletion!10:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. User's net contribution to Wikipedia has been consistently negative.Proto::►13:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit warring is continuing now using an ip instead of an account[2]. Also I findthis rather strange. Where are the socks he keeps asking knowing perfectly well who they are.MartinDK15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those weren't his socks. Those socks belonged toUser:Jacob Peters, currently blocked for quite a while. In retrospect it probably would have been better if Zoe's indef from that time round had been allowed to stand. Then we wouldn't have to waste all our time yet again, though this should be permanent.Moreschi^Deletion!16:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

You better make sure Nearly Headless Nick is in agreement or he'll unblock unilaterally. Irpen should probably be involved in that discussion, as well.User:Zoe|(talk)16:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement; however, I do not block users for a *singular* edit they make and then cynically accuse them of meatpuppetry, without any authority to do so. —10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. -Merzbow19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. While he contributes, his block log stemming from 3RR is way too long to continue to remain unnoticed.—Ryūlóng ()20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I blockedUser:Nixer indefinitely. —Centrx→talk •22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the community ban, and give my support for the action (which has been implemented).Daniel.Bryant^{[ T · C ]}23:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello,A user Mr.Kannambadi is removing the cited info from everywhere . I have given all details of my citation, page numbers, translation if applicatble. he is removing the Google book citations continuously even when i gave him the link of wikipedia which says google books are allowed. Please checkrashtrakutaschalukyagangasYadavas of devagiri etc. Despite repeated requests on the concerned talk pages he is blatantly removing the info.Vishu12307:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to give some diffs. On the Yadavas page, it is a bot that is reverting you, not Mr. Kannambadi. And if there is a dispute, please take it todispute resolution —Lost^(talk)07:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the proofs

Yadavas of devagiri[3][4][5][6][7][8]

Rashtrakutas[9][10][11][12]

Chalukyas[13][14]

Gangas[15][16]

Vishu12311:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

WAS (not me)spends almost all his time here editinghis homepage andvandalizing. He's WAS. I'mWAS 4.25006:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I sawWas (Not Was) live once. Long time ago...Guy(Help!)14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle this. I noticedJoel Puritan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log)'s edits toBriefs, one of which was already reverted. Basically it was to add a picture of a boy in briefs. Looking at his contributions, he also uploaded at least one more boy in briefs pic and created an unreferenced articleBrip.

I can't tell if this is the normal Briefs vandal stuff with another tack, or what...so I decided to bring it here and see what others think.Syrthiss11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet of the users who keep on trying to bringBriefsism back as an article - or a "briefs vandal" sockpuppet. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the two. --SunStar Net^talk14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blockedUser:A very cunning fellow for issuing death threats[17]. He has requested for an unblock, though it seems obvious he is a returning vandal. I leave it to another admin to review —Lost^(talk)13:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a good block to me.>Radiant<14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The user "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" removed my POV tag on theJesus article and they when I asked him why on his talk page he ignored me, erased my comment and added the following comment: "troll elsewhere, please" Is there an administrator I can talk to. This is the comment I left on his page "The Jesus article has been taken over by religious Christians who refuse to let any information on the page that might contradict what the gospels says. The previous edit included sourced statements from various non-Christian sources on Jesus from ancient times. This article should therefore have a POV tag or the edit should be restored. This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article base on facts not beliefs. Why was the POV tag removed?"Zonaras13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that there are POV issues withinany article, please address them on the talk page first. That your second edit to any actual article was the addition of a POV template concerns me.[18] That you appear to be asingle purpose account created for circumventingWP:3RR on behalf of Disco79 concerns me even more.[19][20][21][22] No matter, slapping{{NPOV}} and walking away is not helpful nor constructive.Can't sleep, clown will eat me13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch.Syrthiss14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And the CheckUser results are in. Zonaras has been indefinitely blocked.Can't sleep, clown will eat me14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

65.0.104.154 is on a personal crusade to rid wikipedia of external links, as seen in his contrbution history [[23]]. I tried reporting him twice for vandalism, the first time was more of a content dispute. This second time, they said to come to this board instead. (Result of first report as noted on mytalk page). In particular, this dispute refers to something started on 30 December, when I reverted some of his edits and told him he was ignoring the consensus on the talk page. (see our exchange on [[24]] 30 December in our edit comments). I reported him to the talk page of the article and added a Keep vote to the ongoing vote on that page. [[25]] If you scroll through the subsequent edits to that page, he changed my vote (forged a comment by me) [[26]] and then took it upon himself to decide the consensus was delete [[27]] even though he's not in the Cocktails project. I don't see how that's NOT vandalism, but I bring the issue here in order to try to get some satisfaction.He's been warned for messing with external links previously on his talk page [[28]] as as he notes on my talk page he changes ips. I propose a permanent ban and then ban of any IPs used in the future.Nardman119:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked for a week for blatant vandalism. I also rolled back removals of external links, but no other edits.User:Zoe|(talk)20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism is unacceptable, but the user's contributions in terms of removing spam links are unassailable. He has done a great service in removing AdSense-driven and other useless and unencyclopedic links from the encyclopedia. I don't see what use a Webcomic strip has being in an external link to a cocktail anyway - is it adding encyclopedic information perWP:EL? Well, not that I can tell.FCYTravis22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe, did you even look at the links you rolled back?Half Every single one of them was horrible, horrible spam junk. I propose that this user's block be significantly shortened - we have failed toassume good faith here. The accusation of "forged a comment by me" is nonsense - I don't think he understands our Talk page conventions. The vast majority of his contributions are extremely good grunt work.FCYTravis22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly say editing a comment by me from "Keep" to "Delete" is anything other than a forgery? Then posting a ridiculous "consensus" of delete based on the forgery? That's deliberate vandalism.Nardman106:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Nardman,this comment is compleatly unacceptable. SeeWP:NPA. ---J.S^(T/C)23:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted.Nardman123:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the block to 24 hours, with credit for time already served. I find that a one-week block is extremely excessive in this case, given that zero warnings were issued and the dispute stems from a good-faith effort to clean up the encyclopedia.FCYTravis02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Note: I am the person who originally posted the link most contested by this user atList of cocktails.

FCYTravis, there are a few things here that I think you should be aware of about this person.

1. You said "I don't think he understands our Talk page conventions." However, the userstates "I've been removing spam links from wikipedia for years,". It seems logical that given the length of time the user has been performing such edits, s/he would have become familiar with Talk page conventions. Surely he has been around long enough to know that he should not publicly misrepresent another user as he/she did toUser:Nardman1.
2. The user has a "hit and run" style of editing that is extremely frustrating. An example outside of the cocktails space is found atKimbo Slice, where the user reverted repeatedly (with more and more heated edit summaries), rather than engaging in dialog. Attempts to draw the user into any kind of dialog fail. It is only after discussions with an administrator that the user speaks up, though with the clear understanding that s/he does not care to engage in conversation. See talk pages atAnonEMouse andNardman1 and theList of cocktails.I was the one who originally posted the original dissenting vote on behalf of the user in that straw poll, just to be sure that his/her concerns were expressed (since s/he seems too shy or too stubborn to discuss anything unless it's in defense of his/her actions).
3. You also said that "the user's contributions in terms of removing spam links are unassailable", but I shall attempt to do just that:
   1. The primary link in question is "1001cocktails - Comprehensive mixed drinks recipe database with ratings". The user incorrectly and without basis accuses me of being affiliated with this site because I support its inclusion. Therefore, any comments concerning its value are obviously highly suspect and are therefore disregarded out of hand. I am not, and never have been affiliated in any way with the site except as a casual Web browser who found the site through Google searching. The reasons I am Google searching cocktails is because I have nearly single-handedly undertaken a massive cleanup and improvement campaign (withUser:Nardman1's recent assistance and other people on a more article-by-article basis), involving nearly 1,000 edits in December alone. Trying to dig up useful, encyclopedic information, along with attempting to determine which drinks are legitimate and which are cruft or entirely make believe, I visit a lot of sites. The one site I visit nearly daily, is1001cocktails. Their ratings system helps me quickly identify the relative popularity and notability of the drinks. The recipes are written in a generally non-biased preference for brand names of ingredients. There is little 3rd-party advertising, no pop-ups, and minimal if any distracting animation on the pages. Yes, the site does sell bar supplies, but it also offers daily news and a discussion board (both in French, which I do not speak, so I cannot vouch for the quality of the information). The user claims this is strictly a spam site, but that is completely inaccurate, since they did not "spam" Wikipedia and do not send unsolicited commercial e-mails (there is no registration required to access the drink recipes). I am not proposing inclusion of this site on every page, but in the external links section on each of the related list pages (List of cocktails,Mixed drink shooters and drink shots,Beer mix,Wine mix,Flaming beverages, andNon-alcoholic mixed drinks), I think it is a very good option to include. These are pages that people visit to find lots of drinks. Wedo not want Wikipedia to become an all-inclusive list of every cocktail known to man, so why not point people to a good list of over 2,000 recipes with ratings.
   2. The user removes links that are used as sources for statements. In several cases, the sites used as sources for the statements are weak, but simply removing the source without locating a new one or adding a {{fact)) tag is potentially more harmful than leaving the link to a weak source, or more onerous to the user, is a site with Google Ads on it.
      1. [29] - The statements that were sourced with the links sound far-fetched without any citation. The sources are weak, but it does show that the statements were not made up from thin air.
      2. [30] - Removal of several of these links resulted in the article becoming completely non-sourced legends. S/he opted to defend the removal with "the only links removed were all ad driven spam links or links to pages with ZERO content on them related to the article"[31]. This was not true, because I visited the sites in question and easily found links directly to the source information[32] used in the article. Doing a little research is far better than arbitrarily deleting a link that serves as the basis for an entire section of the article. As a side note, I was very concerned that my work in locating those links would be reverted by the user, which, I feel is part of the user's intention.
      3. [33] - a valid reference to a pop culture use of the topic, and easily found at[34], despite stating "no reference on that site", which implies s/he attempted to do so.
   3. The user also regularly deletes links to very valid and on-topic information. The only reason the links appear to be removed is that the site in question uses Google AdSense ads, which the user seems to find highly offensive. I do not believe thatWP:CITE or any other policy explicitly forbids linking to sites using Google Ads, but this user appears determined to remove such sites from the Wikipedia.
      1. [35] - Removal of a seemingly very informative and scientific article on the topic of back pain (the article from which it was linked). While I can't vouch for the medical or scientific accuracy of the article, that is not the reason for which it was deleted: "remove ad driven spam link". There is nothing spammy about the news article. There are ads surrounding the news article, but the article appears legit.
      2. [36] - Same situation as the previous. The article appears very newsworthy, but was "removed spam link to ad driven MFA site (Made For Adsense)" regardless of the quality of the article. It is this blind fixation on ignoring content and focusing on delivery that includes ads as the sole reason for removal that is so frustrating.
      3. [37] - Another link to a perfectly good article was removed. The dead link should have been removed, and that was a good edit.
      4. [38] - And another good article removed.
      5. [39] - And another (with some good edits, too).
      6. [40] - Removal of a fully-referenced Google Answers site directly related to the article in question, as well as removal of the same source of directly-related, informative articles listed above. Reason for deletion: "removed link to a non-medical forum, and spam link to ad driven MFA site (Made For Adsense)". Google Answers is not a "forum", but a place where people respond to direct questions, usually with well documented justification behind their answers (as was this case). The article on thatoh-so-offensive MFA site was very informative, too, which s/he should have noticed if s/he had not been blinded by the inclusion of Ad Sense links.
      7. [41] - And again.
      8. [42] - Reason: "rm spam link". This one is iffy. The site provides "Latest Roth IRA News, Glossary, Articles, Discussion" in a blog format. The articles generally vary like any blog between insightful and informative to silly quizzes. However, the given reason of "rm spam link" seems a little harsh, since the site actually provides useful information mixed with fluff. The reason I would agree with the user is because the site does not really appear notable or one of the "best in its class", but until a better link can be found, the information seems better than nothing. Why not mention it on the talk page so that others can keep an eye out for a better link with which to replace it.
      9. [43] - Reason: "removed ad driven spamlink, unofficial links claiming to be official". Itis a fansite (and was so-labeled in the link and on the site itself), and probably should be removed, but why the part about it claiming to be official when nothing did? Misleading edit summaries are very annoying, and appear to be used to suppress any dissenting opinions (as s/he has repeatedly tried with the 1001cocktails link).
   4. [44]] - The user contributions page of the prior IP address used. I'm sure more examples could be found, but this should be plenty to show how much disruption the user caused in only about a week. To be fair, I have only pointed out the edits that were poor decisions in my opinion. The user made several other edits that were quite good. It's just that there can never be any disagreement concerning his/her decisions.
4. Finally, while it certainly isn't required for contributors or editors to register an account, it would seem that someone who has been around Wikipedia "for years", doing as much supposedly beneficial work for improving Wikipedia, would wish to have an account so that s/he can establish his/her edit history and stand behind his/her actions. Instead, the user has already changed from one anonymous IP (68.155.70.148) to another (65.0.104.154), making analysis of edit histories much more difficult. And there is no way to tell if there were other anonymous IPs before that. Since the earliest contribution for the prior address only goes back to August, and since the user claims to have been editing "for years", it is logical to assume that there have been other addresses. I'm sure that this is a frustration that administrators have to deal with all the time, because it makes it very difficult to tell if a user is truly familiar with Wiki policies or not, and thus how far and how fast to escalate actions. Given the user's own admission of editing "for years", I would say that the usershould be aware of policies and procedures, though s/he appears to take little concern for them until earning the ire of an admin. The speed at which the user locates complaints to admins, and then quickly defends him/herself, is another sign that the useris fully aware of proper procedures, but chooses to ignore them until s/he has to be troubled with them.

In summary, this userdoes do a lot of good by cleaning up articles that nobody else seems inclined to deal with. S/he has a unique view on what is and is not acceptable for linking to from Wikipedia, and rabidly enforces that opinion through slow-motion edit wars, name calling and derogatory edit summary comments, and intimidation. The user does not enter into dialog, preferring to engage in one-way conversation only when necessary to defend him/herself, resorting to impersonation and defacement of other users to achieve his/her goals. Sometimes the user's acts of removing "spam links" leaves articles without sources, without any indication that the statement should be sourced, and never (in the edit history available) seeks to replace poor sources with better ones. Remove and revert appear to be the motto of this user. Even assuming good faith, it is pretty difficult to remain convinced that the user is acting without knowledge of proper procedure given his/her stated length of time editing at Wikipedia and solid grip on how to identify and defend him/herself against any administrative actions. --Willscrlt05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Note:70.149.186.6 appears to be the same user with a different IP address (to circumvent the block?). I am basing that on yet again removing the 1001Cocktails link while it is under discussion as well as other edits the user has made that match the previous editing profiles. --Willscrlt08:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've place a {{multipleIPs}} warning on the talk page of 70.149.186.6. It should be noted that all 3 IPs used by the vandal reverse DNS to Bellsouth DSL in Baton Rouge, LA. I ask an admin to punish this vandal for ban evasion and vandalism, by continuing to ignore the talk page of theList of Cocktails article.Nardman113:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now he's using yet another IP,70.149.171.13 which resolves to bellsouth.net in Baton Rouge, LA. And he's once again insisting he has consensus based on voting 3 times with anonymous IPs.Nardman115:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FCYTravis, by unilterally reducing the block, has tacitly accepted responsibility for this person's edits. I will wash my hands of the problem and let FCYTravis address the consequences.User:Zoe|(talk)16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This anon user:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.157.107.88

is making arbitrary changes without discussing them and insulting other users. Just have a look at his history, especially the older 50.Veritas et Severitas03:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact is this unregistered user seems to feel that his point of view is so strong that he has the right to made reverts on details where the community already reached a consensus in the Talk Page, or things he simply doesn't like, without discussing them with other users. His agenda is to delete the same specific information in several articles, as an unregistered contributor. Some of the articles where he's acting have set a good example of dispute resolution and etiquette, and it would be a shame to see them protected just because of this. I really still hope he rethinks his unpleasant behaviour and becomes an active user of the Talk Pages where he could say why he would change some contents. I'm sure he would be considered since he seems to have a strong opinion. By now, he's an obstacle. --Ravenloft11:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

yes i will back up veritas on this, he has been making many changes to ethnic group pages without discussion, he has even abused alun in the past with insults. --Globe0117:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As you can see from thehistory page for Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, user SNIyer12, constantly edits in his quote about a red rose in Zelda's hand, and vandalizing the page by removing large bits of it, and replacing it with a mention that Zelda II is nintendo's version of Sleeping Beauty. This annoying, and nearly endless vandalism should be put to an end!--Havermayer07:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He/She hasn't done this in a couple of days, but looking through their edit history they seem to have something of an aversion to actually using talk pages. I don't know if I'd call this vandalism exactly, but it is edit warring with a strongWP:TE flavor. I'd say a warning from an admin to use talk pages before engaging in edit reversions is in order.User:SNIyer12 has a pretty long edit history and seems to have made some real contributions here (though they seem to have a problem understanding fair use, wikiformatting andWP:OR), so I'm not sure a block is the right thing to do at this point. If they ignore a warning and continue though that would be a different story.--Isotope2316:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This guy was originallyDormantfascist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) who's had various re-incarnations and had a few wikistalking fantasies about me. He knows very well about Deletion Review, yet he has been re-creating his nonsense article which got deleted on AfD many times with slightly different names (to mention a few:[45],[46],[47][48]), highly uncivil at any attempt to get him to take it to a proper deletion review instead. Eventually he resorted to vandalism and requesting my account password. He has no good faith and his latest 1 month block won't help him. He is here to spread his fascist propaganda and has shown no hint at gettingWP:CIVIL,WP:NPOV, norWP:VAND. I could go through and compose a cocktail of diffs, but instead just look through these accounts that I know of (there are more I'm sure, and more IPs):

• Dormantfascist (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (indef block, though quite long ago)
• American Fascist Party (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (indef block)
• Articlecleanser (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (indef block)
• 69.69.161.252 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 71.50.225.74 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 76.1.32.137 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 76.1.33.197 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 76.1.39.208 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• LeoniDb (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (latest 1 month block)

He is a troll, a vandal and a liar, with no good faith in him. I don't see why he should be allowed to waste any more time here after his latest 1 month block expires. He needs afull community ban.--203.109.209.4910:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support such a ban. I've been dealing with LeoniDb and related parties for awhile atCorpus Christi School (Pennsylvania) and to a lesser extent,Chambersburg, Pennsylvania.Metros23214:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Has a Checkuser been done on all those IPs? I didn't go through all of them, butUser:LeoniDb appears to be a pureWP:TROLL account. AddWP:LEGAL to that as well perthis edit, which is almost funny in regards the complete misunderstanding of the Constitutional concept of free speech (assuming this person is in the U.S.A)... but is vandalism none the less. indef onUser:LeoniDb is warrented I think and any of the underlying IPs that a checkuser ties to that account as well.--Isotope2314:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO more than 50% of LeoniDb's edits are in bad faith, he should be indefblocked as a vandalaccount. Support community ban anyway.Alex Bakharev18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not need checkuser on IP's - the contribution's pattern is quite clear. I have blockedUser:76.1.39.208 all others are either blocked already or did not edited for monthsAlex Bakharev18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been dealing with a user who uses a variety of IPs from Georgia (USA) to introduce subtle misinformation into articles. The vandalism is usually pretty clear to someone who knows how to spot it- the user will change a relatively minor but crucial detail in an article, such as a member of the voicecast. From then, he/she proceeds to the voicecast member's article and changes it accordingly. Eventually, the user runs the gamut of related articles and it leads to a headache. Here are a few IPs I've had to deal with (in chronological order, top to bottom):

• 72.152.122.195 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 168.9.128.170 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 168.9.128.3 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 168.9.128.157 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 168.9.128.173 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 24.181.65.251 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)
• 72.152.109.155 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)

I wasn't quite sure where to take this, so I brought it here. --Wafulz22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It may beWP:LTA#SpongeBob/The Shining vandal, orMascotGuy.68.39.174.23822:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This user tends to focus on cast lists and is pretty much exclusively based out of Georgia. --Wafulz23:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the perp then, but suggest checking to see if any of the IPs used are proxies, which may be blocked.68.39.174.23819:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Made the following two edits:[49] and[50]. Might want to keep an eye on this editor. -Ta bu shi da yu17:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that it is the actual title of the report, with a zero instead on letter O.[51] and please read the actual pdf before calling someone vandal.SYSS Mouse17:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a simple misunderstanding.HighInBC^{(Need help?Ask me)}17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely, my full apologies towards SYSS Mouse. -Ta bu shi da yu18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple other editors pointed out to me earlier thatScifiintel has been mass-spamming the talk pages of all the users inCategory:Christian Wikipedians today, asking that they editJesus "to make it an accurate...presentation of Him" and "keep it focused on Him", since the article is apparently the first Google hit when searching for "Jesus". More disturbingly, his motivation for doing this is that the article could be the first impression some readers get of Jesus (rather than it being from "a Christian or the Bible" ), which sounds really fishy to me - as if he were trying to use the article to proselytize readers. This might need to be looked into for possibleWP:OWN, as well, given that he's warning the users about 3RR and NPOV. Till now he's spammed 98 user talk pages withthis message. --Core17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a politewarning on his talk page.David Mestel^(Talk)18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He continued immediately after you warned him. I left a slightly sterner warning and backed up your suggestion of taking it to the wikiproject's talk page. --Core18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking at the user's contribs (in order to see how many talk pages he has posted to), I've noticed that he hasdone this before in December 2005, and left Wikipedia for a while after a failed FAC attempt on the article in question. --Core18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours and reverted all of his canvassing edits. This wasnot the first time he's done it. Hopefully he'll listen to the warnings this time and not do it again. By the way, this is also good reason to delete these religion user categories (in addition tothis). --Cyde Weys20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I blockedUser:Venki123 for 24 hours after he reverted the articleMudaliar after being warned for 3RR. He was revert warring withUser:Mudaliar. I suggested that when unblocked he create an RfC about the complaint. He emailed me agreeing to do this, but also made the rather reasonable (I think) suggestion thatUser:Mudaliar is an inappropriate username, since it is also the name of the article on which they are edit warring. However, I see nothing inWP:USERNAME that says your name can't be the same as an article that you edit. Thoughts?Dina20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be considered a conflict of interest, howeverWP:COI and its message board (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) should work?User:Logical2u_Talk20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne has been creating categories at an incredible rate. An incomplete list for the month of December is availablehere; this list does not include many of the categories created after 12:48 on 31 December (when Pastorwayne created four more categories). A significant fraction of these categories end up inWP:CFD. I am keeping a list of Pastorwayne categories that are merged or deletedhere, but this list also needs to be updated and also does not include Pastorwayne's categories from November 2006.

At this point, Pastorwayne's activities are becoming extremely disruptive. OnWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1 alone, Pastorwayne's categories nominated for merging or deletion include:

• Category:Sermon writers (nominated byFlex)
• Category:Former Lutherans (nominated byT. Anthony)
• Category:Former Mennonites (nominated byT. Anthony)
• Category:Former Anglicans (nominated byT. Anthony)
• Category:Former Hindus (nominated byRumpelstiltskin223)
• Category:American religious executives (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:Religious executives (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Dakotas Area (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Holston Area (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Louisiana Area (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Manila Area (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Omaha Area (nominated byProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Washington Area (nominated byProveIt)

These categories are creating a huge amount of traffic atWP:CFD.

I would like to suggest that the administrators either do one of the following:

• Bar Pastorwayne from category creation.
• Require Pastorwayne to have other people review his proposed categories before they are created.

BrownHairedGirl, an administrator, had attempted to discuss this rampant category creation with Pastorwayne before 22 December 2006. However, she is apparently still on vacation, and this needs immediate administrative attention.

I sincerely regret having to do this. However, Pastorwayne seems to be out of control. I can ask other people to comment if necessary.

Thank you,Dr. Submillimeter22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I think that having too many unnecessary (and some inflammatory) cats goes against the purpose of a "category", which is to have a few denominations which are used to classify groups of articles. At the rate at which Pastorwayne is going, every article will have a category of it's own, which makes the whole process of categorization meaningless.Rumpelstiltskin22322:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I too agree. PW is creating an untold amount of over-categorisation and clearly fails to understand how much chaos he is causing. I think he should be stopped immediately. -Kittybrewster23:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of CfD's going on at any given time without us worrying about one user's overwhelming number of "products". I have seen the number of categories this user created and judging from the number of discussion on his talk page, some sort of action seems necessary at this point.Xiner (talk,email)23:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I too agree. I have updatedthe list for Dec and added anearlier list, some of which are new egCategory:Sons of Confederate Veterans is a PW category containing 1 article (of PW's).roundhouse02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been seeing some concerns on CfD, so I left him a request for clarification. I've just now responded to his response, on his talk page. I'm hoping that this can all be resolved amicably. -jc3708:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the extended discussion on Pastorwayne's talk page demonstrates that he has been unwilling to voluntarily commit to any reconciliatory actions.BrownHairedGirl made repeated requests for Pastorwayne to discuss his categories with other people or to cease his category creation activities voluntarily. Pastorwayne has mostly ignored those requests. Administrative action is warranted at this point.Dr. Submillimeter09:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the CFD process, this user creates a lot of cleanup work for others. A little investment of time on his part results in a lot of time wasted for others. I hope that jc37's intervention helps Pastorwayne finally "get it", but if not,something has to be done, and Dr. Submillimeter's suggestions sound good. — coelacantalk —02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne made a number of edits toBeverly Waugh on 3 January 2007, including the creation of a link toCategory:Christian editors. This category was renamed onWikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8. This looks like Pastorwayne is creating categories again using a method described inWP:CAT whereby a category can be created by first adding it as a red link to an article before creating the category page itself. Moreover, this is the recreation of renamed content, a clear violation ofWikipedia policy. Aministrative action is needed.Dr. Submillimeter15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt removed the red linked category inBeverly Waugh, but it does look like Pastorwayne was attempting to recreate the category. Definitive administrative action is needed.Dr. Submillimeter15:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been adding red categories to articles and categories all morning. Either he's planning on creating lots more categories soon, or he's hoping that someone else will be watchingwanted categories and do it for him. --ProveIt^(talk)16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According toProveIt, Pastorwayne added red link categories like this to multiple articles on 3 January 2007. This could be an attempt by Pastorwayne to give the appearance that he is not creating categories while actually continuing to do so. Regardless of Pastorwayne's intentions, the activities are clearly disruptive and need to stop.Dr. Submillimeter16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen vandals treated more harshly after just a couple of acts.Xiner (talk,email)16:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Pastorwayne decided to argue his version of events to jc37again instead of listening. Excuse me, I have to go soak a torch and find my pitchfork. — coelacantalk —16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Eeeek. Now we haveCategory:Sons of Confederate Veterans (population 1). I also seriously question how notable these religious people are. -Kittybrewster16:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple thoughts.

First, I'd like to suggest that attacks on CfD to Pastorwayne stop ("Looks like another Pastorwayne category..."). If the user is misunderstanding Wikipedian policy (and in my estimation, he apparently doesn't understand at leastsome of it...), then such comments are an obvious contravention ofWP:AGF. I know it can be frustrating, butpersonal attacks are not helpful, and doing so doesn't set a good example ofWiki-Love : ) - Teach, don't throw stones.

Second, that said, I think that Pastorwayne flagrantly has ignored repeated requests to curb his actions until he has learned more about the policies and guidelines of categorisation on Wikipedia. I've left a note on his talk page, with a warning to stop his current actions (creating categories) at least until he shows the community that he more fully understands Wikipedia's category policies and guidelines. Else he should be blocked for continued disruption, perWikipedia:Disruptive editing.

I welcome anyone else's insight into this. -jc3718:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've directed him toward the appropriate places to discuss proposed categories, and warned him he'll be blocked if he doesn't use those routes. I can't imagine what else you ought to do. Now we wait to see what he does when following those routes results in being told that one of his proposals is not a good idea. I'm not optimistic about the upcoming week or so, but in any case I will refrain from mentioning his username in CfD's from here on out unless I'm responding to him directly. — coelacantalk —23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Infomaner (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andPsychoticanorexic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) are obvious socks of the banned userJarlaxleArtemis and should be blocked. SeeWikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for more info. —Psychonaut12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that whilePsychoticanorexic (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is an obvious no-brainer sock ofJarlaxleArtemis,User:Infomaner relates to an entirely different situation and may either be a sockpuppet of someone quite different, or a good faith individual who has chosen an unfortunate way to express his issues withPsychonaut's approach to editing, that should warrant a PA warning. I cannot quite understand whyPsychonaut is lumping the two together rather than PA warningUser:Infomaner and waiting for a few more edits before requesting a sockcheck? --Zeraeph12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history. The user exhibits a pattern of behaviour similar to otherWP:JARLAXLE socks: a single-purpose account whose only edits are to articles about me or which I have edited, and moreover are to pages such as XfDs which are not normally found by new users. —Psychonaut14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I did check his edit history, and it consists of these three edits so far:

• 08:39, 2 January 2007[52] - expressing an issue he has with you on your talk page in a manner a little too close to PA.
• 08:41, 2 January 2007[53] - expressing an issue he has with you on a related Afd in a manner a little too close to PA.
• 08:42, 2 January 2007[54] reverting your claim thatUser:MumDude is a sockpuppet ofUser:Daniel10 (a claim for which there does not seem to be much conclusive evidence)

I think you need to consider the possibility that not everybody who has an issue with you (be they right, wrong or in between) isJarlaxleArtemis, and that, like a lot of other trolls,JarlaxleArtemis may, in fact, just wait for some other user to have an issue with you and then "piggyback" his flaming onto that issue.

ObviouslyUser:Infomaner needs a warning (which you will see he has already been given) and could use a little watching, but not because he is likely to be a sock ofJarlaxleArtemis. So why not assume good faith, while also keeping your powder dry? --Zeraeph16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Psychohistorian is correct aboutUser:Infomaner. The guy is clearly a sock of someone, and the only editor with a vendetta against Psycho that I'm aware of is JA. -Will Beback ·† ·19:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that Infomaner is clearly a sock of someone, and therefore an indef block is likely appropriate, regardless of the puppetmaster. --Deathphoenixʕ20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, given a few hours to show good faithUser:Infomaner does not seem to have anything to offer except PA so I have no choice but agree. --Zeraeph01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording used in the first two contributions you posted is similar or identical to previous posts by confirmedWP:JARLAXLE socks. It is vanishingly unlikely that a third party who takes issue with my edits would use the same language as JarlaxleArtemis. —Psychonaut12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see any similarity myself...as far as I can seeJarlaxleArtemis confines himself to a single "topic" that I will not dignify by mentioning here. (I wonder if you could do me a favor and not shuffle my comments around...I am sure it was unintentional but it sorta amputated my remark from it's context?) Perhaps you could help me out here by providing a couple of examples of identical wording from confirmedJarlaxleArtemis socks, just to clear it all up conclusively in my own mind?

Let me stress that I am now in no doubt that the intention ofUser:Infomaner was abusive, and the ban is appropriate. What I am not convinced of is that he isJarlaxleArtemis. Now I couldn't care less whatJarlaxleArtemis is accused of, he is a very nasty piece of work, BUT, if you do accuse the wrong person, the right one gets off scott free, and when you do have aJarlaxleArtemis in your life it is all too easy to jump to conclusion that they are responsible for every bad thing. --Zeraeph13:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked both accounts. They are attack accounts whether or not they are socks. -Will Beback ·† ·23:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of users have been continually reverting legitimate edits toCambridge Union Society to make the role of the president seem more important than it actually is. UsersUser:Mj297,User:Beckhamaddress, and some anon IPs have been engaging in a revert war (asHistory shows, most recently at this revert:[55].)

Incidentally, I should say current President of the Cambridge Union Society has theCambridge University IDmj297.

MikeMorley09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I can also confirm observations of above activity. Several different independent editors have been working hard to address the issue but the 'users' above refuse to follow any civil discussion or justify any of their hostile edits with direct references to demonstrate their validity. According the the history, usersMj297,Beckhamaddress,WallStreet,Morgancus,Roaccutane1, and several IPs which come from the same ISP pool have at one point or another engagued in the above activity.

--Nhartman13:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just another update... I looks like some admins have now tried also reverting the hostile changes but they just keep getting put back within a matter of minutes. Also, yesterday as part of our attempt to deal with this issue I posted a very long but detailed post on the article's discussion page explaining with detailed quotes and analysis from official texts why the above described edits are false and have the effect of aggrandising one's position over what it actually is. That discussion was just quickly deleted from the board byBeckhamaddress (I suppose becuaseBeckhamaddress and suspected sockpuppets didn't want people to see that information). An administrator subseqently reverted the deletion...

--Nhartman15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's been resolved... The above noted user (with many strongly suspected sockpuppets, including a new one today) seems to have backed off, or at least he's posted on the talk page that he will, after being confronted with essentially irrefutable evidence that their edits were factually incorrect and misleading. The text that is there, and the one thatBeckhamaddress says he won't mess with now, is the one that the other editors were trying to preserve. I guess we'll take that as an unofficial admission of guilt in regards to the above described mess and agreement for the hostile activities on his part to stop. Assuming theBeckhamaddress and assocated other user suspected sockpuppets hold to that word then the problem should be resolved (fingers crossed).

--Nhartman00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone who has more knowledge of theEddieSegoura (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and exicornt situation please take a look atWariovvare-2007 (talk ·contribs) andGhostbusters in NY (talk ·contribs)? They both seem to have connections toRainbow Shops which was an EddieSegoura creation. Wariovvare-2007 has been blocked for continuously recreating Mike Assaf and various other spellings and incarnations of the article. It turns out that this Mike Assaf is a "regional manager" at Rainbow Shops. Ghostbusters has been creating redirects for each of these "regional managers" to the Rainbow Shops article.

Could someone with more insight take a look? There's been a rise of exicornt vandals since the New Year it seems (I've run into at least 2 or 3 on AIV so far).Metros23217:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Might want to addNimbat230 (talk ·contribs) to that list of possible Exicornt socks. I notice that the socks seem to immediately use the "ask for help" feature on their talk pages.ju66l3r17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on interests and editing style, all three are surely Eddie, yes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Bunchofgrapes. I've added an IP check toWP:RFCU for this.Metros23218:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If these all really belong to Eddie, then I suggest we put him onWikipedia:Probation. UsersGhostbusters in NY (talk ·contribs) andNimbat230 (talk ·contribs) have useful edits in their history and maybe if we can just let him edit conditionally he'll stop creating new accounts and bugging people.63.164.145.8523:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

People wishing to evaluate the overall merit of these accounts' edits should take a peek at my recent deletion log -- and who knows how many other admins' as well. Eddie could edit quietly if he wanted; but right now he's throwing enormous temper tantrums. —Bunchofgrapes (talk)23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, who has beencautionedrepeatedly for aggressive editing and civility on non-mainstream science pages, is engaging in edit warring onCold fusion. My attempts to reach a compromise have been met with argumentative behavior[56], a blanket reversion[57], and possibleincivility[58] (an explanation for the latter has been requested twice[59],[60] but not provided). At issue is the summarization of the conclusions of2004 DoE panel on cold fusion in the lead ofCold fusion. ScienceApologist will apparently only accept the negative conclusions, insisting that the panel's very first conclusion, which is neutral on evidence of excess heat, is irrelevant and therefore should not be incorporated into the summary. I realize that this is a content dispute. However, given ScienceApologist past behavior, I request that he be reminded, yet again, of his responsibility to the follow thespirit of WP policies, not just the letter.Ronnotel17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize this is a content dispute, so this is something that should be take toWP:DR. From what I see it's not really an issue that requires an admin to intervene.--Isotope2317:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(EC)You are right, this is a content dispute or a user conduct complaint. Either way this isn't the proper venue. ---J.S^(T/C)17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Content dispute. I see no sign of incivilityhere. I see however SA's edits beingunsourced but that's irrelevant here. Discuss that at the talk page first. -- -17:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Woo, pressing problem for the project - an editor pushing mainstream science in an article beloved by those promoting fringe theories. Yup, definitely needs intervention...Guy(Help!)21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

59.186.67.28 (talk ·contribs) - Appears to be a hijacked IP; continues trolling atWP:RFI, claiming that a group of editors are sockpuppets.NeoChaosX18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[61] seems to show it's an open proxy.Patstuart^talk|edits20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked another likely ip of his,203.169.248.3 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log).Syrthiss20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and another125.244.210.140 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·filter log ·WHOIS ·RDNS ·RBLs ·http ·block user ·block log)Syrthiss21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you block 59.186.67.28 as an OP as well? -Patstuart^talk|edits21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Done.23:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphanbot seems to be out of control at the moment- removing lots of coat of arms images due to someone deleting the coat of arms template tag. It should perhaps be blocked until suitable replacements can be added to these images.Astrotrain20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is being done because of a TFD that concluded a few days ago; the template is onWP:DRV now and I am inclined not blocking Orphanbot.User:Zscout370^{(Return Fire)}20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Correction: a TfD that closed three weeks ago (ish)Martinp2322:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This sort of thing is why I wish watching an article would give you the option of automatically watching all of its included images. Half the time the only person watching an image is its uploader, who may very well have no clue what they're doing or be inactive. --tjstrftalk20:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What you aren't telling us is that the template contained a justification for fair use of these images that tended out not to be valid, which is why it was deleted. Thus, the images now no longer do have a justification, and are subject to being deleted. Orphanbot is just doing its job. --Cyde Weys20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• The point is that most of the images are valid- either because they are in the public domain, or ineligible for copyright. I would agree that some may be ineligible and should be deleted. However, a bot cannot determine this- it just removes all of them for deletion from all the articles- and will cause a lot of work for people to go through the images and then re-add them back when the bot has made a mistake.Astrotrain20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the folks at TFD didn't announce this to WP:HV whenever this TFD took place. We only watch our own uploads and nobody has thousands of alien images on a watchlist. Furthermore the untagging happend onDecember 23, which means that our editors weren't very active. Dec. 12 and 30 where our editors weren't very active. In fact, the number of highly active participants on WP:HV is very low and it looks like several are on vacation or studying for exams. Consequently it went unnoticed when one bot removed the tags without replacing them with a warning or anything else. A second bot (Orphanbot) then takes up where the first left off and tags and later removes images. I only realized this was going on because I suddenly noticed images disappearing from a list of coats arms of a German Bundesland. My entire day has been completely wasted trying to get hundreds of legitimate images away from Orphanbot before it trashed them, but examining copyright issues racing against a robot is not exactly perfect work conditions. A message I posted to the bot's owner didn't seem to have any effect, so the bot kept eating away. From any image beginning with "D" and on, I simply tried to stay ahead of the thing trying to stop it from trashing more legitimate material. Then I could spend more time removing Orphanbot's work from a lot of legitimate images it already had trashed and which I'd failed to stop it from tagging in the first place. If you don't believe me, feel free to go through my edit log for today. The images you'll find there are PD but were on Orphanbot's shopping list. Two or three weren't but qualified for fair use since we have articles about them. Most of the images had no source, but this is not required since they are exempt from any possible copyright issues according to the laws of their relevant countries (see the license templates I've added to the images and the corresponding Wikipedias).Valentinian^{(talk) /(contribs)}21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, OrphanBot doesn't actually delete anything, but rather comments-out the use of the image in the article (or template in this case) when marking the image as no longer meetingWP:FUC. The images themselves are deleted by admins after the appropriate waiting period. ···^{? ·Nihon}21:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't kill them as such, no, but try to examine many hundreds of images given a deadline of exactly two days (according to the bot, the images it removed today will be deleted on Friday this week. And if an image has been edited, it will mean two reverts, not one (1 for the image description page and 1 for the article). It should be fairly easy to see that something odd was going on given that today's list was exceptionally long.Valentinian^{(talk) /(contribs)}22:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to anyone watching this issue, I thought I'd clear up what actually happened. I closed theTfD, and over a couple of days in the middle of December I set MartinBotIII to work removing the instances of the template from all pages per the TfD. At this stage, I didn't want to put some repleacement tag on because, for one, an AWB bot can't determine copyright, and a "no copyright" tag would have been inappropriate as some (many?) of the image pages had proper tags with the confusing coatofarms. I recognise that I should have contactedWP:HV at the time, though regreat that I knew not of their existance, and (in all honesty) am surprised that non of the members noticed the TfD or MartinBotIII's removal of the tags on their uploaded images. Anyway, moving on, once MartinBotIII had finished (about 3 days, Dec 12 - 15th ish), I left a message with Carnildo (OrphanBot's owner) to ask him if he could set the bot up to go through the MartinBotIII's contribs, and use its mechanisms to determine if an appropriate tag was present. It would appear by the recent flood of messages on the issue that OrphanBot started work recently, and this has clearly been a shock to those ignorant of the debate. The fact remains though, that as Cyde states, many images tagged with coatofarms had no suitable copyright, and must go (eventually). The notes on the TfD itself highlight an interesting copyright issue, which may mean that some of the images being tagged PD now are actually more recent interpretations, and so may not fall under PD (this is where a source would be important, which many of the images lack, apparantely). That's the background to the issue, and what I did/felt/have seen :)Martinp2322:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We have had that debate as well, but WP:HV (and the Wikipedias in question) have come to the opposite conclusion on the last one,provided that a national law states something out of the ordinary. Take e.g. the copyright law of Estonia which states that a government coat of arms can carry no copyright. In that case, we are in good faith when we follow this law, nomatter who created the actual image. Otherwise, we'd be second-guessing about national laws or even undermining them. When I look at the selection of images present on the German Wikipedia, known for its interests in copyright law, and on Wikipedias of other nations with similar laws, it looks like a pattern. In a number of specific cases, a law exempts official (not private) insignia from copyright. I don't see this as any different than when an employee of the U.S. federal government can't claim personal copyright to material he / she produces while performing official duties. I must admit to be getting quite fond of the Estonian law - which I discovered earlier today, it is very clear; ""§ 5. Results of intellectual activities to which this [copyright] Act does not apply: ... official symbols of the state and insignia of organisations (flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc.) and banknotes". I can only interpret this as: "yes the government of Estonia recognizes that an individual did create this image but it is not in the national interest [for whatever reason] to allow him / her any personal copyrights, so authors can't claim any for a very limited list of potential images, e.g. national insignia and images of official medals. When it comes to West European law, this is - alas - not the normal situation, and you have a point about some of those images. The only problem was that today's images were a giant mess from at least three groups.

Btw, Martin. I don't believe that your purpose with Martinbot was to trash or disrupt WP:HV. Of course not, but a lot of things went wrong here. None were catastrophic by themselves, but the combination was ... pretty unfortunate. 1) WP:HV was pretty inactive in December and failed to notice both the TFD and the retagging. I guess people were resting after a lot of article tagging. 2) you didn't notice we existed either and so we weren't contacted (now you know where we are). :) 3) Orphanbot's owner didn't notice that today's list of images was exceptionally long. Playing the blame game doesn't help anybody in this situation. A lot of good PD images were saved today, let's not forget that. Let's focus on seeking through the rubble and find the rest that fall into the same category.Valentinian^{(talk) /(contribs)}23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is something I should probably handle myself, but it's the first time I've considered actually warning somebody, so I'd like advice and a second opinion on the correct next step.

User:72.159.146.131 recently dropped some trash inZzyzx, California (diff). I've reverted it, but looking atUser talk:72.159.146.131 it appears that this is only one of a number of similar abuses over the last few months, and the user's contrib log seems to indicate few if any productive edits.

My inclination is to add {{test3ip}}, but given that the abuses are scattered over a few months I'm unsure.

Comments?

Jordan Brown20:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

<.< Not sure I'm the one that should be giving advice here, but I'd go with a Test2IP. For all I know, it's a rapidly changing IP (Doesn't appear to be, though)... next thing is, the huge gap in edits, which usually calls for the warning level to be lowered (Typically, from what I know, below a three). A Test2ip would be my call.But be bold, Wikipedia isn't always right!User:Logical2u_Talk21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, added {{test2}} as there is no {{test2ip}}. Thanks.Jordan Brown21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, butUser:Lildec has posted the same presumably copyrighted material three times[62][63][64] despite warnings.[65][66] This after the page was speedily deleted as vanity[67] after the user was warned not to remove speedy tags[68].

I don't want to just keep reverting this...NickelShoe (Talk)21:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Even before I came here and read this, I had already given him a final warning.User:Zoe|(talk)21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You apparently deleted the article while I was posting. Thanks, though.NickelShoe (Talk)21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A few min ago, I attempted to revert some link spam over atHannah Montana (album), and antivandalbot gave me a warning for it, would an admin kindly remove the warning so that if a user views my talk page it does say i vandalized a page, i don't wanna remove it myself and make it look like i am hiding a warning. --MaleviousUserpage•Talk Page•Contributions23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you feel that it is mistaken, then remove it yourself :D. —Arjun23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late, the warning was blanked by meh.Syrthiss23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well looking at the diff the bot was mistaken. As the bots page it says it makes mistakes. Keep up the good work reverting link spam. —Arjun23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it :). --MaleviousUserpage•Talk Page•Contributions23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have blockedUser:Anand75 indefinitely as asock ofUser:Mudaliar. It is my first indef block and I would like some feedback.

User:Mudaliar &User:Venki123 were revert warring atMudaliar. I warned both aboutWP:3RR andUser:Venki123 reverted again, from an IP[69] (he emailed me and didn't bother to deny it was him), so I blocked him for 24 hours.

The next day, I sawUser:Mudaliar had re-reverted to his version[70],User:Anand75 then appeared & made an small edit[71] toUser:Mudaliar's preferred version. I rolled back the page to the last edit before this edit war and he reverted the page so I rolled it back again and protected it temporarily.User:Anand75 then went toMudaliyar, a redirect page last edited byUser:Mudaliar and C&P'edUser:Mudaliar's preferred version of the article.

I looked at the contrib times, as well as the contribs ofUser:Mudaliar's IP addressUser:207.250.0.154[72] (available because he had logged out before contacting my talk page) and the cycle fits pretty neatly -- Edit war asUser:Mudaliar, get caught, log in asUser:Anand75, then log out to complain on my talk page, but forget to log into the first account. I satisfied myself that this was a clear sock and blocked theUser:Anand75 account. There are some other editing similarities (posting to the tops of talk pages). I am unsure what to do aboutUser:Mudaliar -- my instinct is a sharp warning and a short block. I am also open to feedback about my "detective work". Cheers.Dina23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(moved fromWP:AIV --Deathphoenixʕ22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

• Vishu123 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·nuke contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) This user has admitted to having several blocked accounts (seehere) and sockpuppets (User:Itihaas andUser:Mrtag. Recommend we block him again and watch for user creations.(talk • contribs)22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  I could not see any obvious discruption when looking atWP:AIV. Both IDs were apparently blocked for being sock/meatpuppets of a third account, which the user "knows" but claims not to be.Agathoclea22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  That was exactly my thought. I have askedDmcdevit to do a CU on the account just in case.Asterion^talk22:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  But even if not disruptive it looks like block evation as the account started just recently. Silly, as the block was only for 2 weeks.Agathoclea22:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  I was the admin who had blocked all the previous accounts. It was confirmed by Dmcdevit through checkuser that the two accounts Sarvabhaum and Mrtag were one and the same.[73]. Mrtag account was being used by Sarvabhaum to disrupt a FAC. I went ahead and indef-blocked Mrtag and only gave a warning to Sarvabhaum. This was followed by the creation ofUser:Itihaas who continued to disrupt. This account was also indef-blocked by me. I have been busy for the past week and couldn't blockUser:Vishu123 when it was created. It is clear that this account is also a sock of Sarvabhaum. Note that he also says on his user-page "However I am not related to edits of Sarvabhaum,though we know each other." I find it hard to believe that 2 users from the same IP start editing wikipedia, with the same bias against Karnataka related articles are not the same person. -Aksi_great (talk)13:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)