Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive170

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Today's Featured Article - Yarralumla" is vandalized 2 Wizard (fantasy) 3 Article Yodachu 4 User Nixer is using sockpuppets on Axis Powers and removing messages on the talk page 4.1 Community ban for Nixer? 5 Mr.Kannambadi is removing cited info 6 WAS NOT WAS 7 User Joel Puritan? 8 Indef block 9 Jesus 10 User:65.0.104.154 11 anon user conduct 12 User:SNIyer12 13 Proposed community ban on LeoniDb (talk • contribs) 14 Georgia(USA)-based family movie vandal 15 User:SYSS Mouse 16 Scifiintel (talk • contribs) mass talk page spamming 17 Mudaliar 18 Pastorwayne and category creation 19 JarlaxleArtemis socks to block 20 Cambridge Union Society 21 Exicornt vandals 22 User:ScienceApologist on Cold fusion 23 another SummerThunder sock 24 Orphanbot 25 User:72.159.146.131 26 Copyvio reposting by User:Lildec 27 Vandal warning 28 Indef block review please 29 User:Vishu123 sockpuppetry 30 Latest FA vandalism 31 Possoble Vandal 32 Nasty rascist needs blocking 33 Legal threat 34 Edit warring to make a point 35 Harassment on the Marc Lemire page 36 Abusive user: Roadline 37 User adding my personal name to comments line 38 VacuousPoet (talk • contribs) and numerous block-evading sockpuppets 39 Blocking an entire country for a month 39.1 POV, uncited edits coming from this address 40 MLK entry has racist language 41 User page used first as blog, and now as ascii art spam page 42 Sockpuppets 43 Annoying Socks 44 Every single article in Category:Television schedules 45 Blocked User:Fluffbrain 46 Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Personal_attack_or_unwarranted_censorship.3F 47 AfD spamming by User:Iamunknown 48 report of vandalism 49 Block for review 50 User talk:Buttboy666 51 Blocked 209.19.59.110 52 63.175.153.226 (talk • contribs) 53 IP civility case

[edit] "Today's Featured Article - Yarralumla" is vandalized

The featre article has been vandalized with pornography when the article is opened. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.227.90.99 (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I think the best way for requesting protection, semi-protection of article is on WP: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 the WP:RFP page and was, in my opinion, the best location to quickly alert a watchful admin. -- tariqabjotu 04:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wizard (fantasy)

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 to List of wizards in fantasy (and redirected it to a new article), and then created a brand-new Wizard (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. (Edited Magician.)

(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 of Magicians in fantasy.) Goldfritha 01:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The previous discussion is at Talk:List_of_wizards_in_fantasy (long). The major edit history for what used to be Wizard (fantasy) now resides at the history for List of wizards in fantasy. Look here 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 on WP:LAME. The sad thing is, there is some good content there, if they could just concentrate on editing it. Sorry to sound so negative. Carcharoth 03:56, 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.Goldfritha 04:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the point where text was cut and pasted from Wizard (fantasy) to several other locations. You probably want to read Wikipedia: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. Carcharoth 04:17, 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. Goldfritha 04:25, 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. Carcharoth 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Yodachu

Yodachu This 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) Oliver202 06:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] User Nixer is using sockpuppets on Axis Powers and removing messages on the talk page

I have had it with Nixer (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and his use of sockpuppets to POV push against the concensus on Axis Powers.

Suspected socks

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

Nixer has a milelong blocklog and is not 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 that User: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. MartinDK 08:08, 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 the dwarf planet ruckus this summer. I had requested a checkuser performed on him here 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 to assume good faith despite his massive blocklog.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms Planemo (talk • contribs) and Ghuter (talk • contribs) are the same as Nixer, but probably not CaesarRosso. Dmcdevit·t 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked Planemo and Ghuter as sockpuppets. Luna Santin 10:11, 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 (竜龍) 08:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Community ban for Nixer?

I recommend an indefinite community ban for Nixer. He should have been indefblocked long ago, has a history of over 30 blocks, - see his block 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 find this rather strange. Where are the socks he keeps asking knowing perfectly well who they are. MartinDK 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, those weren't his socks. Those socks belonged to User: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. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur. - Merzbow 19:23, 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 (竜龍) 20:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User: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)

[edit] Mr.Kannambadi is removing cited info

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 check rashtrakutas chalukya gangas Yadavas of devagiri etc. Despite repeated requests on the concerned talk pages he is blatantly removing the info. Vishu123 07:01, 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 to dispute 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]

Vishu123 11:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WAS NOT WAS

WAS (not me) spends almost all his time here editing his homepage and vandalizing. He's WAS. I'm WAS 4.250 06:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] User Joel Puritan?

I'm not sure how to handle this. I noticed Joel Puritan (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)'s edits to Briefs, 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 article Brip.

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. Syrthiss 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this a sockpuppet of the users who keep on trying to bring Briefsism back as an article - or a "briefs vandal" sockpuppet. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of the two. --SunStar Net^talk 14:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indef block

I have indefinitely blocked User: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)

[edit] Jesus

The user "Can't sleep, clown will eat me" removed my POV tag on the Jesus 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?" Zonaras 13:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that there are POV issues within any 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 a single purpose account created for circumventing WP: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 me 13:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Syrthiss 14:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And the CheckUser results are in. Zonaras has been indefinitely blocked. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:65.0.104.154

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 my talk 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. Nardman1 19:57, 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 per WP:EL? Well, not that I can tell. FCYTravis 22:44, 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 to assume 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. FCYTravis 22:55, 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. Nardman1 06:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Noted. Nardman1 23:18, 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. FCYTravis 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Note: I am the person who originally posted the link most contested by this user at List 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 user states "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 to User: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 at Kimbo 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 at AnonEMouse and Nardman1 and the List 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 (with User: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, is 1001cocktails. 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, and Non-alcoholic mixed drinks), I think it is a very good option to include. These are pages that people visit to find lots of drinks. We do 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 that WP: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 that oh-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". It is 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 user should 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 user is fully aware of proper procedures, but chooses to ignore them until s/he has to be troubled with them.

In summary, this user does 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. --Willscrlt 05:40, 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. --Willscrlt 08:51, 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 the List of Cocktails article. Nardman1 13:09, 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. Nardman1 15:06, 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)

[edit] anon user conduct

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 Severitas 03:45, 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. --Ravenloft 11:17, 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. --Globe01 17:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SNIyer12

As you can see from the history 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!--Havermayer 07:53, 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 strong WP: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 and WP: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.--Isotope23 16:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed community ban on LeoniDb (talk • contribs)

This guy was originally Dormantfascist (talk · contribs · logs · 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 getting WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, nor WP: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 · logs · block user · block log) (indef block, though quite long ago)
• American Fascist Party (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (indef block)
• Articlecleanser (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) (indef block)
• 69.69.161.252 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 71.50.225.74 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 76.1.32.137 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 76.1.33.197 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 76.1.39.208 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• LeoniDb (talk · contribs · logs · 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 a full community ban.--203.109.209.49 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd support such a ban. I've been dealing with LeoniDb and related parties for awhile at Corpus Christi School (Pennsylvania) and to a lesser extent, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. Metros232 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Has a Checkuser been done on all those IPs? I didn't go through all of them, but User:LeoniDb appears to be a pure WP:TROLL account. Add WP:LEGAL to that as well per this 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 on User:LeoniDb is warrented I think and any of the underlying IPs that a checkuser ties to that account as well.--Isotope23 14:46, 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 Bakharev 18:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We do not need checkuser on IP's - the contribution's pattern is quite clear. I have blocked User:76.1.39.208 all others are either blocked already or did not edited for months Alex Bakharev 18:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia(USA)-based family movie vandal

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 • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 168.9.128.170 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 168.9.128.3 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 168.9.128.157 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 168.9.128.173 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 24.181.65.251 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
• 72.152.109.155 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

I wasn't quite sure where to take this, so I brought it here. --Wafulz 22:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It may be WP:LTA#SpongeBob/The Shining vandal, or MascotGuy. 68.39.174.238 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This user tends to focus on cast lists and is pretty much exclusively based out of Georgia. --Wafulz 23:05, 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. 68.39.174.238 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:SYSS Mouse

Made the following two edits: [49] and [50]. Might want to keep an eye on this editor. - Ta bu shi da yu 17:20, 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 Mouse 17:53, 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 yu 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scifiintel (talk • contribs) mass talk page spamming

A couple other editors pointed out to me earlier that Scifiintel has been mass-spamming the talk pages of all the users in Category:Christian Wikipedians today, asking that they edit Jesus "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 possible WP:OWN, as well, given that he's warning the users about 3RR and NPOV. Till now he's spammed 98 user talk pages with this message. --Coredesat 17:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a polite warning 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. --Coredesat 18:36, 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 has done this before in December 2005, and left Wikipedia for a while after a failed FAC attempt on the article in question. --Coredesat 18:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 48 hours and reverted all of his canvassing edits. This was not 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 to this). --Cyde Weys 20:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mudaliar

I blocked User:Venki123 for 24 hours after he reverted the article Mudaliar after being warned for 3RR. He was revert warring with User: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 that User:Mudaliar is an inappropriate username, since it is also the name of the article on which they are edit warring. However, I see nothing in WP:USERNAME that says your name can't be the same as an article that you edit. Thoughts? Dina 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be considered a conflict of interest, however WP:COI and its message board (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) should work? User:Logical2u_Talk 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pastorwayne and category creation

Pastorwayne has been creating categories at an incredible rate. An incomplete list for the month of December is available here; 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 in WP:CFD. I am keeping a list of Pastorwayne categories that are merged or deleted here, 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. On Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 1 alone, Pastorwayne's categories nominated for merging or deletion include:

• Category:Sermon writers (nominated by Flex)
• Category:Former Lutherans (nominated by T. Anthony)
• Category:Former Mennonites (nominated by T. Anthony)
• Category:Former Anglicans (nominated by T. Anthony)
• Category:Former Hindus (nominated by Rumpelstiltskin223)
• Category:American religious executives (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:Religious executives (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Dakotas Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Holston Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Louisiana Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Manila Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Omaha Area (nominated by ProveIt)
• Category:United Methodist bishops of the Washington Area (nominated by ProveIt)

These categories are creating a huge amount of traffic at WP: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. Submillimeter 22:17, 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.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:30, 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. - Kittybrewster 23:16, 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 updated the list for Dec and added an earlier list, some of which are new eg Category:Sons of Confederate Veterans is a PW category containing 1 article (of PW's). roundhouse 02:32, 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. - jc37 08:57, 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. Submillimeter 09:10, 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. — coelacan talk — 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne made a number of edits to Beverly Waugh on 3 January 2007, including the creation of a link to Category:Christian editors. This category was renamed on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 8. This looks like Pastorwayne is creating categories again using a method described in WP: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 of Wikipedia policy. Aministrative action is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ProveIt removed the red linked category in Beverly Waugh, but it does look like Pastorwayne was attempting to recreate the category. Definitive administrative action is needed. Dr. Submillimeter 15:53, 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 watching wanted categories and do it for him. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to ProveIt, 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. Submillimeter 16:02, 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 jc37 again instead of listening. Excuse me, I have to go soak a torch and find my pitchfork. — coelacan talk — 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Eeeek. Now we have Category:Sons of Confederate Veterans (population 1). I also seriously question how notable these religious people are. - Kittybrewster 16:41, 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 least some of it...), then such comments are an obvious contravention of WP:AGF. I know it can be frustrating, but personal attacks are not helpful, and doing so doesn't set a good example of Wiki-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, per Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

I welcome anyone else's insight into this. - jc37 18:28, 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. — coelacan talk — 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JarlaxleArtemis socks to block

Infomaner (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and Psychoticanorexic (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) are obvious socks of the banned user JarlaxleArtemis and should be blocked. See Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis for more info. —Psychonaut 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that while Psychoticanorexic (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) is an obvious no-brainer sock of JarlaxleArtemis, 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 with Psychonaut's approach to editing, that should warrant a PA warning. I cannot quite understand why Psychonaut is lumping the two together rather than PA warning User:Infomaner and waiting for a few more edits before requesting a sockcheck? --Zeraeph 12:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history. The user exhibits a pattern of behaviour similar to other WP: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. —Psychonaut 14:00, 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 that User:MumDude is a sockpuppet of User: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) is JarlaxleArtemis, 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.

Obviously User: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 of JarlaxleArtemis. So why not assume good faith, while also keeping your powder dry? --Zeraeph 16:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Psychohistorian is correct about User: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. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, given a few hours to show good faith User:Infomaner does not seem to have anything to offer except PA so I have no choice but agree. --Zeraeph 01:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The wording used in the first two contributions you posted is similar or identical to previous posts by confirmed WP:JARLAXLE socks. It is vanishingly unlikely that a third party who takes issue with my edits would use the same language as JarlaxleArtemis. —Psychonaut 12:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see any similarity myself...as far as I can see JarlaxleArtemis 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 confirmed JarlaxleArtemis 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 of User:Infomaner was abusive, and the ban is appropriate. What I am not convinced of is that he is JarlaxleArtemis. Now I couldn't care less what JarlaxleArtemis 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 a JarlaxleArtemis in your life it is all too easy to jump to conclusion that they are responsible for every bad thing. --Zeraeph 13:04, 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)

[edit] Cambridge Union Society

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

Incidentally, I should say current President of the Cambridge Union Society has the Cambridge University ID mj297.

MikeMorley 09:14, 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, users Mj297, 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.

--Nhartman 13:52, 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 by Beckhamaddress (I suppose becuase Beckhamaddress and suspected sockpuppets didn't want people to see that information). An administrator subseqently reverted the deletion...

--Nhartman 15:51, 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 that Beckhamaddress 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 the Beckhamaddress and assocated other user suspected sockpuppets hold to that word then the problem should be resolved (fingers crossed).

--Nhartman 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exicornt vandals

Can someone who has more knowledge of the EddieSegoura (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) and exicornt situation please take a look at Wariovvare-2007 (talk • contribs) and Ghostbusters in NY (talk • contribs)? They both seem to have connections to Rainbow 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). Metros232 17:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Might want to add Nimbat230 (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. ju66l3r 17:24, 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 to WP:RFCU for this. Metros232 18:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If these all really belong to Eddie, then I suggest we put him on Wikipedia:Probation. Users Ghostbusters in NY (talk • contribs) and Nimbat230 (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. 63.164.145.85 23:17, 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)

[edit] User:ScienceApologist on Cold fusion

ScienceApologist, who has been cautioned repeatedly for aggressive editing and civility on non-mainstream science pages, is engaging in edit warring on Cold fusion. My attempts to reach a compromise have been met with argumentative behavior [56], a blanket reversion [57], and possible incivility[58] (an explanation for the latter has been requested twice [59], [60] but not provided). At issue is the summarization of the conclusions of 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion in the lead of Cold 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 the spirit of WP policies, not just the letter. Ronnotel 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize this is a content dispute, so this is something that should be take to WP:DR. From what I see it's not really an issue that requires an admin to intervene.--Isotope23 17:32, 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 incivility here. I see however SA's edits being unsourced but that's irrelevant here. Discuss that at the talk page first. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 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)

[edit] another SummerThunder sock

59.186.67.28 (talk • contribs) - Appears to be a hijacked IP; continues trolling at WP:RFI, claiming that a group of editors are sockpuppets. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[61] seems to show it's an open proxy. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked another likely ip of his, 203.169.248.3 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log). Syrthiss 20:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

and another 125.244.210.140 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) Syrthiss 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you block 59.186.67.28 as an OP as well? -Patstuart^talk|edits 21:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Orphanbot

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. Astrotrain 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is being done because of a TFD that concluded a few days ago; the template is on WP: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) Martinp23 22:10, 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. --tjstrf talk 20:10, 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 Weys 20:14, 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. Astrotrain 20:26, 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 on December 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 meeting WP:FUC. The images themselves are deleted by admins after the appropriate waiting period. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 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 the TfD, 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 contacted WP: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 :) Martinp23 22:24, 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)

[edit] User:72.159.146.131

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 in Zzyzx, California (diff). I've reverted it, but looking at User 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 Brown 20:54, 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_Talk 21:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, added {{test2}} as there is no {{test2ip}}. Thanks. Jordan Brown 21:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio reposting by User:Lildec

I'm not sure if I'm in the right place, but User: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)

[edit] Vandal warning

A few min ago, I attempted to revert some link spam over at Hannah 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. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you feel that it is mistaken, then remove it yourself :D. — Arjun 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late, the warning was blanked by meh. Syrthiss 23:43, 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. — Arjun 23:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it :). --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indef block review please

I have blocked User:Anand75 indefinitely as a sock of User:Mudaliar. It is my first indef block and I would like some feedback.

User:Mudaliar & User:Venki123 were revert warring at Mudaliar. I warned both about WP:3RR and User: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 saw User:Mudaliar had re-reverted to his version [70], User:Anand75 then appeared & made an small edit [71] to User: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 to Mudaliyar, a redirect page last edited by User:Mudaliar and C&P'ed User:Mudaliar's preferred version of the article.

I looked at the contrib times, as well as the contribs of User:Mudaliar's IP address User:207.250.0.154 [72] (available because he had logged out before contacting my talk page) and the cycle fits pretty neatly -- Edit war as User:Mudaliar, get caught, log in as User: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 the User:Anand75 account. There are some other editing similarities (posting to the tops of talk pages). I am unsure what to do about User:Mudaliar -- my instinct is a sharp warning and a short block. I am also open to feedback about my "detective work". Cheers. Dina 23:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vishu123 sockpuppetry

(moved from WP:AIV --Deathphoenix ʕ 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

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

  I could not see any obvious discruption when looking at WP:AIV. Both IDs were apparently blocked for being sock/meatpuppets of a third account, which the user "knows" but claims not to be. Agathoclea 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

  That was exactly my thought. I have asked Dmcdevit to do a CU on the account just in case. Asterion^talk 22:44, 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. Agathoclea 22:50, 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 of User:Itihaas who continued to disrupt. This account was also indef-blocked by me. I have been busy for the past week and couldn't block User: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)

Not unlike Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/case/Sarvagnya where two anti-Hindi users edited from the same IP. Its entirely possible that there are two anti-Kannada people in the same household.Bakaman 01:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest FA vandalism

Please note {{wikiedit}} which transcludes a user page containing a curious use of {{click}}. This template was just added to John Brooke-Little, the FA for tomorrow. Gimmetrow 21:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal who created it was blocked and the template was deleted. Metros232 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Roues de France had done that earlier, creating the wikiedit template with a copy of a blocked vandal template. And the user is one of those whom I mentioned down below who claims that User:Norm is Willy on Wheels and is repeatedly vandalizing his Talk page and demanding it be deleted or his vandalism will continue. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possoble Vandal

A user at 198.236.64.25 has made several edits that I know to be false.

• Sergeant Metallic to "Metallica" [74]
• clear vandalism of You [75]
• And here, where there seems to be a running theme with different vandals [76]

I have not the time to deal with the amount of edits, nor the expertise in such areas. I don't know what the SOP is in this case, I simply believe it best to bring this to the attention of more people. --DesireCampbell 22:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

After slightly more prodding, it seem this user has done little but vandalization. And he has been warned, repeatedly. --DesireCampbell 22:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just warn the IP with {{test1-n|whatever}} and just to note the IP has stopped after the final warning. — Arjun 23:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, to report continuous recent vandlaism, please use WP:AIV in the future. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasty rascist needs blocking

This nasty rascist, 68.114.28.101, sjhouild, IMO, be blocked, SqueakBox 00:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Claimed to have reformed, but I blocked for 24 hours anyway. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legal threat

This post [77] seems like a very clear legal threat made by User:209.217.79.235. The IP is consistent with those used by User:Arthur Ellis (see here), who is currently banned by two arbitration rulings Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Arthur_Ellis_banned_for_one_month and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Warren_Kinsella#Arthur_Ellis. He signs as "Mark", which is Ellis' real-life name (cf. here). Bucketsofg 01:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Readers should also be aware that Arthur Ellis was recently editing the Marsden page with the sockpuppet account Stompin' Tom. CJCurrie 03:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring to make a point

Vintagekits (talk • contribs) appears to be removing a lot of info on IRA people in order to make a WP:POINT about his views on the issues being discussed in Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage. He also is removing many warnings on his talk page. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 03:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

 : Actually, no I am not, I was making edits in line with what other users had suggested. I then reverted those edits AFTER others had disagreed! With respect to the warnings - they were redundant - firstly, another users had already left a warning on that exact point and secondly the user left the warning after it had already been reverted. Vintagekits 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harassment on the Marc Lemire page

Veritas-Canada (talk • contribs) has recently speculated on my real-life identity ([78]). Unless I'm quite mistaken, this is a clear violation of Wikipedia's anti-harassment policies. Some remedial action may be in order.

(Note: Richard Warman has initiated legal action against Lemire under the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I can only assume this is the "Warman" Veritas is referring to.) CJCurrie 03:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... I suppose I should provide evidence that Veritas was referring to me: [79]. CJCurrie 04:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive user: Roadline

The user Roadline has spammed my talk and user page, twice with threatening messages. He is pretending to be an administrator when he clearly is not and has copied the default vandalism warning message from another source within wikipedia. I have attempted to contact the user to ask him to stop, but his response was another threatening message in my talk page. The user has contributed nothing to wikipedia except these threatening messages on my talk and user page as shown by his history and I request some assistance here, please. I was prepared to deal with it after the first attack, but enough is enough, right. Thanks for your time. Chipmaster32 03:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like both of you are severely out of line, actually. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand where I crossed the line, but I respect your opinion. Is there a way that we can be blocked from each other's user pages so as to establish an equitable solution? Chipmaster32 04:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Block yourself by not editing his userpage. Or you could make good use of the things, maybe try having a dialogue about your disagreements. Couldn't hurt.

Anyway, those aren't threats—they're standard-issue talk-page warnings, which every single editor on Wikipedia is encouraged to use. Your "asking him to stop," on the other hand, began by calling him a swear word, which is a pretty obvious violation of Wikipedia's civility rules. I don't see how there's a justifiable complaint here. --Masamage 04:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was a little harsh at this user, but I didn't like a user who has never made a contribution before create an account for the purpose of defacing my talk page. I'll stop editing his userpage, but I'd prefer it if I didn't have to continue to wipe my page. It's demeaning and unjustified. I haven't vandalized any such page. Oh, and now that he's added two warnings, I can't even get rid of them anymore.Chipmaster32 04:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. They probably just want their own edits to stay in the article, and are miffed that it's not working out. Assume good faith, keep working to improve the 'pedia, and do not accuse others of "threatening" you unless they actually do so. As to dealing with the messages, just add a note to your own talk page saying that you've reviewed your edits to try and find what he's referring to, but been unsuccessful, and that you intend to keep trying to make useful contributions. Then ignore it and get on with things. --Masamage 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll work towards that resolution. I guess I overreacted, and for that I'm am sincerely sorry. Should I remove this notice now? Chipmaster32 04:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, there's no need; it's really not in anyone's way, and it'll be archived in a few days anyway. --Masamage 04:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User adding my personal name to comments line

Over the past couple months there has been an ongoing issue with the Alpental page history where a particular user began posting my personal name (he did a domain search on my website hyak.net). I would like to know if my name can be removed from the comments section since it was done as a way to try to intimidate me from participating. This user has been banned a few times already for vandalism and uses multiple ID's:

Ullr Siffson or 67.170.33.237

I just want my name removed if possible, that's all. (Sept 29-December 24) THANKS!! Mrhyak 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm maybe WP:OFFICE... but unless the edits were reverted right away we start to have issues with GFDL. ---J.S ^(T/C) 08:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VacuousPoet (talk • contribs) and numerous block-evading sockpuppets

Apropos of Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/VacuousPoet:

This user has aggressively and repeatedly edited under a host of anonymous IPs to evade blocks. At least two IPs and one new user account have been used for this purpose in the last 24 hours: 199.62.0.252 (talk • contribs), 170.215.15.99 (talk • contribs), and PurpleSunfish (talk • contribs). The user shows flagrant and unflagging disregard for policy, most especially WP:DE, WP:POINT, and of course WP:SOCK.

I apologize if this noticeboard is an inappropriate place to post in re this user given that a sockpuppetry case is already open, but I see no possible end to the number of anon IPs and new user accounts I would have to add to that case in the absence of more severe action. N6 08:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocking an entire country for a month

Note from Jimbo: It sounds like consensus here was exactly right (yay wikipedia admins!), but the online media (digg, slashdot, techcrunch) have posted inflammatory stories. We have to be really careful about this. We all agree: blocking an entire country = bad idea. At a very minimum, let's try to make it clear by posting comments wherever we can that such a block would not happen without a lot of serious serious consideration, requiring at a minimum a decision by the ArbCom and/or me personally. It COULD happen, never say never, but I think we need to make sure the world knows that we do our best to try to keep editing open for good faith users everywhere, even to the point of putting up with a lot of random crap from bad ISPs to try to help their poor customers.--Jimbo Wales 03:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at User talk:82.148.97.69, and it seems that this IP address is one of a few used by the proxy servers of Qatar's only ISP, Qtel (which apparently also censors content). The IP address has been blocked for a month for repeated vandalism (diff) (block log). Perhaps a softblock might be sufficient? --Oden 12:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It does look as though some of the people who reviewed and refused to lift the block were unaware of the facts (general and specific). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

An indefinate softblock is probably best - one IP for an entire country should be treated similarly to an open proxy, I think (but soft, not hard, as it's not the resident's fault). Some kind of block is required, though - we can't let vandals get away with it just because they have a stupid ISP. --Tango 13:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tango above, as the vandalism isn't going to go away once the block expires anyawy. It definately needs to be soft (account creation allowed) in any case - the usual advice of registering an account elsewhere and logging in on the blocked IP is impossible, it seems. Probably best if we sort this out quickly. Martinp23 13:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made the block soft - feel free to revert. It's still at one month duration for now, though. Martinp23 13:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with this solution. If there's (maybe inevitably) more vandalism from this address once the block expires, we should consider permanently softblocking it. Sandstein 14:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been linked to from Slashdot: [80]. Duck and cover. Mackensen (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added an explanatory message to the top of the talk page, which has been linked to from Slashdot. I hope it's clear enough, if not feel free to improve it. Don't we have a template for this? Sandstein 15:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It made it to Digg as well: Entire country of Qatar banned from editing Wikipedia (Digg). --64.230.123.128 17:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Now on BBC: [81]

Shame the BBC can't get the story right... Martinp23 12:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I just want to point out that at the time the address was blocked, I had no idea that I was blocking an entire country. It was not even marked as a shared IP. Although there was a comment on the discussion page, the IP was not marked as shared and I did not read that comment to mean that this was the only ISP serving Qatar. Frankly, I am stunned that an entire country can get by with only one IP address, though I understand about proxies and the like. I would like to say that I will never do this again in the future but in all honesty, it is entirely possible that I will make similar mistakes in the future. Such is not my intention and I would never have blocked this address had I known it was shared (let alone that it was an entire nation). --Yamla 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, for the record, I am not a U.S. citizen nor do I live in the U.S. My block was not politically motivated nor had anything to do with Al Jazeera journalists. There is no cabal, nor was this block an example of U.S. censorship, etc. etc. etc. --Yamla 20:12, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Good apology for an honest mistake; no one here suspects foul play in anyway. The sensationalism should have been avoided. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-01 22:55Z

Indeed. As far as I can tell, everyone acted correctly - policy doesn't say what to do when a country only has one IP address, it was never anticipated... Yamla did what seemed perfectly correct at the time. --Tango 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

150 edits have been made from this IP in the last 21 days; while that's significant for a normal IP, it's nothing for the nation of Qatar. Per Yamla's statement above, I've unblocked this address. Ral315 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This IP address should be treated like any other shared address. When we get lots of vandalism from a school, we softblock it, we should do the same here. Might as well leave it unblocked for now, but if there is any more vandalism, it will have to reblocked. --Tango 23:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's seven edits a day- that's statistically insignificant in my opinion. Ral315 (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP keeps posting its own version of what happened. Although that version does not appear to be inaccurate, it was reverted 2x by Jimbo (the IP keeps posting it) and 3x by me. Seeing as Jimbo is responsible for PR, beyond the IP I would hope, I'm protecting the page, and posting the decision here for review/comment. alphachimp. 15:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a pity, as the story is now being reported incorrectly in Qatar. We had been blocked a number of times, for periods of days, and had complained about this on the user talk page. All of this is verifiable from the block logs and archive of the talk page, and from the block logs of previous IP addresses used by the Qtel proxy (yes, it does change). The reply from admins was that they *realised* the effect, but life is tough sometimes. It seems obvious that the slashdot front page was the only reason that blocking of qatar has finally come to an end -- 82.148.97.69 09:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems the logs were checked by an [AP stringer], and the story is now being reported correctly across the middle east, asia and australasia (in all languages). I don't think Jimbo managed to kill this story. 82.148.97.69 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering the amount of media attention and general complaining you would think that IP was producing more constructive contribs. We have truckloads of editors who produce more constructive edits than this IP and without the vandalism and trolling too. Frankly I feel sorry for the admin who blocked you. It was a trivial block to protect Wikipedia and if every admin was supposed to investigate every IP they block when the talk page doesn't even mention that this was a "sensitive" IP we wouldn't have enough admins around to kill half the vandalism we get here. MartinDK 11:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good to see we're finally on a do-not-block list. Also nice to see that the chairwomen was dragged into the office to give a BBC interview. Pity it took a press campaign to stop the blocking. 82.148.97.69 09:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The IP would never have been blocked if it were not a continuing source of vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 09:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

if your country had a single ip address, I think it would probably be a source of vandalism, but it wouldn't be blocked 82.148.97.69 10:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if, say, all of New Hampshire (US state of comparable population) was on one ISP the chance that we would block it would be quite high. We might notice the problem sooner (more en.wiki editors in New Hampshire), but the idea that it would be treated any differently than happened here is baseless. --tjstrf talk 10:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I posted the first message on this thread with the intent of mitigating the effects of the block (it was lifted almost immediately). If this or any other ISP chooses this technical solution, we will have to find a way to accomodate those users who are affected while at the same time keeping an eye on vandalism. As far as Wikipedia is concerned there is no difference between this ISP and others who use a proxy server (like AOL, see Wikipedia:AOL). It is also possible that this could happen again, as there are probably several other small nations with only one ISP. --Oden 20:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki:Blockiptext page has been edited to place the IP under "sensitive IP addresses". Is this appropriate? theProject 05:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this section is just going to get more and more bloated. First it was just the UK parliament and the US Congress, because blocking them created a media frenzy and affects the legal situation, a far bigger problem than this minor Qatar mention. Then Canada was added, probably because someone wanted to prove Canada was equally important. Then the toolserver was added because it houses Anti-Vandal Bot and was erroneously blocked (and the page was never fixed, I "must notify" the Communications Committee immediately if I block the toolserver? No, that would be an entirely internal matter, no press would notice it, and it would either be an emergency or an error anyway). If the list is used in this manner it becomes meaningless, and the longer the list the less each item will be noticed. —Centrx→talk • 09:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. How stupid. I guess I can understand why this particular IP made it to the list (although a soft block would not be a bad idea), but this is starting to get out of hand. I would recommend the adder takes this into consideration and also removes the stupid toolserver address. —Pilotguy (ptt) 22:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV, uncited edits coming from this address

Could someone else please help keep an eye on the stuff coming from this IP address? Someone is adding material to a lot of articles on Serb pop singers in blatant violation of our BLP policy. The talk page is currently semi-protected and it's peculiarly difficult to have a conversation with an individual when an entire country is using one IP, and I don't want to block the thing again, for obvious reasons, -- well, unless it was absolutely necessary. Example edit: [82]. I didn't revert every edit. Antandrus (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MLK entry has racist language

I am new to Wiki and couldn't figure out how to remove the racist and sexually vulgar language in the Martin Luther King,Jr. entry. When I click on Edit the language in question is not there (only visible in the "real" article).

Can someone please remove these words like nigger and ho, cum etc.?216.138.8.6 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It has already been removed. Such things are removed very quickly, but if you view the page at the wrong time you get it. Sorry for the trouble. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Offensive world, and racist language was already removed I guess. Daniel5127 <Talk> 04:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it quickly but only after seeing the notice here, so thank you 216.138.8.6 for bringing it to our attention. Antandrus (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It would really help to have non-vandalized versions revision tagging, huh. Wonder whatever happened to that :-/ --Cyde Weys 04:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Left message on User Talk:216.138.8.6 thanking editor for reporting this. --Shirahadasha 09:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User page used first as blog, and now as ascii art spam page

We have some really weird edits on User:TheSkunk's user page. The user initially created the page and used it for non-Wikipedia related notes, random movie quotes, etc. and then moved on to posting a blog entry condemning internet advertising (as an IP editor)[83]. He was repeatedly informed of the WP:UP policy, but continued to readd the blog rant and be reverted until he finally got sick of it and posted this instead.

After that, the edit history goes rather crazy, with the "contributions" to the page being giant ascii art pictures, insults, and the spamming of various 4chan memes, mostly inserted by TheSkunk's IP but also by other IPs that may be TheSkunk or other vandals. Then User:The Hybrid comes along, and starts messing with the page. As he puts it, "trolling the troll"[84].

Rulebreaks on User:TheSkunk's part include WP:UP violation[85], WP:POINT[86] and/or WP:NPA violation[87], and general incivility. The Hybrid also appears to have displayed conduct unbecoming to an editor, but the only "rule" I can think of that he broke is probably WP:DFTT. --tjstrf talk 10:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just having a little fun. I have been an unbelieveably serious editor ever since coming to Wikipedia, constantly repressing my sense of humor. If I am truly causing trouble I will stop with this whole thing, but I don't see how this is hurting anyone. I have also made a point of removing anything in violation of User Page Guidelines while playing around. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 10:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

User:71.80.36.167, User:71.80.39.173, User:24.151.175.18 and 160.91.231.124 appear to be unblocked sock puppets of banned User:Scottfisher / User:Scott_fisher; as may be User:Patty_rising (if not, the latter is acting in close collusion, since Image:Popper.JPG has previously been uploaded by Fisher, claiming to be the photographer, then removed as he had a history of claiming others' pictures as his own. See User_talk:Scottfisher). 15:54, 3 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.86.36.97 (talk • contribs).

• I have blocked for a month User:71.80.39.173 and User:24.151.175.18. The other two anonims have not edited for months. User:Patty_rising is quite possibly also a sock: they edited the same articles (e.g. Image:Popper.JPG or Rick Stuart but I cannot find a positive proof. Can you refer me to the previous name of Image:Popper.JPG? Alex Bakharev 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Probably 'John Popper of Blues Traveler.JPG'; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Popper&diff=25080124&oldid=24924681. BTW, both of those you blocked resolve to Charter Communications. See [88]

[edit] Annoying Socks

There are a large number of suspicious SPA's over at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Yamla/Awards which is pretty problematic as it is. One, at least has blanked the userpage of a banned sockpuppet of User:Prin. I would appreciate if someone would look into this. Eluchil404 13:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Every single article in Category:Television schedules

Unless there's some specific exemption in U.S. copyright law that applies to these, every single one of these articles is a copyvio. If there is an exemption that applies, what is it -- fair use, Feist vs. Rural, or something else? -- The Anome 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What is it a copyvio of? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The TV schedules themselves, which could well be considered to be creative works in themselves by the networks involved. For example, consider a mosaic or a collage, which consists of smaller elements assembled into a pattern with overall artistic intent. In this case, the work is the programming in time of a stream of TV programs, with the intent of eliciting a specific audience response. -- The Anome 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see TV schedules in the newspapers, but what source was used to create the table, let's say, from the 1940's and 1950's? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Old newspapers? -- The Anome 20:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, Feist vs. Rural would apply if the schedules were records of mere facts, without any artistic input. However, I'm sure the TV networks would see things differently; in various other countries, copyright is asserted by some broadcasters in their TV schedules. I'm not sure what the rule is in the U.S. -- The Anome 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The article on Copyright says:

"Copyright law covers only the particular form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested, the "form of material expression". It is not designed or intended to cover the actual idea, concepts, facts, styles, or techniques which may be embodied in or represented by the copyright work."

A list is basically a collection of facts, like a telephone catalogue (see Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). A collection of facts cannot be copyrighted (e.g. a list of Presidents of the United States) since it lacks originality. However, whether or not the content is encyclopedic is a separate matter (see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information). --Oden 20:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It also needs to be verifiable. --Oden 20:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just my personal, mildly informed opinion: TV schedules don't seem to be the kind of thing that are copyrightable. Additionally, they do seem encyclopedic to me. You can get a great insight into what society was like decades ago by looking at the kind of things they could watch on television in a single night. Beyond knowing merely which shows were popular from a given time period, it's important to know when they were shown and in what order. Also, it's very interesting (at least to me) to see how prime time viewing has shifted over time in content, duration, and time of night. --Cyde Weys 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of copyright issues, is this really encyclopedic? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe TV schedules can be encyclopedic. Of course, they have to be discussed and synthesized (not necessarily just presented at face value). But there's definitely interesting and encyclopedic material to be mined from them, and best of all, there are already journal articles that do exactly this, and can be cited. --Cyde Weys 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I think these are worth including as lists in Wikipedia, for the reasons Cyde Weys gives above, and if there are no copyright problems, I'd like to see them kept. The problem is that there is a plausible argument that they might be considered to be copyrighted works. A TV schedule is most certainly a "form or manner in which ideas or information have been manifested". But does it count as an artistic work from the viewpoint of U.S. copyright law? I don't know.

My point is that, unless we have evidence that these schedules are GFDL-compatible, we shouldn't have them in Wikipedia, rather than simply assuming that they are OK because no-one knows what their status is. -- The Anome 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that while arrangements of information is copyrightable the information itself is not. Is that not how Wikipedia works by taking information from copyrighted source, arranging it in a creative original way and citing the source? HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that, in this case, the schedule itself is the arrangement of information; as you say, arranging the programs in a creative original way. Just listing which programs were in the schedule for that year is like noting the key signature of a piece of music, an uncopyrightable fact. However, if you were to print a factual list of the sequence of notes in a piece of music, that would be copyrightable. The problem is if you were to regard the schedule itself, in its totality, as a creative work, like a DJ set.

As I say, in other countries, TV broadcasters most certainly have asserted copyright in their schedules. The question is whether this is the case in the U.S. There must be a precedent somewhere for this. -- The Anome 20:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this may be similar with map copyrights, where the same information can be used by 2 different people to achieve identical or similar works, both original. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the above that the schedules themselves probably aren't copyrightable. Once the shows have aired, listing what was on becomes a simple matter of historical fact lacking the apparent creativity necessary for copyright. However, I am also inclined to believe that they aren't particularly encyclopedic. Dragons flight 20:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Schedules either are or are not copyrightable in the U.S. If they are, they are still under copyright, and we shouldn't have them. If they aren't we can then argue about whether they should be included. Again, surely there's some case law about this. -- The Anome 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I really doubt you will find a legal ruling directly on point, because I would be suprised if anyone has ever been sued for after-the-fact reproduction of TV schedules. Dragons flight 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What about episode summaries? Is it a copyright violation to describe what happened in episode X of television series Y? If so, there's a whole lot of copyvios that need deleting. If not, does that mean it's acceptable to include information about each episode, but not describe when those episodes aired? SuperMachine 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's just facts and ideas, and not copyrightable. -- The Anome 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrong. Events depicted in fiction are considered copyrighted expression, not uncopyrightable fact. Descriptions of the contents of fictional works copy those works, even if it is a written description of an audio-visual work. We can do it here only under fair use. P.S., IAAL, and this is clear from copyright case law. Postdlf 22:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The works themselves might be copyrighted, but a collection of titles (like a List of bestselling novels in the United States or the Academy Award for Best Picture) is probably not a copyrightable collection of facts. According to the article on Feist v. Rural the threshold is very low, but a copyrightable work has to contain some element of creative expression. The information itself, if rearranged, is not copyrightable. --Oden 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Television schedules in the U.S. are not copyrightable, and, in fact, are frequently used in television encyclopedias such as Alex McNeil's Total Television and the competing publications. In fact, McNeil has an entire 50 page section dedicated to nothing but television schedules without a single appearance of a copyright notice. This is the first time I'm hearing of this. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been working on the daytime TV articles, and I do not see how you can copyright a simple listing of facts. They can be verified by looking into old TV Guides or newspaper TV listings. If the form in which the facts are presented can be copyrighted I see no violation by any of the articles in this category. The form is unique to the articles. In my opinion, they should be kept. The programs themselves are creative works that are copyrighted, but I don't see the problem with saying what time they aired. Attmay 20:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Do these articles have a place on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. I don't believe that these schedules, in and of themselves are encyclopedic.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 21:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, the schedules are frequently used in specialised encyclopedias (Television encyclopedias). The argument of NOT can't really be used since other encyclopedias have used the format for decades. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, transformative use may come into play here. If we were to accept there is copyright in the mere arrangement of television schedules, then this could prevent another network using the same schedule (not that it could, because it wouldn't have the rights to the same programs!) : but we aren't running the programs in such a way. Also, these are quite generic listings, just outlining the basic schedule: not the actual week-to-week variations. Morwen - Talk 21:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been using 1949-50 United States network television schedule, off an on, to create new articles for early broadcast programs. The information I'm using to create the articles has television schedules in it, and there are no copyright notices there. I don't see how they can be acceptable in newspapers and not here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As this isn't anything requiring admin intervention, I recommend the discussion be moved to Category talk:Television schedules. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Television schedules serve a useful research purpose for authors of historical fiction. A writer who sets a childhood tale in the 1950s, for example, would want to know what network Howdy Doody aired on, what day or days of the week it was available, and what hour it was broadcast. This adds to the story's realism and could affect plot elements. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

These are not copyrightable. What's confused some people is that the television schedules were "created" by someone, but just because your decisions can be expressed as written data doesn't mean that you've created copyrightable written expression. The schedule is more akin to a set of instructions, or a recipe: "air program B after program A at these times." This is not eligible for copyright.

There's also the fact that the relevant "work" to be judged would not be a night's schedule as a whole, but instead a single network's schedule. These only include around 3 - 5 elements, a very short "phrase" consisting of a few television series titles as "words" that is simply too insubstantial to qualify for copyright protection. Postdlf 03:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help: www.copyright.gov's circular 34 specifically states that "titles of works" are "not subject to copyright"; accordingly the names of the television shows are not copyrightable (they can be trademarks, but that's a different issue.) Furthermore, from the same source, "mere listings of ingredients, as in recipes, labels, or formulas" are not subject to copyright. Since a television schedule is a "listing of ingredients" in a network's daily broadcast, the collection of titles is also not copyrightable. I'm not a lawyer, and of course copyright law is subject to interpretation by the courts, but this seems extremely clear-cut. --Heath 66.32.117.111 03:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What happens in other countries is also irrelevant, some other countries allow facts to be copyrighted. The US does not. VxP 21:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Does "television schedule" refer to the grid that appears in the newspaper or TV Guide? Or to a particular network or TV station's schedule? If the latter, I would argue that they probably are copyrightable under US law. The relevant Supreme Court case (Feist) had to do with telephone books. The Court held that white pages are not copyrightable because of a lack of originality; they are merely an alphabetical list of facts. But it turns out that yellow pages can be copyrighted because the selection and arrangement of the "facts" in them meet the minimal threshhold of originality.

As someone who has worked in the TV business, I can say with some certainty that an incredible amount of thought and sometimes even creativity goes into planning a TV schedule. Why did ABC move Gray's Anatomy from Sunday nights to Thursdays? Wasn't the show doing well on Sundays? Was it losing its lead-in audience? How will it compete against NBC's comedies and CBS's CSI? Executives get hired and fired over these decisions. I'd say that this process involves originality. (And it differs from a recipe because the order in which ingredients are listed generally doesn't matter.)

On the other hand, a simple list of shows on NBC or a local station would not be copyrightable (this is analogous to a recipe). And I would agree that a TV guide is not copyrightable (although that may depend on the extent to which information like show synopses is added). My cursory look at the category in question indicates that we are talking about simple grids, so I think it is not a copyvio. (And either way, there's probably a "fair use" argument to be made.)--Vbd 14:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked User:Fluffbrain

I've indefinitely blocked User:Fluffbrain for sockpuppeting, personal attacks and vandalism. I first noticed User:Fluffbrain after I speedy deleted the article Israeli Art Students controversy on December 13 as a recreation of an AfD'd article about a poorly-sourced minor conspiracy theory: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Israeli_art_students. User:Fluffbrain almost immediately re-created it as an attack page with the content "Thanks a lot, dumb-ass delete-monkeys. Nicely managed. You may be 12 but you're as mature as a 13 year old. Good job.", for which she was warned by DMacks.

A couple of days later she posted a lengthy sarcastic comment on my Talk: page, to which I responded politely. Four days later she posted a rather rude comment to my Talk page, in which she described me as, among other things, "rude, combative, abrupt".

On the 24th she tried to post a link to a geocities page about the Students conspiracy on the 9/11 conspiracy theories page, which was immediately deleted by User:Rosenkreuz She then added it to another page, one which had also been previously AfDd, then recreated. After quick reversion, she then attempted to add it to another page, where she was reverted again, then tried to add the conspiracy theory to another page which was also pretty quickly reverted.

She then put an insulting comment on Rosenkreuz's User talk: page, which concluded with the sentence Ignorance is bliss for you, I guess, or at least a wet dream. After attempting to add the link to another article, and being reverted again by yet another editor she posted a comment to someone's Talk page calling User:Rosenkreuz "Mr. Know-it-all", and then posted another lengthy attack on Rosenkreuz's User:talk page, which included choice phrases like This overweening weenie-ness of yours is unseemly, as well as wilfully stupid. Practice your multiplication tables, keep up with your super-duper-secret-crypto code-book, work hard, and someday you will grow to be a man. and It pisses me off, though, when know-it-all knuckleheads like you arrogate to themselves the right to decide the difference between heresy and blasphemy. Maybe you should go back to the Jesuits for further training. These were soon followed by another attack comment Your bloated sense of self-importance and propensity for snap judgements about matters on which you are completely ignorant show that even if it's true that you're an adult (unlikely), you have the emotional maturity of a 14-year old. As I said before, I am not an evangelist for this issue, so I will now leave you alone to celebrate your brilliant mind. Hope Mommy and Daddy got you all the toys you wanted today. "Celebrate your brilliant mind" was linked to Wanker#Meaning

She then claimed she was going to "just going to let this topic go", though several days later she did make one least attempt to add the link to another article was soon removed by another editor.

As it turns out, Fluffbrain had, since the end of November, also been creating sockpuppets to edit and edit-war for her on various articles she was interested in. Thus she used Tunguska555 and Fluffbrain to edit Sean Hannity, Tangerine5000 Rosemary999 and Fluffbrain to edit Surfing, and used Tunguska555 and Cheezwhiz to edit-war for Fluffbrain on Sagging (fashion) and Melanie Morgan. She also used Tangerine5000 to accuse Rosenkreuz of being a sockpuppet of User:Morton devonshire [89], and to insult Morton devonshire by claiming his PhD was fake and that he was a "pot-head" [90] and used Cheezwhiz to vandalize Rozencruez's User: page and to upload vandalized images.

On December 31 she created User:Overdispersion, and promptly inserted the deleted Student conspiracy theory article into two articles she'd previously warred on as Fluffbrain. [91] [92] Perhaps because of the new userid, the edits went unnoticed for several days. She also tried to add back the geocities link to a third article she had been warring on. Rather amusingly, she was actually reverted and warned this time by a bot: [93] [94]. Her work done, she blanked the page and retired the sockpuppet.

Based on her policy-violating sockpuppeting, and rather egregious violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and her vandalism, I've blocked her sockpuppets and her main account indefinitely. Since then she has been busy logging in as the various accounts and blanking the relevant User talk: pages. [95] [96] [97] I invite comment. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The indef block looks more than appropriate. Beit Or 05:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you have invited comment, Jay, I would like to say that you are an invaluable asset to this project. Having said that, I would also like to hold forth on my favorite subject of this month, namely, do you know how difficult it is to find kosher giraffe meat in New Jersey?? Oh my Lord! I've been looking since Passover - and I haven't found it yet. - crz crztalk 05:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I know! Why don't we just keep it in every temple basement like we do with kosher endangered Siberian Tiger? :) - Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Good work. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Good call. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Personal_attack_or_unwarranted_censorship.3F

I would appreciate other editors and/or admins looking into this thread. The user persists making disruptive edits. Thanks, Crum375 05:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk page deletion should be done with care. That one looks dubious unless you substantiate the assertion that this is part of a larger disruptive pattern. Still, the post was uncivil and rambling so I've suggested that the editor who made it reformulate a better version and take up a WP:RFC. Durova^Charge 06:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The only disruptive act is Crum375 making a big deal out of an opinon expressed on a talk page. WAS 4.250 07:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There actually was a pattern. This user started by spamming other WP editors, implying they leave WP and come to his web site (e.g. [98][99][100], see his contribs for more). He was rebuked by others for spamming and came over to the EL Talk to complain that he gets rebuked for spamming and promoting his web site while others get a free ride. As can be seen I participated in that thread along with others, tried to explain the issues to him and he initially seemed to agree. Two days later he decided to post a rambling attack on Angela and Jimbo which I thought was over the line and certainly misposted on the EL Talk page, and reverted it, explaining it on his Talk page. He persisted in arguing, which is when I finally left it and posted here. If anyone who follows my posts can point out any mistakes I made in handling the situation I would appreciate it. Thanks, Crum375 12:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Crum continues to think that Centiare.com is "my" website. It's owned by Karl Nagel, and I assure you, I'm not Karl Nagel, I'm not his relative, and I have no business contract with him. --JossBuckle Swami 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a web site you are clearly promoting by spamming WP editors. I have no way of knowing who you are and what your business relations are. Crum375 15:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That tirade didn't belong on WP:EL. It's off topic and redundant since he already posted it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, where it makes more sense. Removing it was perfectly appropriate since it has nothing to do with EL and just distracts from actually working on that page. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD spamming by User:Iamunknown

Iamunknown (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) recently nominated 28 articles for deletion but did not provide any rationale. In fact, it's clear that he doesn't even think that the articles in question should be deleted, as he voted "Abstain" in every case! This wastes everyone's time; it's the responsibility of the nominator to indicate why he thinks an article fails to meet Wikipedia's standards. I recommend that the discussions be closed immediately without prejudice, and that User:Iamunknown be instructed not to make any further mass XfD nominations unless he is prepared to customize each one with a rationale for deletion.

The list of AfDs is as follows:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional xenoarchaeologists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional witches
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Vice Presidents of the United States
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vampires
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States Presidents
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional United States presidential candidates
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supervillainesses
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroic fictional scientists and engineers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mad scientists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional psychiatrists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional serial killers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional British Prime Ministers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional postal employees
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Australian politicians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional politicians
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional police detectives
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of police and detective characters portrayed in comedy
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional British monarchs
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military people
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror film killers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional journalists
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hookers with hearts of gold
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional hackers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of coaches in fiction
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional clergy and religious figures
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional butlers
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternate history United States Presidents

—Psychonaut 12:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you see on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of alternate history United States Presidents at the very least that all he was doing was completing incomplete afd noms by others? I've done the same thing, though admittedly not on the same scale. Syrthiss 12:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did. However, the AfDs are still incomplete without a proper rationale. Either the original nominator should have provided a rationale, or the incomplete nomination should have been deleted. Incomplete nominations should not be posted to the main AfD page. —Psychonaut 12:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Iamunknown's talk page and some of the other afds in this list, it was originally part of an omnibus nomination list of fictional actors...and the original nominator either didn't link them all correctly to the one discussion or Iamunknown didn't notice. Its clear from his talk page discussion with the original nominator that he realizes he flubbed. Satisfied? Syrthiss 13:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Its still obvious that they should have been listed for speedy deletion (the AfDs, not the articles :P), rather than put up for WP:AFD and help clog up the process. I suggest speedy-close all the ones nominated without a rationale. ::shrug:: — Nearly Headless Nick 13:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm satisfied that User:Iamunknown was acting in good faith. He tried to fix someone else's mistake, but unfortunately compounded that mistake in the process. The situation still needs to be resolved by closing the broken AfDs and communicating to all involved parties that what they did was in error. —Psychonaut 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Such bureaucracy is not necessary. All AFD debates you mention now contain a clear reason by Otto, and can proceed normally. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. >Radiant< 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] report of vandalism

To the sysop,

This is to report blatant vandalism earlier today by User:69.251.34.221 on the Towson High School Wikipedia entry.

Please accept my apologies if this is not the proper procedure for reporting vandalism, but I have waded thru several pages of Wikipedia without success trying to find out how one simply reports such incidences.

Please take it from here.

Thx, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JGHowes (talk • contribs) 18:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

• This is the wrong place... in the future please report this type of problem to WP:AIV.--Isotope23 18:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Already dealt w/ on the spot by our best vandal fighter who never sleeps. Thanks for the note anyway. -- Szvest - ^{Wiki me up ®} 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

JGHowes replies to Isotope23-- Unfortunately, that is easier said than done using a BlackBerry: there's no "+" to make a new entry at WP:AIV, i.e., report vandalism.

[edit] Block for review

I blocked SlamDiego (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24h for disruption. There's a thread at the bottom of my Talk in which he makes it pretty plain that he's unrepentant over characterising as libel (WP:NLT) a legitimate if strongly worded criticism from Jimfbleak, thread at WP:PAIN. Neither side is being a model Wikicitizen, but Jimfbleak is not bitching about it and SlamDiego is. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the block, although I'm not exactly uninvolved. I had an encounter with SlamDiego here yesterday. He is pretty combative. -- Donald Albury 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Buttboy666

This user, who was indef banned for possible sockpuppetry (and subsequently rejected for his username), is now using his talk page as a soap box, and appears to be doing so more for the WP:DENY effect than anything. I've already said it would come to this; would someone mind locking his talk page? Patstuart^talk|edits 19:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. User talk page disruption really grates my cheese. -- Merope 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked 209.19.59.110

I have blocked 209.19.59.110 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24 hours for disruption by attempting to impersonate Ted Kennedy in this edit. This anon has been trying to list Kennedy as a 'famous person who has not been convicted of vehicular homicide' in Vehicular homicide for a while now. -- Donald Albury 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Given this, obvious enough for WP:AIV. Patstuart^talk|edits 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 63.175.153.226 (talk • contribs)

Keeps vandalizing Chesapeake Bay, short block would be helpful. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 20:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say you don't qualify for AIV; anyone can post to AIV as long as the steps at the top of the page have been followed. If they haven't been followed, then the vandal shouldn't be blocked. That's true no matter where you post about it. Moreschi has given the user a {{test3}} and they appear to have stopped, so if they start up again, give them a {{test4}}; if they continue after that, follow the instructions on WP:AIV to list them and it will be taken care of. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? 20:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP civility case

199.80.117.24 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) was blocked last week for his repeated incivil comments, and his block has expired and he has started his incivility right up again. I was redirected here from posting twice on AIV that he was violating WP:CIVIL and I archived several of the conversations at the talk page that he has been commenting on. Additonally, comments like these (referring to Myzou and Ryulong), changing a month old comment, and assuming bad faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)