Greetings. A user is using multiple accounts (over a dozen so far) to make the same reversion to Iraqi insurgency. When he is blocked for 3RR violation, he creates another account and goes again. Check out the page history. I've previously filed complaints at Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress#Possible_Sockpuppets and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Hesketh_Fortescue_and_related_sockpuppets. (Please read that second link before blocking me or anyone else for violating the 3RR when reverting this user's changes - other admins have determined the sockpuppets' changes to be tantamount to simple vandalism, so the 3RR doesn't apply to those that revert him.)

Anyway, this user is nothing if not enthusiastic and diligent in his cause. I'm an admin, and I've blocked many of his incarnations, but I could use some help. Thanks, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Can he/she/it be blocked by an IP or a range of IPs? Maybe it is worth to temporary protect the article? abakharev 22:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe protect it for a few days. That would be my next suggestion. I'll watchlist the page too. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you protect it, then the vandal will go to an unwatched page. It is better to fix it by blocking the range than to push the vandal to an unseen page. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:38

Maybe, maybe not. Is there any evidence that this person cares at all about other pages? If not, I'd be inclined to try a protection for a while. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think he only cares about wasting our time and screwing over Wikipedia, so I think it'd be easy for him to just move onto other articles. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-3 22:46

I'm not at all keen for this page to be protected - for any more than a few hours at a time. It is a high profile current event, and I recently removed the protection after three days. It is better to block the POV pushers if possible and if not just revert. This type of insistant warrior will have the page protected for months on end. If we give in to this we might as well have George W. Bush on permenant protection. It's a wiki. --Doc (?) 23:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• more suckpupeets User:Brain1890, User:Brain1980 and User:Brain8190 on the same page abakharev 02:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And User:Brain1809. I'm famous! — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 02:23

This vandal is still going strong. Anyone care to help? — BRIAN0918 • 2005-11-4 02:43

Wik's reversion vandalbot again? - David Gerard 07:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repossession (talk · contribs) continues to remove an article he/she has created (The Fight) from the copyvio log before the case has been settled. He/she has also removed the copyvio notice on the page and reverted the article to the copyvio text. Until now, I have been able to reinstate the copyvio notice and the log myself, but I can't remain online forever ;) I hope that one of the administrators will keep an eye on this article and this user (who btw. seems to be on a mission to blatantly plug, promote and advertise for artists and albums signed to a record label he/she claims to own, which seems like a misuse of Wikipedia namespace). Aecis ^praatpaal 01:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have you discussed this with him? I don't see any edits on his Talk page which discuss this issue. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted him/her now. I would have contacted Repossession Records as well, but I can't find an e-mail address anywhere on their homepage. Aecis ^praatpaal 10:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor has created an excellent non-copyvio temporary page, so I think we can consider this case closed. Aecis ^praatpaal 23:00, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed an edit from Oldstylecharm (talk · contribs) in which he added a link to a website of poetry. It was not at all relevant to the article, so I reverted it. I looked through his contributions, and saw that he had added that particular website to several articles, but had made no content-edits. It seemed likely that he was the poet in question, or at least that he was trying to increase traffic to a particular website. I began to remove them all – a laborious task. After a while, I noticed that Trever (talk · contribs) was busy replacing them. His name had a red link, so it looked as if the account was very recently created. I looked at his contributions, and saw that he was not only replacing the spamlinks, but was going to pages I had recently edited, and was undoing all my edits – even on a talk page, twice, where I was answering a question from another user [1] [2], and another talk page where I had simply added the {{unsigned}} templage and removed a blank line [3]. It seems fairly obvious that Trever is a sockpuppet for Oldstylecharm, and that they are both in violation of Wikipedia policy.

I sent a message to both usertalk pages alerting them to the policy on spam. I also sent a message to Trever, and he replied that he wasn't Oldstylecharm – Guess what my name spelled backwards is?

I have just received a message[4] from Nannegananneghan (talk · contribs) which is almost certainly related to the above.

Could an admin look into this, please? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 01:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef. blocked all 3 for spamming and innapropriate use of sockpuppets since there seem to be no actual edits to speak of, I'll also use rollback to revert all edits by them. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Wbfl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours. He has been editwarring with Geni (talk · contribs) and others on Wikipedia talk:Administrative probation, see [5]. I am putting this notice up as I was the target of the original attack. Fred Bauder 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deny the above acusation. 1 revert is not an edit war.Geni 07:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I don't think that Fred meant it as an accusation that Geni was edit warring. To clarify, I think Fred meant that Wbfl was edit warring, and that Geni was just one of many editors whose edits Wbfl reverted. (For context, Wbfl was repeatedly reinserting a personal attack into a talk page.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please attend to Rootkit which either needs to be a redirect to Root kit or, according to the consensus, Root kit needs moving to rootkit. At the moment there is a speedy deletion on Rootkit, and a note rather than a redirect, which while it would allow a non admin to sort out the problem, isn't of any use to the readers who will come along looking for Rootkit (as Root kit is a mistake) and get this horrendous page, worse than a double redirect, SqueakBox 16:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Radiojon is now revert moving the live talk page Talk:Rootkit to Talk:Rootkit/archibve here and [here which is blanking my comments. He is also removing the redirect I have put opn Rootkit to replace it with a message top accompany his spurious speedy notice. He is making a mess of wikipedia content and disrupting a debate for reasons I don't conmprehend, SqueakBox 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to clean the rubish off the front page by creating large numbers of dummy accounts. However I appear to have run into a feature that produces the message "Sorry, you have already created 10 accounts. You can't make any more. Special Page". Since that rather firmly limits me I was woundering if anyone else would be able to carry on?Geni 19:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it makes more sense for a developer to rename the accounts in question to more innocuous names. I know we're short of developer resources, but this wouldn't take a lot of skill (and isn't particularly urgent, since the names have been there for a while). I wouldn't mind upskilling a bit to do this myself. Where would I go to apply? I assume what would be required would be direct database access, ie ability to run read-write sql statements directly on the database. I realise this would require the highest level of trust from the community. Alternatively, a developer could write a script to rename a user, which first checks that the user has no edits (is that the case for all these abusive usernames?) or only a very small number of edits, and permission to run that script can be given to only a very small number of users.-gadfium 23:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

they could just be recreated. I'm trying to make it imposible to add a name contianin content to the first page.Geni 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need trust from the developers, not the community. See How to become a MediaWiki hacker. There already was something made to rename users but it had to be disabled. See Wikipedia:Changing username. Angela. 05:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really I think my ip shifts around a small range so the ten limit doesn't matter in the long run. Yes technicaly a technical solution might be better but I'm being realistic (the developers have other things to worry about).Geni 06:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've started making more of these. Anything to get "Linuxbeak is a faggot" off that page. ~~ N (t/c) 06:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are likely to be blocked repeatedly if you do this. The account creation pattern will look awfuly suspecious to patroling admins.Geni 07:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even though all of the accounts I created were blocked, I never suffered an IP autoblock - I guess because I logged out immediately after making each one. ~~ N (t/c) 18:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:Daniel Brandt for a week for making unfounded legal threats. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Input needed. Check out Dlyons493 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) these contribs. All with edit summaries of Reverting vandalism by 168.8.230.251, but there was no edits by that IP. Some of them I have reverted, and some seem like valid edits. I have left a msg on the talk page, but no response. Anyone have any opinions on this? «»Who?¿?^meta 01:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. Replied. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TDC (talk · contribs) seems to have gone a bit bananas again. See Winter Soldier Investigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lots of reverts. If you look at his recent contributions it's pretty much the same story across a load of articles. Last time he got this bad I blocked him for a bit. I intend this time to warn him again and if he continues block him for a day or two to hamper his being a disruptive so-and-so. I invite others to investigate and review this proposal. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you say, Tony, but would add that the other party in this revert war (the EarthLink IP) is also belligerent- revert warring and (previously) inserting copyvios for the last fourteen months on this and other articles. --Duk 04:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with what you say, Tony, but must (yet again) correct Duks mischaracterization. I've contributed edits to Wikipedia for less than 5 months. Not only have I never, to my knowledge, inserted copyvios, but I've also gone to great lengths to work with Duk to remove and properly rewrite what he considered questionable -- despite Duk's unwarranted personal attacks. As for "inserting copyvios for the last fourteen months," I believe Duk can verify (through the evidence on his User Talk page) that such a description fits TDC to a tee. I would appreciate it greatly, Duk, if you would refrain from the personal attacks. I can't imagine what beef you might have with certain Earthlink users, but quit trying to make me a part of it. 165.247.202.196 11:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are right - its not fair of me to assume that all the EarthLinks IP's tormenting this article for the last fourteen months are you. So let me re-state that Tony's comment about TDC can be equally applied to the other party (a group of EarthLink IP's that act in a similar way). Also, you can easily avoid these arguments by editing under a login. --Duk 16:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it may not be fair to assume that it is the same individual EarthLink user, its a pretty safe bet considering that the same article has been in dispute with EarthLinks IP's for fourteen months, and that it was only until Duk stepped in and put an end to the most egregious copyvio issues that it partially ended. If I am going to be singled out for an edit war on this article, I wish that you would at least take into consideration that this anon has not allowed one single user to contribute or modify that article in any significant way. I should also point out that the edit war is not for lack of discussion on the talk page. TDC 21:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I take all of that into account, but none of it gives you cart blanche to engage in this pointless and sterile edit war which serves absolutely no useful purpose. See my elaboration of this on your talk page. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 22:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I was wondering if someone with more time on their hands than me could look at the extensive conflict between Iantresman (talk · contribs) and Joshuaschroeder (talk · contribs). Ian left this message on my talk page yesterday. There's POV disputes ranging over multiple articles (See Talk:Redshift, Talk:Plasma cosmology). I'm not sure if this is arbitration-level yet (which is where he was thinking of taking it), but I think the two desperately need some third-party input. Any help is appreciated! Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 05:45, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to take it, but I'm not sure I'm equipped to help at the moment. Just too many other disputes going on that I am involved in. But...please...someone help dmc out if they can. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked Benapgar (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for repeatedly disrupting Intelligent design over the last 2 weeks by ignoring consensus about his originial research and highly pov edits, multiple violations of WP:NPA and WP:3RR, and ignoring warnings from SlimVirgin (talk · contribs), myself, and others. FeloniousMonk 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but blocking a user over a content dispute, when you are one of the major parties to that dispute, is out of line. I'm going to remove this block, but if another uninvolved admin wants to review the evidence and reinstate it, I won't object. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute, but a behavior dispute. FeloniousMonk 20:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A quick glance shows several different people warning Benapgar on the talk page. I don't see that the block is "out of line" at all. However, I'm not going to block a user based on looking at 2 minutes worth of evidence. I also don't feel too keen to block a user without warning them myself to cut it out, but that might make me an involved party too. I do not think the block should have been removed. The block isn't because of a content dispute, it's because of disruptive editing, unless you're suggesting that FeloniousMonk is being misleading in his reasons given above. Friday (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above and you've correctly identified, Benapgar earned his 24hr block for 2 weeks of disrupting that article, personal attacks, and ignoring multiple warnings. I'm not going to challenge Mirv's unblocking of him. But now that Benapgar is out of the pokey and a free man, I have a feeling we'll know soon enough whether I was right to block him for being chronically disruptive. FeloniousMonk 21:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(via EC) When the dispute is over behavior in regards to the content of an article, the difference between a content dispute and a behavioral dispute becomes blurry. I'm concerned that an admin who was one of the major parties to the dispute lacks the distance necessary to distinguish the two; if someone who wasn't involved in the dispute thinks the behavior merits a block, they'll hear no objection from me. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with that. If other's aren't comfortable that I'm objective or detached enough to make a rational judgment, who am I to tell them they are wrong? There's also the appearance of being vindictive, since I was the target of much of Benapgar's wrath, that is an issue too. My only concern is dealing effectively with chronically abusive and disruptive editors. If it troubles others that I'm involved, then someone else will need to deal with this situation or it will spiral out of control, as his edits since his unblocking indicate. FeloniousMonk 21:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: involved admins should never block — even if the block is warranted, it creates the image of an admin blocking out of spite. (And I haven't reviewed this case.) Two: isn't there a current ArbCom case regarding this? Why not let them sort it out? THanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 01:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do so many admins in a conflict-of-interest situation like this insist on besmirching their own reputations by blocking people they're in a dispute with? It doesn't take too much effort to post a note here asking for someone else, someone outside the dispute, to examine the situation and impose a block if it's called for.

If a block is appropriate, then someone outside the dispute will agree. --FOo 05:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Misplaced questions removed. Wiki brah, the Reference Desk is ←thataway; ask your questions there, please. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Would someone please restore the dispute tag to this article and lock it? Levzur doesn't grasp that he doesn't get to decide whether or not there's a dispute, and I'm not going to play revert war over a dispute tag. Isomorphic 02:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I readded the tag with the note. We can't "lock" it. If you want protection on the page, please go to Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection or start the Dispute resolution process. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 10:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My question about BGC (talk · contribs) and his non-fair-use of fair use images was archived before anything could come of it. Kelly Martin posted agreeing that the use wasn't fair under fair-use conditions, but nothing else happened. As things stand, then, BGC is adding these images to a whole range of articles (as are others, I imagine). All that I can do is to remove them, but as BGC simply reverts my removal, I'm engaged in a slow-moving edit war with no obvious way out. The template that includes them (which hasn't been adopted by the Albums Wikiproject) was nominated for deletion, but there was no consensus (thanks to a large number of editors who had no interest in the fair use issue, but thought that the template looked pretty).

Someone managed to get him to stop him calling my removal of the images vandalism in his edit summaries, but that's purely incidental; could someone who knows what they're talking about speak to him about fair use, and explain the problem with what he's doing? As for Template:Album infobox 2, as it innvolves the non-fair use, what can be done about it? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fix the infobox to exclude the disputed stuff and put a request on WP:RFPP. When the infobox is protected, then he can be educated. NOT while he's engaged in an edit war with an administrator who frankly should know better. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 19:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that since jguk is about to get banned by the arbcom (Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2) from making date style changes, he is embarking on another trolling spree to remove/change reference to BCE / CE / Common Era. He has created a duplicate template (Template:Middle_Kingdoms_of_India), against the GFDL (without crediting the source or original authors), with a different date style from the original (Template:Middle_kingdoms_of_India) and is going from article to article changing date styles [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Someone please block him and rollback his edits. Sortan 19:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]