Since the particular user named doesn't appear to have an account at the English language edition and the deletions occurred at Commons, I doubt I could remedy this. You might take up the matter at Wikimedia Commons or contact the Spanish language administrators. Due to the large number of recent edits it's hard to understand. Suggest posting a request for comment at WP:RFC. I suspect part of the reason there's been difficulty resolving this is because of language limitations: this message was so brief that it was hard to investigate and WP:3O didn't have much to go on. Favor de describir la problema en Español básico. No comprendo todo pero intento a ayudar.Durova02:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is constantly changing links on Talk:XennoBB which show soe negativity to his software to invalid links (changing parts of IP address for example). This IP address also belongs to User:Osgiliath who is the owned of the XennoBB product. Basically those trying to present a biased (two sides of the story) view of his application and what he has been doing is being covered up by him sneakily editing links in the talk page. Surfichris02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Constantly hasn't happened in the last four days. Prior activity was indeed link vandalism but not all that frequent. The IP already has a warning on the talk page, so report future activity at WP:AN/I. In addition, all editors to this page should be mindful of WP:CIVIL. Durova16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
An examination of the edit history of this IP address shows subtle, sometimes comical, changes to articles which are not obvious vandalism. It appears this is an individual who wishes to "make a mark" without being obvious. --KeepItClean02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
User is posting psuedo vandalism-warnings on my talk page, reverting legitimate edits from other contributors on the Designer Whey Protein article - where they have also violated the three revert rule today. This user is improperly using [citation needed] tags on the Biological Value article, which is fine, however he's been reverting any attempts at fixing these sections using proper templates and the posting "vandalism" and "admin" notices on my talk page about it. The user has also been uncivil and is accusing me of vandalism for attempting to fix these tags on other talk pages. There is also evidence that shows the user is a sockpuppet, editing under another IP address: 63.17.103.250. Finally this user is attempting to draw admin Glen S into this by claiming that Glen knows about him and his sockpuppeteering, and referencing him in his edit summaries. Sorry this is such an unusual request. I'm attempting to keep a cool head, however my patience is limited. Thanks in advance for any help. Yankees7621:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I consider it a personal attck of being accused of being a sockpuppet.
I gave a proper warning to the user who vandalized the articles in question. He removed templates and removed comments on the discussion page just because he disagrees with me. Removing other users comments is considered vandalism. Also, when I log into the internet my IP address starts with 6317 always. It is quite obvious Yankees76 is uncivil. Please investigate Yankees for vandalism and breaking the 3 revert rule to my constructive edits. 63.17.61.4021:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Update - the baiting continues today - from yet a third IP, though it's clearly the same user. See edit summary [4]. Thanks Yankees76
Another update - user continues to make baseless 3RR accusations on another admins talk page, though it appears Glen has gone on holiday for Wikipedia and is unable to provide any mediation on this ongoing harassment. [5]. Yankees7601:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Basem I've created the article XPress few months back, only to find it completely deleted, even it's URL http://en.wikipedia.org/w/XPress was redirecting to the edit/create page.
i have recreated the page but i lost the initial layout and input, including the imagery!
Zarbat(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) - This user has just unilaterally redirected anything that says "Aboriginal Australian" into "Indigenous Australian". I have been contributing to "Australian Aboriginal Art" and this person has redirected to "Indigenous Australian Art" without first posting anything on the discussion page. I protest at this unilateral movement and hope that it is reversed. Firstly, "Australian Aboriginal Art" is more colloquially and collectively known not "Indigenous Australian Art". "Indigenous Australians" is more acceptable for the group of people, NOT the art movement. I protest the way that this user has simply redirected webpages to suit his/her way of thinking without even discussing it with contributors of the entry. The user has only been active today and has not contributed previously.203.217.83.19006:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left a message on this editor's talk page. Go ahead and list the pages you protest at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you haven't already. this is probably a new editor acting in good faith. Post again if problems persist. Durova13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This user hasn't engage in direct vandalism but at the article Java the user has in the space of 3 minutes created an account, suggested a page move and requested the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves, well beyond the abilities of any other new editor I have come across in the last 12 months. The user has made no other edits since. Gnangarra15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Obvious sockpuppet, but whose? Subsequent edits make this look like a programmer who wants to disambiguate Java the island from other uses of Java - a reasonable proposal and presented in a reasonable manner (even if some editors may disagree with it). On the face of it I don't see anything distinctly objectionable, even though sockpuppetry is bad Wikiquette. Durova17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Someone who tries to move over a page that already exists is told to go to the Requested moves page. On the Requested moves page there are specific instructions, with templates. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what to do about this user. Generally, edits from this IP address have been positive. However, I have been reverting some edits made repeatly to the Fahrenheit article, which I find misleading and irrelevant. In a posting on my talk page, 207.194.164.93 states:
I've done a lot of editing on Wikipedia before, but I usually don't like to have a user name, as I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues.
I do not have sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia politics to know if such behaviour consitutes vandalism, is frowned upon, or is accepted. In particular, saying "I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues" seems to be somewhat at odds with the pattern of edits. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but it seems like something that should be addressed. Michaelbusch01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
User has returned, this time with name FahrenheitUser, adding back the same content I had been removing. At least two other editors have protested the additions (Talk:Fahrenheit), which were made under the pretense of making the article NPOV. In reality, they make the article Americocentric and thereby violate NPOV, as well as being badly worded and uncited. They have been reverted and re-added twice in the last hour. Michaelbusch05:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like this user is civil and the problem is a content dispute. Suggest WP:RFC. If this editor also rejects feedback from uninvolved parties then WP:DE might apply. Durova14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A thorough check of this users contributions reveals that he is particularily involved in editing the the external links section. This users`s first edit to wikipedia was the creation of the article Wiles (since then, the article has turned into a disambg article). That version of the article was, as you can see, about a family living in York, North Yorkshire, UK: "The Wiles Family and Paul Wiles live in York, North Yorkshire, UK. Paul Wiles attended St. Oswald's Primary Sch....". This was on 9 December 2005. He didn`t edit anything until 3 February 2006, when he re-inserted the link to www.transdniestria.com. A whois search for transdniestria.com reveals that the registrant is the webdesing and search optimization firm "York Interweb" located at 15 Wenlock Terrace (the same) York, North Yorkshire YO10 4DU GB. In March, Jonathanpops reinserted the link to www.transdniestria.com [6], [7] and even made some P.R. for the site, arguing how good it actually is [8][9], [10] (the sitech was removed due to irrelevance and the poor quality of the content). In August, he voted on the talk page of the Transdniester article against the removal of the site in question, despite the fact that he had not been a participant neither in the editing of the article, or in the discussion regarding the articles content. He simply voted for that link not to be removed. Also in August, he again added to external links to various articles: a link to www.maljonicsdreams.com added here and to www.terrypratchettbooks.org link added here. A look on those links shows that the webdesign was done by the same "York Interweb", and a whois search confirms this: both [11] and to [12] had been registered from the same adress in 15 Wenlock Terrace, York, North Yorkshire, by a certain Jonathan Malory (possibly Joanathanpops himself). Other links added during his very very unfructuous and sterile staying on wikipedia (he is obviously not looking to actually develop this encyclopedia) are the ones to the articles Manned Maneuvering Unit[13] and Space Suitadded here, both to www.planet-surveyor.com. Planet-surveyor.com too is a York Interweb site. As for final prove, check out the project page of the official site of York Interweb. If the results of the whois search weren`t enough, see how all, but absolutelly all the links he added appear there as their work. And that is not all. Besides adding his links, he removes other external links, which might cause competition with his the sites he added (e.g.: on the same article, Dream, he adds his York Interweb link [14] and removes a competitor link [15] (this move also made him look good, presenting himself as some kind of spam-fighter...). I think it is clear that this user has no intention in contributing to wikipedia with anything of value, which actually expands and improves the quality of this encyclopedia, but he only seeks to increase the trafic to his sites, in other words that he is a spamer (cases much less grave had ended in IP banning) Greier17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
This doesn't merit action. The amount of linking is low and the user has addressed questions in a prompt and polite manner. Durova13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
He's been editing the article on Machismo systematically (but by bit, through hundreds of small editions) since a month ago or so. Adding a lot of material in Spanish (translated) making it fit with his own interpretation of machismo as a merely Hispanic phenomenon. To my protests in the discussion page, he's ignored them and instead (finally) attacked my ability in English, obviously trying to push me out of "his" article with bad manners and psychological pressure.
As result, I've decided to revert to the last version before he started meddling. It's not excellent but at least is more average.
I request protection for the page and an investigation on this user/IP. --Sugaar00:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've left a test3 warning template for profanity at the IP's talk page and semiprotected the article. This is a variable IP range so blocking isn't appropriate. Please follow up and post page diffs if the problem continues. Durova14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem continues: at this moment (after I exausted the 3-reverts policy) the disputed Machismo entry is again in his version: with no introduction and only his "lexicological" ranting. I'm studing WP policies on how to ask for mediation or arbitration (it's the first time I found myself involved in such a hot dispute).
Furthermore, he has edited my comments in the talk page to a nonsense (logged in as User:Marsiliano) diff and repeatedly vandalized my user page diff1diff2diff3, for example replacing en-4 by en-0, not logged in but with the above IP.
I can confirm now from his own comments that the IP above is Marsiliano (see: Talk:Machismo)
Personally I'm starting to think he needs a block (and the affected page protection from anonymous users) but I'm somehow part (though I have not contributed to the disputed page myself) and I'd like other more neutral people to take that decission. --Sugaar19:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll WP:Assume good faith and suppose that this editor might not be the same person as the IP, so I've warned at the user's talk page. Will issue a block if disruptive behavior happens again. Durova03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I can tell you that he is: he has claimed the IP edits as his (something I wasn't sure about when I initiated the request).
If you would stop to see the editing history of the page in question you will see that edits as the above IP and as Marsiliano are self-consistent. Also he vandalized my comments in the talk page logged in, coincidental with his vandalizing of my user page not logged in.
I have filed a request for mediation, just to follow the procedure (or what I think it is the correct procedure, after I exausted the 3 revert rule). Also, I'm not sure if I should revert again the disputed page (I think I should but I'm not sure if I'd be abusing).
I've also tried to assume good faith. But hasn't been of any help so far.
I realize now that I can't: he almost always forgets (?) to log in and signs as the IP. You can find some evidence in the corresponding section of the talk page, where he does not deny being the same when I claim so. But he's replying in Spanish (I translated it though) and signing as the IP. All I can say is that I have no doubt because the same person has acted as either Marsiliano or the anonymous IP 4.245.173.75 indistictly: in the (self-coherent) editions of the article as in the synchronous vandalizing of my user page (anonymous IP) and the talk page (Marsiliano). For me it's totally clear because I have followed the issue closely, almost day after day, for the last month or so, and it's always the same IP, at times replaced by Marsiliano, but I understand that for a less involved person it may be less evident. --Sugaar23:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Btw, he reverted your last revert in the disputed article. I am re-reverting to "your" version but you may want to re-add the protection tag that I can see nowhere. --Sugaar23:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
The page protection I implemented wasn't an endorsement of either version. However, based on Marsiliano's edits to the article - which are identical to the variable IP's edits - I've concluded that this is the same editor who posted the obscene insults in Spanish. 24 hour block issued for edit warring. Durova03:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Notice please that I'm only involved in this dispute because I found more and more outraging his vandalism of the page and his reluctance to discuss anything, falling eventually in insults and disqualifications (that have been repeated recently, see my talk page). I have no real involvement in the previous edition of the article. At most, I may have made a minor edit (what caused the page to be in my watchlist). I'm just acting as an spontanous patroller. As I see it it's not a dispute between he and I, but rather between he and Wikipedia (manual of style, wikiettiquete, NPOV, etc.) I'm thinking that the best I can do is to disengage, un-watch the page, and let others like you to solve the issue. --Sugaar00:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well my function here is to investigate, not to get involved. I suggest you open a WP:RFC to bring in more opinions or perhaps post at a relevant WikiProject (although I'm not sure which one). I don't think I'd be a very effective editor on this page and if I entered the dispute I'd have to recuse myself from performing page protections or blocks. Best wishes, Durova03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no point in going on. All this bureaucracy exausts me. RFC? I could ask for comments. But what good would it do if he's ignoring everyone and replying only with personal attacks and further vandalism? I could go for Arbitration, I guess, but I'm still waiting for any notice from my request for mediation.
I've unwatched the page and will let it rest. Hopefully someone will take care of that page. Thanks for your interest anyhow. --Sugaar15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I treat these as the same person. If new problems occur then notify me and I'll address them. An additional challenge here is that the page's only regular editor is the problem user. I've suggested a couple of ways to draw in more people who can improve the page. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a new guideline that I helped draft to allow adminisrator action (including topic bans and indefinite blocks) without exhausting every step in the dispute resolution process. Under WP:DE you do need a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians to agree that a user's behavior violates fundamental policies and you do need some prior warnings and blocks - basically give the problem editor a chance to turn things around and make sure nobody gets railroaded. RFC is one of the simplest ways to develop impartial consensus. Excuse me if that seems confusing - it isn't meant to be byzantine. Durova00:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
New verbal aggressions have happened after Marsiliano's 24 hr block ended: he posted (signed) an aboundance of insults to my mother (in Spanish) in my talk page. I've painfully translated them for the record. I think it's time to request a permanent block or something on that line.
And thanks to both Durova and Centrx for your attention to the issue. The disputed page seems now stable. --Sugaar09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
48 hour block issued for the most recent violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I've already asked this editor to post in English or provide a simultaneous translation. At this point I regard continued insults in Spanish as slightly more objectionable than the equivalent in English because the editor knows it's bad Wikiquette to post in another language. I read passable Spanish and I'm former Navy - so of course vulgarities are my specialty. 48 hours is lenient in my opinion and if I need to block again I won't be lenient anymore. Durova15:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Another suspected sockpuppet (for reference) is User:Mastne - previously blocked as a sockpuppet, mysteriously surfaced and queried at my user talk page about a page protection that User:Centrx performed. If this weren't Marsiliano I doubt the editor would contact me about that. Durova23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Continous unnoticed reverts of referenced datas. [17], [18], [19], [20]. Stated clear hatred against me several times also. I guess his sockpuppet or meatpuppet is User:Otu2 also. (Or a friend of his, user:Tankred's.) (Both) has ultra agressive behaivour, and nonsense statements about me or the history. --VinceB09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted his edits because he spaming these articles with stuff that has nothing to do with the subject. Fof example he posted into Novi Sad article stuff that has nothing to do with Novi Sad and he also deleted relevant information for the article. He is also known ultra-nationalistic POV pusher (which other users could confirm) and he posted this here only to hide the nature of his own edits. He was engaged in revert wars with several users trying to impement his POV into several articles. His edits are hence disruptive because he editing only several specific articles where he constantly engage in revert wars with other users. It is not only that he done nothing usefull for Wikipedia but he also forcing other users to revert his disruptive edits and preventing them to do something usefull instead. PANONIAN(talk)12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
This request is ridiculous. If there is someone being disruptive and uncivil, that's VinceB. Panonian is an established editor with whom I disagree sometimes, but certainly not a vandal nor someone who would repeatedly violate policies; the same holds true for Tankred. KissL12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I've issued a 48 hour block on User:VinceB for edit warring after a previous block and subsequent warnings. In light of the cut-and-paste warning to User:PANONIAN's talk page and the complaint here that's probably a lenient block. Please refocus on productive contributions. Durova22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, per WP:IAR I've removed the vandalism warning from User:PANONIAN's talk page. This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and the template appears to have been posted in retaliation. Durova21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Follow-up: I issued a second one week block when User:VinceB's problem behavior resumed. He agreed to enter the mentorship program and file a formal mediation request so I shortened that block to 48 hours. Durova23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
This new user seems to be a socketpuppet of registered and previously investigated and sanctionated user User:Cogito ergo sumo. Take a look at the edit log of Cogito ergo sumo and the recently inaugurated log of User:Ex post factoid and you will see that he is editing the same articles, for example Central America, Data (Star Trek) and Isaac Asimov. Very suspicious. Please check his IP addresses since Cogito ergo sumo used to be under one of the following IP addresses: 142.150.134.57, 142.150.134.58, or any other in the form 142.150.134.XX operating from the University of Toronto. I suggest as primary evidence to check both users contribution pages. If Ex post factoid is a new user... it is very suspicious he's interested in the same topics than Cogito ergo sumo. I also noted the great similarities with User:E Pluribus Anthony who stopped editing with that account because of previously proved use of sockpuppets. Note that the three names uses latin and that, at least, Cogito ergo sumo and E Pluribus Anthony are from Canada. Check their IPs and contribution log.AlexCovarrubias15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Cogito Ergo Sumo edit on Isaac Asimov - 13:17, 27 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Isaac Asimov (fix punctuation ... first edit!)
Ex post factoid edit on Issac Asimov - 09:44, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Isaac Asimov (first edit! add detail about Data)
Cogito Ergo Sumo edit on Data (Star Trek) - 21:43, 19 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Data (Star Trek) (→Specifications - copyedit: nixing conversion)
Ex post factoid edit on Data (Star Trek) - 09:50, 17 October 2006 (hist) (diff) m Data (Star Trek) (→Biography - adding detail re Data's voice-over cameo in Star Trek: Enterprise)
Some "anonimous" user under the IP 209.105.199.40 added a threat to my User_talk:AlexCovarrubias, writing the following:
I see you are working hard to get me blocked, however let me laugh on your pathetic tries. Let me tell you I know people from down there... ok? that's all I have to say... don't act foolish or well, the mighty God can pay you a visit...20:44, 17 October 2006 209.105.199.40 (Talk)
Comment: Timmins, Ontario (the source of the 'threat' IP) is 688 km north of Toronto -- which is just shy of the distance (697 km) between Monterrey and Mexico City -- leaving plenty of 'anonimous' (sic) editors in between. The threat is apparently from someone uninvolved who observed the reactionism of the accusing editor. I would recommend everyone cool down and that administrators give due consideration to all information and editors (including the actions of the accuser, who has also been sanctioned for edit warring, and dubious accusations of vandalism) before indulging in flamebait and blocking other editors (if applicable) without some process ... which is sure to put any editor off from returning. 67.68.47.22913:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Interesing. However, it has already been proved that E Pluribus Anthony, Cogito ergo sumo and Ex post factoid are the same person. They were blocked, but then unblocked due to a technically. But there's no doubt they are the same person aswell as the same anon under IP 142.150.134.XX the advice of another editor was that we wait and see what happens. Also interesting how another anon from Toronto [21] like you is interested in this very specific issue... AlexCovarrubias15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes: it is interesting. An aside: the only proofs have apparently been provided by you (though I make no claim about whether they are true or not) and acted upon by administrators that seem to not know precisely what to do (through reversible error in premature blocks, mis-/lack of communication, etc). Anyhow, enough from me. Happy editing! 67.68.47.22916:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I looked into this after receiving a request from AlexCovarrubias at my user talk page. As a very new admin I hesitate to do more than others have deemed appropriate. The activity has died down except for one insult to his user page (from an IP probably the same editor). If objectionable behavior resumes I'd be willing to investigate more and hand out a block. This might well cool down with benign neglect. Durova19:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
user seems to have an agenda against Christian Music, harming (and often subtly vandalising) articles to fit this agenda. Was warned once about NPOV edits. Includes making many non-Christian artists to be Christian (e.g., [22], [23], or [24] - just a few among probably dozens), and similarly making Christian music and bands look bad - [25] [see especially {sermon} tag at top], [26] [notice ''Christian'' becomes ''nominal Christian'', and ''God'' becomes ''god'', lowercase], [27], and [28] - [noticed proposed deletion of perfectly good page which he previously edited]. User page confirms he wants "death to all false metal". -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I object to these edits being called bad faith. I am doing my best to accuretly and informatively render wikipedia a better encyclopedia and a more reliable source of information. Many of these articles contain bias and some may even say propaganda for the christian faith, if some entrenched trolls take exception to my actions they are invited to jump on the nearest long ship and sail off to Niflheim. As for the non christian to christian I based this on the christian list of christian metal bands page from a link on christian metal and also conducted research online to confirm these bands' christianity in some instances. Also I think it is important that if a band identifies itself as being christian that a wikipedia entry on the band do similarly. This is for two reasons namely; first, so that the article is as accurate as possible and second to attempt to neatralise insidious attempts at proseletysation on the part of ideologically fanatical parties. Is there not a rule here about assuming good faith, becuase wikepediatrix has tagged many of my honest attempts as being bad faith. What is written on my user page is a line from Manowar.The Crying Orc21:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I accused you of nothing. I said "possible" bad faith, based on this RFI and your contributions. Not only did I give you benefit of the doubt by saying "possible", I abstained from voting in most of your AfD nominations. wikipediatrix22:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
fair enough apologies if I got angry. I amm a bit up tight about all of this. For example; the anonymous person below who wants me 'removed' is making me uncomfertable editing here. He even changed my user page to call me a bastard! The Crying Orc22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to request the removal of The Crying Orc, he is clearly manipulating and using loopholes in specific rules to remove many Christian band articles. The article in question has already been fixed, but in it he stated " 'Christian metal is an oxymoron.". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.23.136.8 (talk • contribs)
Note the above user vandalised my user page and called me a bastard. I wish he would stop houinding me, and calling for me to be 'removed'. The Crying Orc22:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to state that I am certainly not anon user 68.23.136.8. But I would invite anyone wishing to see the issue at hand to look at the history of Crying Orc. I made this nomination because of clear comments like the one 68.xxx pointed out: Christian metal is an oxymoron. If this were the only edit, I would not have a problem, but there are literally hundreds of edits, and I could not revert all of them without making a nomination. And, I am not a troll; I invite you to look at my edit history, and many will know me as a good-faith editor. In any case, I think the contributions history speaks for itself, and clearly another editor agrees with me, even if he didn't necessarily know to go about it the right away (e.g., placing a warning on Orc's user page). I'm not personally attacking you, Orc, but your edits are blatantly biased, and you were asked once to not do as much. Particularly worrisome, in addition to the POV edits, was adding the term "Christian" as a band to many bands, none of which have any such affiliation on their website or anywhere else. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs)01:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do NOT scare away the newcomers.So who 'investigates' me now, and what happens to me? I think that this is sick. I attempted to edit here, but am now being 'investigated' because I am 'biased', and then it looks like I will be 'removed'. Is this how you deal with people with whom you disagree on Wikipedia? I would say that I am no more biased than the editors who edit christian 'metal' articles because they like it and want to tell the world about it. I edit those articles because I think it is stupid, and I don't think that some of the things in those articles are appropriate for an encyclopedia. The christian metal article doesn't have any citations at all. Am I biased for pointing this out, and not just shutting up because the people are 'doing the lord's work' and hence should not be questioned? Or pointing out, with a valid reference (to a well-known and respected site on metal culture) what real metalheads think of christian 'metal' (i.e. that it is oxymoronic and poser-like)? The bands whom I classed as christian all self-identify as christian in some form. I have learnt a lot about christian 'metal' in the last couple of days. But if you are unsure that I am accurate about a band being ideologically christian, I invite you to put a [citation needed] tag there, and I shall find a citation. That's the way it is meant to work, from what I understand. The christian 'metal' section here is like a bunch of advertisements, and I think that an encyclopedia should be scholarly, not a community billboard for advertising local band gigs. The external links on the christian 'metal' article all point to ideologically skewed fora, sites designed to proselytise and convert people. Am I wrong to dispute that the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide a platform to win souls or deceive people into listening to false metal so that the christians feel fuzzier about the world? In short, I think Patstuart and his friend 68.xxx.xbla are the ideologically skewed ones, who have a problem with me because I have dared to question their comfy little status quo here. And if the proponents of christian 'metal' would rather call me a bastard and run to authority figures to get me removed than actually edit the articles and engage with the subject matter in a meaningful manner, then I think that the moderators or investigators here must think about who is doing more for the encyclopedia. The Crying Orc13:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
As user 6..8..whatever, I would like to formally apologize for vandalising The Crying Orcs page. Having seen an article of a band I enjoy up for deletion when it clearly contains enough information to remain an article, then seeing the certain quote in his profile, I jumped to the conclusion that he was indeed a "bastard" who was vandalising pages, having slightly discussed some issues with him I now see that he was clearing up so called "bandcruft" and initial deletion of Christian Metal due to it being a new term to him, and possibly a prank page.
User seems to have an agenda against Christian Metal. Checking his [Special:Contributions/The Crying Orc|contributions]], most of his edits directly related to Christian Metal and its respective bands. User claims to go for neutrality (or to make an article neutral) in several instances, but his edits seem to do more harm than good, and have gotten him into conflict with several other editors [29][30][31][32]. As staed above, user has made several non-Christian bands, some with Christian influences, some without, into Christian bands. These are not limited to Christian Metal, but Christianity itself in a few instances [33][34].
User uses several policies to back up his points, but does not seem to understand them. Specifically speedy deletion policies (user was warned by a moderator [35]) and notablitly policies (pointed out in various deletion nominations). User also does not seem to understand that "God" is just as NPOV as "the Christian god". The only religions aside from Christianity to use the term "God" are Judaism and Sikhism and they are all talking about the same being.
User often does not use discussion pages, and when he does, they tend to be discussing the subject, rather than the article [36]. --Limetom23:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
User:The Crying Orc announces his POV very clearly on his user page. He seems to be acting on this announced anti-Christian bias in his very busy first 3 days on Wikipedia:
His first edit was to nominate Christian Metal for deletion, saying in part "I have never heard of anything as ridiculous as christian metal": The term has 294,000 Google hits; notability seems self-evident.
He embedded his POV in his signature here, here, here, here; apparently in every talk page posting.
In a single edit to Christian Metal, he embedded 64 {{fact}} tags, apparently at random, as in many cases he inserted several in the middle of a single URL.
With an edit summary of "Various changes and improvements", he added several POV statements which were immediately reverted.
Several hours later, the POV that he had added to Christian metal had been reverted, so he added it back, with a summary of "added citation tags, added balance and neutral point-of-view".
In this edit, among other changes, he changed "God" to "god".
He added {{sermon}} tags to several Christian music articles ([37], [38], [39]).
He nominated another Christian music group for deletion; the result was again speedy keep.
He randomly scattered 52 {fact} tags throughout Christian punk. (Clearly random; in one place he added three in a row; in other places, he inserted them in the middle of links, breaking the links.)
This is not true. Well, it's obviously true that I made those changes to articles. However from what I understand of wikipedia rules this doesn't make me a vandal (I have been reading up). This is called a 'content dispute' I think and this page is not for reporting those. JimDouglas is also not necessarily correct when he says that only christianity, judaism and sikhism use the term 'God' and that they are all talking about the same being. That may be his personal point of view, which may be shared by other people with similar theological outlook. But many people would disagree, and say that christians, muslims and jews talk about the same god but sikhs don't. Others may insist that 'god' is a social convention, not a being, and because christians jews and sikhs have different social conventions, the social constructs they worship are hence also different. Surely I cannot be called a vandal because I edited an article in such a way that it doesn't agree with Mr Douglas' and Mr Stuart's personal ideas on theology? Changing 'God' to 'the Christian god' is not a disparaging edit and phrases the facts in a neutral point of view, because whoever's god he is, he is not my god, nor the god of the many people like me. If a band plays christian music, then that music is to glorify the christian god. 'God' is not as NPOV as 'the Christian god', because it assumes the existence of the entity, and that people will believe in the existence of the entity, etc., etc. Please do not call my work vandalism because I believe differentyl to you.
I don't think there should be a problem with me having my POV on my signature or my userpage. I think that is healthy. Patstuart also announces his point of view on his userpage (ie christian). If that is vandalism, why does Wikipedia have a facility to do it? But by letting everyone know how I believe, I let them understand a little about who they are dealing with, and my startying assumptions. I think I am being picked on because I have dared to dispute that a christian point of view should be taken as the standard starting point for articles on christian music. This is not very correct, I don't think. Wikipedia was not sst up to glorify the Christian god, and the Christians who have thus far had a whale of a time editing their articles in a very biased, preachy manner riddled with church jargon and assuming that the reader is either a christian or wanting to get evangelised must realise that the time has now come when that cosy little environment must change. Either that or therer is a lot of what sociologists call 'systemic bias' here. The Crying Orc08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Many of your responses above attribute comments to me that were in fact made by someone else.
I'll note in passing that you know nothing at all about my personal point of view or "theological outlook".
The words "Christianity", "Judaism", "Sikhism", "Christian", and "Muslim" are capitalized. This is specifically noted in the Wikipedia style guide, and it's a basic rule of the English language. In principle, your lowercase use of these terms could be interpreted as a simple mistake, or as an intentional insult or provocation. Given that you went to the reference desk looking for authorization to mass-change "God" to "the christian god" and you went out of your way here to change "God" to "god", the evidence suggests that your use of lowercase is not a simple mistake.
Advertising your POV on your user page is acceptable. Advertising an aggressive and confrontational POV ("Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall.") in your signature is disruptive and uncivil.
This is not a content dispute. Adding clear POV to articles, then reinstating it after it has been reverted, is vandalism. Nominating an established music genre like Christian metal for deletion is malicious vandalism. Scattering 50 or 60 {{fact}} tags randomly through an article is not a useful contribution; it's malicious vandalism.
It demonstrates a willful disregard for Wikipedia standards and basic rules of the English language. The clear intention is to provoke a reaction in the Christian-related articles that you have chosen to disrupt. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In your head, maybe. I'll grant you that any flaunting of the rules of English orthography (or grammar) on my part is most definitely done with some intent. Maybe it's just not the intent you think it is. Nor do I feel compelled to explain myself to you. Just who the Hell are you, anyway? The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I warned Patstuart to assume good faith (using the 'agf' TestTemplate) because I object to having my edits classed as vandalism. The Crying Orc09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The act of listing me as a vandal when I am a good faith contributor is not civil. Anyway, the bit about incivility is just part of the standard TestTemplate which I applied to his page, since I assume that's how things are done. The Crying Orc15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In a sense. I sent him a warning message more because of the way in which he phrased his complaint, and how he has spoken of me on his own talkpage and those of others. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't scatter citation tags randomly. I replaced every full stop with one (that is SYSTEMATIC - there is a difference). The reason for this is that the article is full of statements needing citations (since not a single point of fact was substantiated). I am too lazy to do it manually, because there are so many. Admittedly, this disturbed URLs and things, but at least it draws people's eyes to how badly backed up the article is in reality. The Crying Orc09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Is that a problem somehow? It has resulted in positive change. Someone rewrote the Christian 'metal' article so that it is maximally cited, by trimming the excessive bollocks which surrounded the few kernels of what could be called 'fact'. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
To whom exactly is "Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall wimps and posers leave the hall" uncivil? Sure, if I call a specific person a wimp or a poser, then I can understand it. But as such, I frankly feel that anyone who objects to that is being oversensitive. It certainly isn't vandalism. The Crying Orc09:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In the context of a pattern of attempting to delete or otherwise disrupt Christian metal and a series of Christian-oriented music articles, starting with your first two edits on Wikipedia four days ago, the provocation is very clear. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're being over-sensitive and perpetuating systemic bias. If I had said "yippy-yippy-yippy-yay Christian 'metal' is great!!!!!!!" I would not have been accused of being provocative, even though such a statement would rather annoy and provoke someone like me. Just because I think Christianity is a pathetic waste of life, you insist that I am a vandal.
Moreover, I am accused of having 'an agenda against Christian music'. Would I be here if I had an agenda for Christian music? I don't think so. The Crying Orc15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You declared your agenda in your first two edits on Wikipedia. And yes, if, for example, a proselytizing Christian included an aggressive pro-Christian message in a signature, then proceeded to disrupt atheism-related articles, the reaction would be precisely the same. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I rather doubt that. This site is full of entrenched Christian trolls, like those on the 'Historical Jesus' article, who would rather that the criticism of the Testimonium Flavium etc. were left out of the article altogether, and flock together in great bloody swarms to revert the attempts of other editors to restore a bit of balance. I shall be addressing that sham of an article at some other stage; but they aren't blocked. Similarly, with the people who objected to me inserting the paragraph about Cradle of Filth's 'Jesus is a cunt' shirt into the Jesus Christ in popular culture article, even though it was properly sourced and is appropriately notable (having made a number of news stories and been featured in a few books). They gave some specious arguments, of course, but it is obvious that they wanted it removed because it does not agree with their personal point of view; they aren't blocked for this. The bottom line is that it is regarded as acceptable, by the herd, for people to promote a Christian point of view, because to many herd-members that is a 'neutral point of view', one which everyone has, or at least a point of view which everyone should have. However, some of us are neither willing to swallow that sort of indoctrination, nor allow it to be shamelessly touted on an encyclopedia as if it were the truth. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Not really. Look for yourself. Try editing an article on a Christianity-related subject from a perspective that is not Christian, and you'll soon experience exactly what I am talking about. The Crying Orc18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Patstuart asked me to take a look at your contributions because he was frustrated by your ongoing pattern of unconstructive edits. By the way, you neglected to include a link to his request; it's here. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)15:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that was necessary. That's the one where Patstuart is wracking himself over whether I am trolling, isn't it? Well, I'm not a troll. I am The Crying Orc15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't necessary; it just makes it easier for readers if everything is here. I can certainly see how a pattern of disrupting Christian-related articles and attempting to delete a series of Christian music-related articles and (twice) appending {{fact}} to every "." in an article. can easily be construed as trolling. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am telling you now, and have told you before, that it isn't, so would you please stop. The fact of the matter is that this is a content dispute, not a dispute over vandalism. This discussion has blown out of all proportion. I suggest that the complainants withdraw their spurious complaints before they start making prats of themselves. It's so easy for that to happen. The Crying Orc17:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I want to be very clear: Indiscriminately scattering several dozen {{fact}} tags throughout an article in a clear attempt to disrupt it will be regarded as vandalism, and will be reverted. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)18:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not indiscriminate. The article offered no sources. Every sentence ought to contain a fact, otherwise it should be removed, because statements which are not facts do not, surely, belong in an encyclopedia. And all facts should, in principle, be supportable by a citation. So what I did was not vandalism but an attempt to draw people's attention to the appalling state in which I found the articles. One editor of the Christian metal article took it the way it was meant, and rewrote the article. This brought about positive change. So, I object to it being called vandalism. Now you can either get over it, or we can continue bickering ad nauseam — and I tell you solemnly, I will not capitulate. It would appear that the administrators here have long moved past this little farce, so perhaps we should leave it too. The Crying Orc18:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It was indiscriminate. "I replaced every full stop with one". It was not motivated by a sincere wish to improve the article; it was disruptive vandalism. I want to be very clear that you understand this: That tactic will be regarded as vandalism, and will be reverted. And if there's nothing more, I've really had more than my fill of this topic. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs)19:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You clearly want a war. I have tried to explain my rationale, and you simply seem intent on reiterating the same tired line about vandalism. You clearly have not understood, or have chosen to ignore, what I have written. Your link to the page on trolls is noted and unwelcome. As I said before, I am The Crying Orc19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, a flame war between an atheist and moderators! LOL THIS IS FUNNY. Not. Focus on the other ones who should be banne dinstead of causing a flame war. The velociraptor05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree. It irks most terribly that this is still here, considering that for nearly a week now no additional comments have been added other than the Velociraptor's concern that this is happening at all. Can this misbegotten request be removed? Am I allowed to 'be bold' and remove it myself? The Crying Orc14:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
It might not be a good idea to remove this yourself. Since you are the subject of the discussion, removing it might seem like vandalism. I'm not quite sure how Requests for investigation works, but I think you might have to wait for an admin to notice this discussion before it can be removed. - Lex04:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This issue seems much more complex than simple vandalism. Literally dozens of notable bands were nominated as "non-notable" for AFD. All but 1 (at my last count) were VERY notable, with independant reviews, wide release CDs, etc. etc. At issue here is the agenda of this editor. This editor seems to target all bands that HE does not agree are "metal" in their music; his AfD nominations are almost ALL for bands that assert their own notability, and whose notability is easily verified. The only thing these bands have in common is the use of the term "Christian Metal" to describe their music. In addition, he nominated the main article "Christian Metal" for AfD. The evidence of multiple, notable bands as part of this genre makes it a notable genre at face value. Also, his user page blatantly expresses his point of view: Death to all false metal. Brothers of true metal proud and standing tall, wimps and posers leave the hall. A single AfD, or a single edit, or a single quote on a user page of themselves do not an agenda make. However, there is voluminous evidence of some bad-faith editing going on here, and this needs to be addressed. --Jayron3206:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I am being targeted and my position misrepresented because of my personal philosophy. Perhaps, to a devoted fan of Christian metal, all but 1 of the bands I nominated for deletion were 'very notable'; but the Wikipedia community at large does not agree because it seems that 7 bands got deleted (I haven't been keeping a tally, but here is the list of Christian metal bands before I edited it: count the red links). So, even if some of the bands I nominated for deletion were well known and got kept, I cannot be expected to know how 'well-known' something is if it has no references and no assertion of notability: I challenge any administrator here is who is not a fan of Christian metal to tell me why the bands I nominated for deletion were 'obviously well-known'. As to the question of agenda: are wikipedia editors not allowed agendas? How about all the fans of Christian metal who create articles on minor, non-notable bands because they love the music. Do they not have an agenda? Why is their agenda more acceptable than mine?
No, the reason I am here is entirely because of bigotry and prejudice against my beliefs. They make me an easy 'target' for the politically correct herd, but I don't care. I feel it is better to declare my beliefs than hide them, and I believe that my contributions speak for themselves. I am very disappointed to see that this idiocy is being prolonged here. But whatever, people may do what they wish, I suppose. It must be very convenient for these editors who don't like me to have a page like this where they can gripe about me. Maybe I should open one on them! Since what I am doing here is NOT vandalism... The Crying Orc06:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
What comments have I made to make you think that I am prejudiced against any belief that you have? I am NOT a devoted fan of christian metal. I had NEVER heard of a single one of the bands that ended up getting kept. HOWEVER, I did do some research, and found out about thier notability. They nearly all met the primary notability criteria, and were not even close to questionable. If you had gone through the Christian Metal bands, put the name in google, and ONLY nominated those for deletion that had no wide-release CDS or reviews in reliable press, then we would not be having this discussion. The issue is the attempt to delete an entire genre of music from Wikipedia, by deleting all bands who play it, and by deleting the main article relating to that genre as well, without doing any additional research on your own. You yourself admited that your only criterion for deletion was that their names appeared in the Christian Metal list. --Jayron3207:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I have linked User:216.146.109.42 to another account that has been vandalising (requested closure of User:Corey Bryant) - see either user page for details. The vandalism in non-obvious, over months, but I and others have reverted both of these. I must go now, so cannot investigate 216.146.109.42 to revert and warn. Please investigate and block if my suspicion is right. Widefox04:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Request to investigate this user IP addresses log in order to compare it with some anonimous IP users that keep reverting the article North America in the past weeks. It seems possible that these anonimous IP users are in fact the reported registered user, since their edits tend to be always favouring the same POV and because of the same style of writing. IP addresses: 142.150.134.64, 65.92.173.7, 65.94.130.95, 65.94.130.95, 194.158.204.133, 142.150.134.53, 142.150.134.55, 69.156.113.245, 65.95.239.85 . --AlexCovarrubias03:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
This user anonimously edits pages to avoid complaints and blocks, and claims to be a different person. I investigated and his IP range varies always between 142.150.134.49 - 142.150.134.79
Some "anonimous" user under the IP 209.105.199.40 added a threat to my User_talk:AlexCovarrubias, writing the following:
I see you are working hard to get me blocked, however let me laugh on your pathetic tries. Let me tell you I know people from down there... ok? that's all I have to say... don't act foolish or well, the mighty God can pay you a visit...20:44, 17 October 2006 209.105.199.40 (Talk)
The only person I have ever reported in Wikipedia is this person I'm reporting right here in this request. Please, investigate! That IP address is also from Ontario, Canada. --AlexCovarrubias04:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Timmins, Ontario (the source of the 'threat' IP) is 688 km north of Toronto -- which is just shy of the distance (697 km) between Monterrey and Mexico City -- leaving plenty of 'anonimous' (sic) editors in between. The threat is apparently from someone uninvolved who observed the reactionism of the accusing editor. I would recommend everyone cool down and that administrators give due consideration to all information and editors (including the actions of the accuser, who has also been sanctioned for edit warring, and dubious accusations of vandalism) before indulging in flamebait and blocking other editors (if applicable) without some process ... which is sure to put any editor off from returning. 67.68.47.22913:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
User has been adding incoherent, seemingly original research text (and a copyvio) to various articles. Warned him, he continues. Because of the way he started off (he was doing the same under an IP before), I think this might be more appropriate reported as vandalism than a content dispute. Correct me if I'm wrong. CRCulver00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
See the revert war and wikistalking campaign that User:Centrx has launched on a DISCUSSION page -- here. Is it fair or within policy to remove a valid Discussion thread, for no reason or explanation?
FURTHERMORE, User:Centrx has removed the very Request for Investigation about himself! I strongly urge that ANOTHER independent administrator (other than Scobell, Centrx, or Yanksox -- all of whom have participated on the ArbCom Nomination page itself) look at this case. User:Centrx and User:Scobell302 are ruling by fiat, if they think that deleting a claim against themselves from a COMMUNITY forum is legitimate in any way. Note, also, that no legitimate reasons have been given for any of these reverts! --72.94.149.16404:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, calm down and take a few deep breaths. Now, please realize that you cannot nominate a blocked/banned account(s) for ArbCom, or for anything, for the matter. Second, there is no revert war, no wikistalking, and the removal was explained in the edit summary and supported by other established editors. And while removing a RfI is not the best thing Centrx could have done, it is not an offense in itself. --210physicq (c) 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Physicq210, for at least stating something that hasn't been stated -- that a blocked account can't run for ArbCom. This was never stated in the rules for nominations. It still seems that the purpose of the campaign against me is based on the fear that I might garner some support, being that many respected editors and admins have been puzzled by Jimmy Wales's personal vendetta against MyWikiBiz . . . but if someone would just point out in the rules that blocked accounts may not run, I can live with that exclusion. --72.94.150.23604:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
It is not stated in the rules because it is common sense: how can an indefblocked account respond to questions in the discussion section or write a candidate statement, let alone do anything on ArbCom? And I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to use IP addresses, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or the like to self-nominate or otherwise promote oneself in the elections. If I am wrong, please point it out. --210physicq (c) 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Honestly? Because Brad Patrick has taken a few weeks to respond to a 5-page letter to him, following up on a very civil phone call that we had. I sincerely feel that Jimmy Wales acted outside of the community's rules in blocking my account -- for reasons outside of the framework of Wikipedia. He was upset about a web site and concordat that he considered "mutually beneficial" in August, but then thought included "inappropriate trademark use" in October. The rules have been shifted, revised, and created out of thin air to address some of the considerations I've raised; therefore, ethically, I don't think it's that big of a deal for me to stretch the rules about IP addresses, at least while Brad Patrick adjudicates. If he ultimately says that I, Gregory Kohs, need to be permanently banned from Wikipedia, I'll take the hint. I have my career, my wife, my daughter, my friends, my family, my church, and my hobbies to keep me happy until I'm dead in the grave. It will just be sad that about half of the companies in the Fortune 1500 will still be missing from Wikipedia next year, and perhaps beyond. --72.94.150.23604:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, this issue you might have to take it up to Jimbo Wales himself through his talkpage or some communicative route. I am unfortunately unable to deal with your concerns regarding this subject, and nor can other administrators, as this is a still-gray area in Wikipedia. I apologize if I cannot be of more help. Perhaps others might be... --210physicq (c) 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think users are within their remit to revert edits that are either block evasion by MyWikiBiz or impersonation of MyWikiBiz. It doesn't matter whether they are on ArbCom election discussions or RFIs. Also, disputing the block is insufficient reason to evade it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Uninvolved administrator here: having evaluated the request I conclude that it is groundless. The account was obviously a sockpuppet and the IP's posts to this talk page constitute an admission. It is accepted practice to blank the posts of a banned user. In order to proceed in a perfectly transparent manner I'll leave this up a short time, but the original blanking was appropriate. Furthermore, the use of sockpuppets and unregistered IPs to evade a block is grounds for block extension in itself, so if the puppetmaster account weren't already banned I would have banned it at the conclusion of this investigation. DurovaCharge!15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
