Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
BooyakaDell (talk | contribs)
1,114 edits
BooyakaDell (talk | contribs)
1,114 edits
(11 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 383: Line 383:
==== {{Vandal|BooyakaDell}} ====
==== {{Vandal|BooyakaDell}} ====
I hope I have the right place. The user is misusing the notability tags on articles that I have established to him as notable. The main sources of the trouble are the articles on [[Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)]], [[New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling]], and [[Action Zone Wrestling]]. He has also added the tags needlessly to other wrestling promotion pages that I have removed on the ground of acting on bad faith. I have told the user this, and yet he persists claiming superior knowledge of the rules of notability - forgetting that notability within the profession (pro wrestling in which I am actually involved) is relevant. And then ignoring that same point. This matter is urgent - and I note this user is suspected of being a sockpuppet on his user page. [[User:Curse of Fenric|Curse of Fenric]] 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I hope I have the right place. The user is misusing the notability tags on articles that I have established to him as notable. The main sources of the trouble are the articles on [[Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia)]], [[New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling]], and [[Action Zone Wrestling]]. He has also added the tags needlessly to other wrestling promotion pages that I have removed on the ground of acting on bad faith. I have told the user this, and yet he persists claiming superior knowledge of the rules of notability - forgetting that notability within the profession (pro wrestling in which I am actually involved) is relevant. And then ignoring that same point. This matter is urgent - and I note this user is suspected of being a sockpuppet on his user page. [[User:Curse of Fenric|Curse of Fenric]] 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::You're trying to say I'm a sockpuppet when I'm not and yet you're accusing me of acting in bad faith. My acts were entirely in good faith and I am trying to compromise with you. I've basically given up trying to convince you because obviously you're not going to be convinced.[[User:BooyakaDell|BooyakaDell]] 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::You say I'm a sockpuppet when I'm not and yet you're accusing me of acting in bad faith. My acts were entirely in good faith and I am trying to compromise with you. I've basically given up trying to convince you because obviously you're not going to be convinced.[[User:BooyakaDell|BooyakaDell]] 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::There has been no attempt to compromise by you. You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for. And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions. That's vandal behaviour. [[User:Curse of Fenric|Curse of Fenric]] 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::There has been no attempt to compromise by you. You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for. And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions. That's vandal behaviour. [[User:Curse of Fenric|Curse of Fenric]] 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


::::There has been no attempt to compromise by you. - False
::::"There has been no attempt to compromise by you." - false
You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for. - False
"You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for." - false


And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions. - False
"And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions." - false


Stop making up false accusations and take responsibility for your own actions. Your standards for notability don't match up with Wikipedia's official standards for notability. You are wrong about your argument that [[Action Zone Wrestling]] is notable because it innovated the Taboo Tuesday concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged. Even though PWI innovated concepts such as the Tables & Scaffold match, it was deemed not notable. The concerns which I bring up for [[Action Zone Wrestling]] are virtually identical to the concerns that were brought up for Pro Wrestling Unplugged, which was eventually deleted. Either put in some sources to the [[Action Zone Wrestling]] article, offer an argument other than a. "your tags are in bad faith" or b. "this subject is notable because it innovated a very minor concept" or be prepared to accept that "importance" and "notability" tags will be put on the article as their placement is entirely 110% warranted and justified, and your removal of such tags constitute nothing short of vandalism.
Take responsibility for your own actions. Your standards for notability don't match up with Wikipedia's official standards for notability. You are wrong about your argument that [[Action Zone Wrestling]] is notable because it innovated the Taboo Tuesday concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged. Although PWI innovated concepts such as the Tables & Scaffold match, it was deemed not notable. The concerns that I bring up for [[Action Zone Wrestling]] are virtually identical to the concerns that were brought up for Pro Wrestling Unplugged, which was eventually deleted. Either put in some sources to the [[Action Zone Wrestling]] article, offer an argument other than a. "your tags are in bad faith" or b. "this subject is notable because it innovated a very minor concept" or be prepared to accept that "importance" and "notability" tags will be put on the article as their placement is entirely 110% warranted and justified, and your removal of such tags constitute nothing short of vandalism.
[[User:BooyakaDell|BooyakaDell]] 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[[User:BooyakaDell|BooyakaDell]] 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Before this gets classified as a "He Said/He Said" kind of issue, there is reason to believe that [[User:BooyakaDell]] is a [[WP:Sock]] account to get around [[User:JB196]]'s community ban, there is a page at [[WP:AN/I]] requesting action. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::Before this gets classified as a "He Said/He Said" kind of issue, there is reason to believe that [[User:BooyakaDell]] is a [[WP:Sock]] account to get around [[User:JB196]]'s community ban, there is a page at [[WP:AN/I]] requesting action. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:19, 13 December 2006

←Index of request pages Requests for investigation Archives (current)→
Shortcut
 This page allows users to request administrator investigation of certain types of abuse only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For obvious vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice.


    Instructions

    Choose one of three sections to make a report: Watchlist, IP addresses, or Registered users. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the New requests subsection or the top of the watchlist. Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages.

    Watchlist

    • Report in this section:
    1. Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
    2. Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.
    • Do not report here:
    1. Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
    2. Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
    3. Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.
    • Use the following format:
    * {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
    * {{vandal|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~ or
    * {{IPvandal|Ip_Address}} - brief explanation //~~~~

    Watchlist requests

    31 hour block issued on one editor. Recommend the other involved editors watch the suspected sockpuppet for block evasion. This is not simple vandalism and deserves a full request. Please submit a more complete statement with page diffs in the registered user section lower on this noticeboard. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • World Wrestling Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several different IP's and user's have been for no reason blanking the page, or writing offensive and abusive language. They also type in incorrect information. On the history page, a great deal of reverts can be seen. This page is blanked four to five times a day. Davnel03 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several IP's in the same range have been adding innacurate information to this page about human rights abuses without citing references. It appears to be a person related to an indeginous group in New Caledonia that are currently protesting against the construction of an Inco plant. It is ok to mention this event in the page, but the article is being very biased towards their cause. Oui222 5 December, 2006 (UTC)
    • Marc Lepine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Several IP's in the same range have been vandalizing this page daily for at least a week, using misleading edit summaries. The edits are all bascially identical and claim that an "international holiday" is celebrated for this murderer as "the first counterattack in the feminist war against men." It's a)not true and b)all the edits to the article are so controversial, its hard to see this as an edit war -- typical diff. New user User:ChaoticGhost has been gamely watching the page and my involvement is as the result of a "help me" request. // Dina 12:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. After the last revert I reported it to WP:RPP and the article is now sprotected. Thanks. Dina 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Semi-protected. Follow up with a full report and page diffs if necessary. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vandalism continues on Boy Meets World[1] and Lee Norris[2] Also a joke article Hangin' With Mr. Minkus[3]. See also single-edit user Rockin42 (talk · contribs), and this edit [4]by Blues111 (talk · contribs). I suspect either sock puppetry or a small group of fans working together, or both. Thanks! Karen | Talk|contribs 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And tonight, more of the same on Lee Norris.[5] 69.129.201.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for this. See also 12.226.49.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who has been busy today, and vandalized the same user page as Chese27 (talk · contribs), but hasn't done anything Boy Meets World-related on that IP. I don't want to compare this pattern of vandalism with a game of Whack-a-mole...no, wait. Yes, I do, except for the part about hitting something with a hammer. BTW, is this the right place to report this? If not, please redirect me. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Right page, wrong section. Move it down into regular requests and provide full evidence. If you suspect sockpuppetry that would go to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets. One of the joys of administratorship is that we sometimes get to play whack-a-mole with the block button. I'll dig in this garden for moles. :) DurovaCharge! 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. I don't want to spoil your "fun", but I think I'd better try the Sock puppet page. The sections below seem to be set up for one user name or IP per request - and the weird thing about this Minkus malarkey is that it comes from two or three user names and at least two IPs. Looking at each one in isolation probably won't give the full picture. So it's off to sock-pulling land for me, I guess. Even if they turn out to be five different people (which seems unlikely), it's all the same puppet show. Regards and thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am no fun. I have semi-protected Lee Norris and deleted the Munkis junk article. The sockpuppets are old and IPs change frequently, so blocking is sometimes not appropriate there. If the IPs listed are not the same addresses used in the accounts, you can file a Wikipedia:Request for checkuser so that the person behind the user accounts can be blocked. In general, though, I don't think this is that serious a problem, and it is adequately prevented by semi-protection. —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much! I found the sock puppet page a little, um, daunting, and wasn't sure what to do next. Perhaps this Minkus madness is over with, at least for now. Hope, so, anyway. The only vandalism I saw today on a Boy Meets World-related page didn't seem to have anything to do with these others. In any case it seems to come in intermittent waves of concentrated vandal activity. I'll keep the checkuser avenue in mind for the next wave, if any. (Enough with the metaphors already, Karen!) Karen | Talk | contribs 05:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There has been a large number of edits being done by anonymous IP's on December 6th 2006, often adding gibberish or lines that are clearly vandalism. I've reverted all of those changes to a earlier version, but this article will have to be watched in the short term to protect it from unnecessary edits and vandalism. ThePointblank 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IP addresses

    Do not report obvious vandalism here; see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Only report IP addresses that are engaged in complicated, deceptive vandalism that will require more than a few moments for an administrator to analyse. Please read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting.


    Please use this format at the top of this section:

    ===={{IPvandal|IP Address}}====

    Brief Description. ~~~~

    New requests

    12.30.216.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This individual (who call himself "green" but refuses to get an account), has been engaged in discussions on talk:twin paradox for the last few weeks. As time has gone on, his input has gotten less and less productive and he now has several editors debating him on material that is irrelevant to the article. He has recently taken to a style of inserting comments in the middle of other's postings which make the threads hard to follow, and has refused to accept input on this issue.

    I did warn him recently. See my warning edit. What I got as a response afterwards was this edit. --EMS | Talk 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    124.150.117.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This IP address just went through and changed information on many different articles to information that is incorrect, and keeps adding links to NetworkOne Australia, even though it has no relevance to the article it is being posted in (an example of this can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uniform_Resource_Locator&diff=93132086&oldid=93131554 ). Please investigate this, as this user has interfeared with many different articles.

    Chrisch 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    209.226.121.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    The persistent vandal to Lyme_disease is back for the third time - multiple IPs (all 209.226.121.xxx as documented below). Two previous requests for investigation are below; the vandal left immediately after each request was posted (so no action was taken), and then returned later. Vandal is obviously watching WP:RFI, and is clearly determined to disrupt Lyme_disease - even posting the comment "Finally! Destroy this stupid article!" after agreeing with content dispute comment by a registered user (perhaps the same IP?) (see history below).

    Please note that Lyme_disease is a very highly politicized disease - some of the Talk:Lyme_disease page history was deleted by administrators a few months ago due to potentially libelous content against a prominent researcher in the field. Though this article is well-documented and was selected for WP:V0.5 (A-Class rating), some users have expressed anger that two sides of the Lyme "controversy" are both represented on the page, insisting "there is no controversy" and that only one side should be represented. Suspicious behavior from this vandal suggests political motives, eg. vandal started out by making arguably legitimate edits with POV consistent with the "no controversy" position, and then as documentation was added to article supporting another position, he started with the penis references, etc. In addition, after the content dispute discussion on Talk:Lyme_disease went against his view and in favor of including both sides of the controversy, he (without explanation) removed the POV tag he'd previously wanted (perhaps because it directed reader to Talk:Lyme_disease), and when the POV tag was restored, he vandalized the very first line of Talk:Lyme_disease -- both suggesting an effort to keep readers away from the discussion on Talk:Lyme_disease as soon as it was no longer going in his favor.

    Because vandal stops immediately when request for investigation is posted, he has never been banned. The suggestion to request page protection doesn't make sense, as it is all coming from 209.226.121.xxx and is clearly a lone determined vandal who is watching this request for investigation page, and apparently not vandalizing other pages. See history below (previous requests are unaltered except addition of internal links) 75.37.237.209 02:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    From 30 June 2006 request:
    209.226.121.83 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • block user • block log) -- Multiple IPs (all 209.226.121.xxx - listed below). This user is back to vandalizing Lyme_disease and Talk:Lyme_disease. Has a history of persistent vandalism to Lyme_disease despite numerous warnings (some deleted), related to extreme POV. Vandalism from user temporarily stopped after request for investigation was submitted 21 May 2006 - see below (no action was taken since things had calmed down), but started again as of 25 June 2006 (talk page) and 26 June 2006 (article).
    From 21 May 2006 request:
    Prior to vandalism, first edit from IP was generally legitimate though some was reverted as POV; IP had comments on talk page about chronic Lyme patients being lazy, not really ill, etc. Since then IPs have gone on a streak of vandalism - a combination of foul language/images ("penis" references, "sluts", etc) mixed with statements offensive to Lyme patients (laziness etc), and page/section blanking. Recently something more complex is happening - after a registered user added POV tag and related comments on the talk page, 209.226.121.25 initially expressed elation - "Finally! Destroy this stupid article!" But after another registered user strongly defended the article on the talk page, 209.226.121.4 attempted to delete the POV tag on the article and replace it with a merge tag, with no explanation. Now for the first time, blatant vandalism to the talk page ("slut") was added by 209.226.121.71, to the first line of the talk page. (After this was reverted, the IP vandalized the talk page of the user who reverted.)
    IPs: 209.226.121.83, 209.226.121.30, 209.226.121.71, 209.226.121.25, 209.226.121.48, 209.226.121.110, 209.226.121.142, 209.226.121.155, 209.226.121.62, 209.226.121.92, 209.226.121.40, 209.226.121.149, 209.226.121.174, 209.226.121.70, 209.226.121.4
    Not necessarily vandalism, but related extreme POV: 209.226.121.127, 209.226.121.25, 209.226.121.141, 209.226.121.121 // --70.22.141.98 15:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    Also note - On 24 April 2006, 209.226.121.92 uploaded the same image (Masturbation1a.jpg) to Lyme_disease that 209.226.121.71 uploaded to the sandbox today, 21 May 2006. --70.22.141.98 16:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

    Darthflyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This anon-user, had removed my posting on Talk:Philadelphia Flyers. GoodDay 22:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under investigation

    72.91.169.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Riveros11 has been using a program of attempting to intimidate any alternative contributor to his religious group's topic page BKWSU by slapping vandalism tag on me and others in order to block my IP address - using alternative sockpuppet addresses that leaves his main user loking clean. The latest using the IP; 72.91.169.22, [6], here [7]. I removed it. Sockpuppetry and personal attack, or just a cynical and dishonest ploy to block other users to gain control over a topic for his group, he has since faked a user page to look like a third contributor he has also intimidated with threatening warnings.


    The user page for 72.91.169.22 is faked up to look like; maleabroad, [8] complete with bad Indian-English spelling

    This is an important detail as we will see later. It says;


    " User:72.91.169.22 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    How am I vandalising? I was deelteing anti-Hindu propangda trying to create a wedge between BKs and Hindus co-religionists. No racism will be tolerated! "


    If you look at the user contribution for maleabroad, here [9], you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here [10]

    Revision as of 16:38, 21 November 2006 maleabroad m (deleted anti-Hindu propaganda user trying to create drift between BK brothers and Hindu co-religionists)


    However, looking at the archive of maleabroad, Luis Riveros11 slapped a vandalism tag on maleabroad from the same IP address in Tampa; 72.91.169.22 (72.91.169.22 [ pool-72-91-169-22.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ]), [11] where Luis or Avyakt7 as he likes to call himself says;

    " Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

    Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 72.91.169.22 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7 "

    Luis is of course a teacher and recruiter for the BKWSU Raja Yoga center in Tampa. See documentation of his talks, here [12], [13] etc.


    • At 02:42 am 30 November 2006 as Riveros11 he made his usual revision/accusation (rv: vandalism - User 195.82.106.244 changed article without previous discussion as stated in Talk page without obeying policies in talk page - vandalism - version from user Appledell) [14].
    • At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here [15]. *ipvandal 195.82.106.244 Reported user this morning. Keeps reverting page without discussion and blanks all warnings from talk page.
    • At 02:54, 30 November 2006 [16].
    • At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page [17].


    If we look at the user contribution for 72.91.169.22 [18] we see that he has used it soley to attack me ... and once for maleabroad.

    If we look at his own user page for ... we see that despite making all the edits to BKWSU he has not once used it to make an IP vandalism report [19] and only once a personal attack report.

    If we look at the other IP address is uses 72.91.4.91 [ pool-72-91-4-91.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ] also Tampa Verizon and used for making vandalism attacks on Maleabroad [20]

    If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon 72.91.4.91; here, [21], we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU, maleabroad and myself.

    If we look at user contributions for 71.251.88.110 = [ pool-71-251-88-110.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ] is also Tampa Verizon; here, [22], we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU and myself.


    From 25/26 October 2006 when he first engaged in editing as Riveros11 , he has been a one track record [23] Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism and whole load of admin tricks to block others ... no wonder he has been to busy to actually engage in the atempted discussion, mediation [24] or arbitration [25]. Except on others pages [26] where he seeks advice and attempt to discredit me and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. [27].

    I have no doubt that this is not exhaustive but it is exhausting ... I hope that we can resolve matters.

    I would like to point out that the same team are also at work on Google Answers having critical or even independent pieces about the BKWSU removed, e.g. [28] which is now http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=206345, Yahoo and elsewhere. Yes, Wikipedia Foundation will be targetted next if they has not already done so. Scratch me and I will bleed citations.

    • One final incident, just wanted to add for the sake of completeness a Request for checkuser that Luis did under the 72.91.4.91 user where he refers to himself in the third party, "He also reported user Riveros11 ... Personal attack on Riveros11 ..." etc. [29]. It is worth noting JUST for the amount of effort he puts into this.

    195.82.106.244 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    195.82.106.244 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), , brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), bkwatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    When you are checking the above, please check also the poster of the request above and other suspect SPs. See ArbCom case on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F0.2F0.2F1.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    195.70.17.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    This site ACM Forex and this site Advanced Currency Markets refer to the same company. Both sites are pretty clearly advertisements I believe, and until recently they have been edited by a user User:Acmforex. After my edits and my appeals to this user to please talk on the discussion pages or to state their point of view, instead of attacking my user page Drewwiki, it looks like all new edits are being done by an ip addres: 195.70.17.226 195.70.17.226 This user has a history of putting random ACM Forex links into other articles. These are some examples: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]

    I believe this ip is the same as the user Acmforex and I believe this IP is not being a very productive wiki user

    let me know what I can do about this?

    Thanks

    --DrewWiki 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

    I have blocked the IP for 1 month. I am not sure what the situation is with User:Acmforex. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    151.204.243.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    Repeated content removal directed to one site without adequate description or reasoning at urban exploration. A sock puppet of 141.149.186.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has done similar actions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Post page diffs. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    13:50, 26 November 2006, 23:04, 25 November 2006, 22:02, 20 November 2006, 21:05, 18 November 2006 Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that this is a sockpuppet. Please WP:AGF and invite this editor to explain his or her reasoning for the deletion on the article talk page. Looks like the response to this has been unusually aggressive. Perhaps this is really someone new who could become a productive editor. Follow up if problems continue. DurovaCharge! 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was judging this based on the WHOIS for both: [38] and [39]. Is there a way to do a WHOIS on regular users for the record? Thanks for the reply, I'll just keep it status quo on the page and see what else happens. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that seems reasonable. Still, nothing beyond a level 2 warning on either IP. I'd like to see some good faith outreach. Ask this person to participate at the article talk page. DurovaCharge! 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I was under the assumption that they were both sockpuppets, so each warning was a cumulation off of both IPs. Upon the next removal, I'll ask that it be taken to the Discussion page as there is a system for link additions/removals (installed by me due to the high degree of link removals/additions for this article). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that similar matters have been longstanding problems at this page. Nonetheless, the right thing to do is to welcome each newcomer who might become productive and encourage them to contribute in accordance with site policies before issuing warnings. Some types of activity don't require that welcome - but this isn't someone who's posting obscenities to a page. They might have a genuine disagreement about that link's suitability and not understand consensus editing. Talk first and come back if they don't cooperate. DurovaCharge! 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding 151.204.242.114, the same user with the same DNS range is continuing to remove links. I posted a lengthy note on his talk page (didn't get around to it the first time but left a note in the edit summary at Urban exploration. This is getting old. This is verifiable with a simple IP query and WHOIS on the domains.
    "Regarding edits to urban exploration. Your edits are similar to that of 151.204.243.217 and 141.149.186.183. The DNS for all three IPs are from the same DNS range: [40], [41] and [42]. Please cease the removal of information and use the appropriate channels; more specifically, see the Discussion page for criteria on link additions/removals. See WP:EL and WP:VANDAL for more information." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have semi-protected Urban exploration. —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Hopefully this will resolve the link issues until it settles down. Unsure why this cropped up though... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Has been warned and blocked in the past for personal attacks; impersonates an admin here, and trolls various talk pages (too many to list, see contribs) with racist/anti-Semitic comments. -- weirdoactor t|c -- 03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I clicked randomly on a dozen contribs and did not find anything egregious. Content disputes are not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that there is a user-conduct RfC pending with regard to this user. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keltik31. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wateva100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Further Vandalism of the article Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. This user added unnecessary Information in to the article, this was thankfully deleted by the user: 'centrx' (thank you to to him!) for a Screenshot of this vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tyne_and_Wear_Fire_and_Rescue_Service&diff=88488950&oldid=88449288 The Vandalism by this user is written on the right hand side of the Page, In red. Thanks Tellyaddict 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Only 2 edits total from this account and no prior warnings. Leave a level 2 template on the editor's talk page and follow up if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    ChildOfA303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Also:

    Multiple linkspam on many articles relating to British geography by likely sockpuppets, involving the inappropriate insertion of links to a mirror of Google Maps located at www.blackcomb.co.uk (which appears to be a commercial website). All appear to be single-purpose accounts. E.g.:

    DWaterson 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#blackcomb.co.uk Femto 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe should be brought to WP:RFCU. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I blocked all of them except User:Newmoontube. They are disruptive sockpuppets. —Centrx→talk • 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Posmodern2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User has been reinserting linkspam and information that was previously deleted and discussed at length on the talk page for Emiliano Zapata, all editors except User:Posmodern2000 agree the information is speculation and unverifiable (Posmodern2000, not surprisingly, claims what he wants to add are all "facts" that have been mysteriously suppressed by authorities and that he's being censored). After all the discussion and attempts at resolution, this is devolving into mere vandalism. Tubezone 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Post diffs, please. DurovaCharge! 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No subsequent activity on this account. DurovaCharge! 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

    user 195.82.106.244 has used a "forest fire" using his suspected sockpuppet account brahmakumaris.info (under investigation [43])[44] Repeated allegations and blanking his talk page to avoid prosecution: [45] Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well. [46] Direct insults to persons.[47] Finally, user 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked (within a week) and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page:[48] and [49] Please attend this unfortunate matter asap. Thank you. 72.91.4.91 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7[reply]

    We need page diffs, not links. DurovaCharge! 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here you are. Thanks!
    Differentials:

    [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (note that both users in question do not delete each others work but rather complement it) [55] (User Brahmakumaris.info took away the sprotect tag placed by admin. In this way user 195.82.106.244 could post) [56] (brhmakumais.info moved pages to a new page, however here:[57] Note November 15th changes and here[58] user 195.82.106.244 activity on the same day.) link to versions: [59] 72.91.169.22 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7[reply]

    Here are more differentials submitted by another user to me:
    Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling)...
    [60] [61]

    Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...
    He also reported riveros11 on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... [62] Someone answered. [63] 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it! [64]

    Personal attack on Riveros11...
    [65] Bad faith edit comments.... [66] [67] [68] [69]

    Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet...
    [70]

    Intimidation...
    [71]
    Taunting...
    [72] [73] [74]

    Removing NPOV...
    [75]

    Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)...
    [76]

    Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment....
    [77] [78]

    Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article...
    [79]

    Forest fire...
    [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]

    Thank you, 72.91.169.22 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7[reply]

    That's a lot of evidence over quite a few months. Thank you for searching and summarizing all of those diffs. Some of these actions aren't necessarily objectionable. For instance, Wikipedia doesn't take a stand against editors blanking warnings from their own talk pages. Nor is it necessarily wrong to remove an NPOV tag, particularly when it's a single action rather than a revert war. The bulk of the history looks like a heartfelt content dispute. While cult is a hot button word, this editor doesn't use it frivolously but rather supports it with links and detailed discussion - although the allegation itself is necessarily provocative, it seems to have been raised in a suitably dignified manner. So what we're left with is the sockpuppet allegation and some background history. This looks like it presents an editor who was involved in a long term content dispute and then began using socks to WP:OWN the article. Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets is the best place to handle that (and I'm glad it's already been reported there) because between that page possibly WP:DR your bases should be covered without needing to come here. A few of the other posts cross the line enough that I'd issue a warning or a short block if these were new events, but those actions took place months ago. DurovaCharge! 04:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Durova, and how about this one just a day ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=cur&oldid=90603114 Please note that his links offered as support to his statements does not meet wikipedia standards for an article. Those are note reliable sources. This user however, wishes to use those sources even though admins already have told him that those are not valid. I just wish someone would take action specially after offering such a lenghty proof (user .244 does not even get a warning!!)rather than sending me to post in other places. Best 72.91.169.22 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7[reply]

    I semi-protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen guys, this is a bit of a joke because 72.91.169.22 is Riveros11 and User:72.91.28.223 whom both refer to himself in this and other complaints as if Riveros11 is a third party. Please see detailed documentation above. Riveros11 has been using 72.91.169.22 and other IPs to build up a bogus case against me and others in order to block me out from editing the article.
    The background to this case is that Luis [User:Riveros11|Riveros11]] is a teacher and recruiter for this millenarianist group the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and they have an IT team working on this article to ensure that nothing that contradicts its PR can exist there. Not even links for ex-victims as per The Family, Moonies and Scientology. Ditto, that no materials can be references from their "scriptures" or publications as per other religions. What this is all about is blocking any questions being raise. Ditto, The Family, Moonies and Scientology etc all have critical or opposition sections and links which he has removed from this one.
    The history goes back to when he was suspended from a public discussion forum for making personal attacks on others which he has continued to lay blame on me for. I was the victim of those attacks. See, [88]
    With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear; [89]
    Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)
    * it is relevant to their notability;
    * it is not contentious;
    * it is not unduly self-serving;
    * it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
    * there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.
    I put in for RfC, mediation and arbitration and the guy refused to participate whilst all the time using these alternative IPs to try block me out. I am glad I found all this to understand what is going on. 195.82.106.244 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Registered users

    Read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting. Do not report content or user disputes here, unless you can provide links demonstrating a strong attempt at dispute resolution. Please use this format at the top of this section:

    ===={{vandal|User_name}}====

    Brief Description. ~~~~

    Usernames are case sensitive.

    New requests

    Imgi12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Candyonashell has consistently vandalized the Satish Mohan page. This has continued after I requested that he/she stop on his/her talk page. This is the only page that the user has "edited." Vandalisms ahve included potentially libelous unverifiable information, and loaded terminology. --Cjs56 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is vandalizing pages related to homosexuality, including the homosexuality article itself and the Family Pride article, injecting POV comments and pejorative insults, user is degrading article quality by weasel wording and referencing extremist groups, referring to them as "conservative".

    --Izanbardprince 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    freescotlandparty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Hi there, been trying to dissuade freescotlandparty from repeatedly removing justifiable and referenced material from the Free Scotland Party page. He makes no attempt to justify this in return but simply keeps reverting. I have posted notes on the edit history log but I'm not competent enough to use the presribed templates. I did leave a message on the obvious vandal section but it looks as though it might not have been acted upon (possibly because the warning procedure wan't followed correctly). The users name is identical to the page name so I can only assume that he's deliberately censoring material he doesn't like. Can someone please help warn the user correctly or take further action. Thanks.

    Users Alex Stanek 999 (talk · contribs), Bachey (talk · contribs), and Akbarc (talk · contribs)

    I'm suspecting that all these users are the same person based on the style of contributions and vandalism. Some of the user(s) contributions have been positive, and I think that this user/these users might have some potential to contribute positively --WillMcC 14:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BooyakaDell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I hope I have the right place. The user is misusing the notability tags on articles that I have established to him as notable. The main sources of the trouble are the articles on Professional Championship Wrestling (Australia), New Zealand Wide Pro Wrestling, and Action Zone Wrestling. He has also added the tags needlessly to other wrestling promotion pages that I have removed on the ground of acting on bad faith. I have told the user this, and yet he persists claiming superior knowledge of the rules of notability - forgetting that notability within the profession (pro wrestling in which I am actually involved) is relevant. And then ignoring that same point. This matter is urgent - and I note this user is suspected of being a sockpuppet on his user page. Curse of Fenric 02:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You say I'm a sockpuppet when I'm not and yet you're accusing me of acting in bad faith. My acts were entirely in good faith and I am trying to compromise with you. I've basically given up trying to convince you because obviously you're not going to be convinced.BooyakaDell 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been no attempt to compromise by you. You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for. And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions. That's vandal behaviour. Curse of Fenric 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "There has been no attempt to compromise by you." - false

    "You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for." - false

    "And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions." - false

    Take responsibility for your own actions. Your standards for notability don't match up with Wikipedia's official standards for notability. You are wrong about your argument that Action Zone Wrestling is notable because it innovated the Taboo Tuesday concept. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro_Wrestling_Unplugged. Although PWI innovated concepts such as the Tables & Scaffold match, it was deemed not notable. The concerns that I bring up for Action Zone Wrestling are virtually identical to the concerns that were brought up for Pro Wrestling Unplugged, which was eventually deleted. Either put in some sources to the Action Zone Wrestling article, offer an argument other than a. "your tags are in bad faith" or b. "this subject is notable because it innovated a very minor concept" or be prepared to accept that "importance" and "notability" tags will be put on the article as their placement is entirely 110% warranted and justified, and your removal of such tags constitute nothing short of vandalism. BooyakaDell 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Before this gets classified as a "He Said/He Said" kind of issue, there is reason to believe that User:BooyakaDell is a WP:Sock account to get around User:JB196's community ban, there is a page at WP:AN/I requesting action. SirFozzie 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said, Fozzie. I'll ignore Booyaka's above contribution because all one has to do is look at his contributions list to see that I'm right. Curse of Fenric 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see my comments on my talk page (am Adopter of BooyakaDell - WP:ADOPT) - User talk:Lethaniol. For record I don't think that dealing with the Sockpuppet czase is the way to go - as a Checkuser has proved not workable - see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JB196. Cheers Lethaniol 17:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Speaking of personal attacks (which I've never done to you, Curse of Fenric...not even once), you need to stop personally attacking me.BooyakaDell 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Curse of Fenric is removing tags from numerous articles which have been 100% accounted for as well as engaging in personal attacks, and trying to play it off as if I am vandalizing which I have never done here on Wikipedia. He is also spamming my talk page with "warnings" that have no correspondence to the edits that I have made. Substantial evidence has been provided to argue that Action Zone Wrestling fails WP:NOTABILITY and the importance standards on Wikipedia. I will continue to revert any of Curse of Fenric's edits which are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. This is not to say that all of his edits are in direct violation of Wikipedia, it is only to say that some are. Now, I politely request that he give up this campaign as it's not doing either of us any good.BooyakaDell 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeated edit warring and spamming of tags on professional wrestling articles is the exact same modus operandi of banned vandal JB196, action should be taken forthwith 81.155.178.248 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    81.155.178.248's edit ignores the fact that Wikipedia templates are available for use when pages appear to go against what is stated in Wikipedia policies which is what they are being used for in this case. Any similarity between my and "JB196"'s edits is by chance.BooyakaDell 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The situation is close to out of control - I have requested help from the Mediation Cabal before people start getting blocked. See Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-11 BooyakaDell Lethaniol 01:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    E.Shubee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been reported here [92] but I'm not sure if this may be a better place to do it. This user has been nothing but a nuisance since coming onboard. The user continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Wikipedia violating disrupting wikipedia to make your point. His adoptive editor recently un-adpoted him (Dispute page), because nothing was changing. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Several editors have mentioned that it is highly likely, though not conclusively proven by checkuser, to be the users last account, Perspicacious (talk · contribs). If you follow the trail, you will note that this user has not been a positive contributor. He has consistently attacked editors and he's turned his personal talk page into something to talk about editors he doesn't agree with. He has consistently misquoted and misrepresented what other editors have said (see [93] and [94] for examples) Polite suggestions and invitations to learn the policies, ask questions, warnings, etc., have all failed. Instead user tries to turn around policies to fit his agenda and attack disagreeing editors. If you take a look at his user page and talk page you will see this.

    To point out some other discussions about E.Shubee see:

    Thanks for your attention to this as we are all tired of the the issues being caused by him. --Maniwar (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to update, there have been more complains see here and here. I'm not sure what else to do besides bringing this to your attention. --Maniwar (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1 month block issued. DurovaCharge! 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To add my input, this user has shown absolutely no sign of relenting. Even while blocked, he continues to make accusations and attacks against not only the editors who registered repeated complaints, but also the editor who tried to adopt him, and now the administrator who imposed the block. Every attempt to deal reasonably with this individual has resulted in utter failure, as he tends to compulsively blame and demean others who disagree with him, often resorting to misrepresenting them on numerous Wikipedia pages in attempts to prove his position. Hours and days have been wasted in dealing with his individual's numerous disruptive contributions, and his presence has become a significant drain on both the human and electronic resources of this community. Thank you for your time. Zahakiel 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Breannarox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    For evidence of what I discuss below, please direct your attention to essentially all of this user's edits on the page in question, specifically the diffs I provide below. The user's talk page will demonstrate multiple warnings. This user continually, relentlessly makes disruptive edits to Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County. User continues to insert biased, patently unverifiable, unencyclopedic information despite being told exactly what is wrong with what he / she is doing multiple times by myself and User:Dina. Specifically, he / she (I'm just going to go with she from now on) seems to be enamored with the character named Breanna, hence the username. She inserts glorious, flowing, totally unsourced and unverifiable prose into Breanna's section of the article whenever I turn my back, ignores my warnings against doing so, and blanks the paragraph or otherwise vandalizes the section devoted to Breanna's "rival" on the program, Tessa Keller. Beyond a content dispute, now a constant edit war, and her blind eye to all warnings makes it vandalism. Examples:

    Her edits regarding Breanna; this diff shows two of her edits, both made after about six warnings: [96].

    Her edits to Tessa Keller section: [97]. 

     --Tractorkingsfan 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Itake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Itake has previously been fighting with other users, which a quick look at his talk page will tell. He has been gone for a while, or so I thought - he is back, and is conducting edit wars here and there. A few examples: Antifascistisk aktion, Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation, Anti-Fascist Action and Superpower Classic. I don't really know what to do to stop him. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Preform (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Strong suspicions that this user is banned user MagicKirin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who also used the now banned account Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Same group of articles - Hugo Chavez - Cindy Sheehan, Hezbollah - picking up where the previous account was banned. Same arguments. Same litany of poor edits reverted immediately by numerous editors. Same pattern of being oblivious to the fact that his use of a new sockpuppet is transparent.--Zleitzen 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't do sockpuppet investigations here. Request a checkuser if this appears to be a sock of a banned account. DurovaCharge! 01:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jobjörn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Jobjörn is constantly involved in removing NPOV edits on articles such as Swedish Anarcho-syndicalist Youth Federation and Invisible Party. Even though proper sources are provided as per WP:REF the man still reverts them. When one attempts to make said articles NPOV, Jobjörn goes on to do his own POV edits on other articles such as Christian Democracy as "retaliation". Itake 12:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Under investigation

    Creepy Crawler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has repeatedly vandalized pages with blanking, [98], creation of bizarre fake userpages, User:SurvivorIMDB , User:Spider-Man, and creation of numerous redundant categories: [99], [100], [101], [102], and [103]. He had repeated warnings, almost all of which he has blanked, been warned not to blank warnings, and then blanked that too, as a check of his user talk can show[104]. He seems bent on continuing this disruptive behavior, because although every warning blanking is summarized as a variation of 'I said I'm sorry!', he continues in the exact same patterns. ThuranX 22:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hour block. One of the talk page comments accused this editor of being a sockpuppet of two banned accounts. Head over to checkuser and post a request there; if it comes back positive we'd have grounds for a siteban. DurovaCharge! 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Request submitted as suggested. Will report outcome when it appears. ThuranX 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Skinny_McGee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Suspected Sockpuppetry, Deceptive Editing and Vandalism

    • A strong suspicion of sockpuppetry, deceptive editing, and complex abuse on the Midnight_Syndicate article.
    • Possibly 6 other sockpuppets.
    • Self-promotion: IPs of past abuse/ possible IP sockpuppets ALL point to Chardon, OH (home city of this group).
    • Removal of other editor's Rfc by SkinnyMcGee. (ie: no help/comment was ever given by outside editors).
    • Non-policed 3RRs and false report of sockpuppet by biased editor.
    • Detailed description HERE of this issue with diffs and comments for all abuse.
    • This really needs investigated. I believe the wrong party has been banned due to nepotism. And certainly the article is now protected and is wrong on several counts according to citations that were also removed by SkinnyMcGee. Peacekpr 06:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Peacekpr accuses me of a false report of sockpuppet, this accusation is false and unwarranted. You can find my checkuser request here: [105], and my report here: [106]. Also, when I asked this user to reveal his/her previous username in the user's talkpage, the user refused to do so, I'm beginning to suspect that this user is another one of User:GuardianZ's sockpuppets. Dionyseus 13:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sockpuppetry investigations normally go to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. That's their specialty. Have you tried formal mediation? DurovaCharge! 04:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this goes beyond obvious sockpuppetry. I also suspect multiple sockpuppets/meatpuppets, so I thought it best to post here. Also, I moved comments by Dionyseus above to my talk page to keep this section brief, but he removed that link from here when reverting this page, so I am putting it back. Please see User_talk:Peacekpr for my discussion with Dionyseus, not to be confused with the issue. I simply feel that Dionyseus has show bias during the edit war on Midnight_Syndicate. Peacekpr 07:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The conflict of interest allegations have been made before and seem to apply to both sides. If this really proves unresolvable then Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration may be your final stop. This board doesn't do suspected sockpuppet investigations, which is the only new allegation in the present thread. Strongly recommend WP:DR. DurovaCharge! 17:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. I made a request for SSP and will wait for that result. Depending on what it bears I will then ask for further help or look for one of the non-affiliated editors who were not involved in the edit war to help in verifying the statements and edit as needed. If the SSP is positive, I have a feeling much of the submitted info will need edited or cited. I just find it odd that only one side of the arguement had any citations to show as evidence, and that person was banned. Peacekpr 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The account that got banned was a confirmed sockpuppet.[107] As an outside observer, it appears that both sides of the edit war are people who know each other and used to do business together. They might not have positively identified each other out of a group of people who had an interest in this band, but the conflict appears to extend well beyond Wikipedia. Earlier I suggested a separate biography for Joseph Vargo and a Wikilink within the article as a compromise solution. Apparently something like that was tried unsuccessfully before I became aware of the problem. I'm still not sure why that couldn't work if it were tried again. I'll level with you: the people who are editing this article probably have enough knowledge to raise this to good article or featured article quality if they would cooperate. The changes that immediately followed my last set of suggestions were steps in that direction. If you don't work things out you'll probably wind up in arbitration, in which case anything could happen: one realistic possibility is that both sides get topic banned and no other Wikipedians know or care enough to raise the article to its full potential. Try formal mediation if you haven't already - and remember there are bigger things in life than one Wikipedia article. DurovaCharge! 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected the article with a warning to the participants: I will open an arbitration request if this unprotection fails. DurovaCharge! 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user is either a really bad editor or a really good vandal. Often changes information to incorrect info, probably on purpose, along with intentionally bad grammar.[108][109][110][111][112][113] Whether or not he is intentionally distructive his edits are still harmful.--CyberGhostface 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    72 hour block for vandalism. DurovaCharge! 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User is really bad at editing and makes ridiculous spelling errors and changes dates and numbers without citing any sources. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    William Mauco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has a persistent behaviour of blanking relevant information in Transnistria - related articles and introducing fake information. He self-declared is the author of 80% or Transnistria - related articles in Wikipedia [114], I didn't check but this is probabily true. However, after I start looking on those articles I realized that his edits look more like propaganda for this unrecognized country and not as NPOV information as should be in Wikipedia. This is why I start being involved in Transnistria - related articles in Wikipedia, which sometimes went to edit warring with Mauco. 6 times he broke the 3RR but was never blocked (I made a report about this on Administrators Noticeboard [115] In 23 November both me and User:William Mauco were blocked for edit warring. First thing Mauco did after block finished was to revert me, without any explanation, in 6 different articles:

    1. revert on Sheriff. In article Sheriff (company), I gave 12 (twelve) refferences to support my view that between the familly of transnistrian president Smirnov and company Sheriff there are strong links. Between refferences - BBC, Washington Times, San Francisco Chronicles, which can not be considered biases, contrary with Mauco's links, which are from Russian or Transnistrian sources (the entire political game in Transnistria being the desire of Russia to anex this region). Mauco claim that between the company Sheriff and Smirnov there are big clashes.
    2. Politics of Transnistria (see talk page: we had a dispute, a mediator was brought to solve it, there are 4 wikipedians who want to include a paragraph, only Mauco opposed; after a compromise proposal was proposed by mediator which remained unanswered by Mauco, paragraph was included but Mauco reverted without explanations)
    3. List of unrecognized countries
    4. War of Transnistria (revert with the misleading comment that information belong to an other article - Raşcov, while info he took out was not about Raşcov)
    5. Gîsca and
    6. Mikhail Burla.

    Beside reverting me he didn't make any other edit today (until now) [116].

    In the same time, this user is WP:STALK wikistalking me, he recognized that he is "monitoring" my contributions but claim this is not wikistalking [117] (what else is it?) and previously try to convince other users (without success) what a bad person I am, pretending untrue facts about me. For example, here he told to an other user (Johnathanpops) that I accused him as being a sockpuppet and part of a KGB conspiracy (while I never had any dispute with this user and never accused Johnathanpops of sockpuppetry or of being KGB agent) and here is pretending that I use to edit anonimously and made threats.

    I mention also that I try to solve problems with this user through talk pages and I also tried formal mediation [118], [119]

    I consider latest reverts of my work by Mauco, done imediatelly after we both were blocked for edit warring, and without any discussion in talk pages of involved articles, as vandalism.--MariusM 02:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to disappoint, but this is really a content dispute outside the scope of this noticeboard. The most recent posts to mediation happened only four days before this request so - as far as I know - the mediation might still be ongoing. I hope that resolves the issues because if it doesn't you might have to try arbitration. DurovaCharge! 17:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Is possible that a non-Russian admin will look at this report? Mediation is not about the articles in which vandalis occured.--MariusM 11:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL, I'm not even Russian by descent. User:Durova/Travels DurovaCharge! 14:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologies Durova if I mistakenly believed you are Russian, I saw you took a name of a Russian female soldier. However, your denial is not clear - you told you are not Russian by descent, that mean you can be Russian by other criteria, for example, citizenship.--MariusM 01:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User was blocked for 48 hours for edit warring[120]. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    SideShowFreak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I have repeatedly inform user to stop blanking pages for article discussion on Stephanie Nolasco. Apparently this acccount is a sock puppet account used by subject or someone close to the subject. They are creating vanity pages and erasing anyone's POV that disagrees with them. I have pleaded with this person to stop and have reported him/her to an administrator in the past but they continue blanking pages--XLR8TION 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=93985537"