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
rv
Line 530: Line 530:
===New requests===
===New requests===
<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list)!-->
<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list)!-->

=={{vandal|someguy0830}}, {{vandal|tjstrf}}, {{vandal|gunslinger47}} are the same person who is doing some serious vandalism.==

this person has gone crazy. i don't know how many more accounts he has created so far. check out his contribs, he is doing nothing, but to revert and revert. and he is reverting the same things that gunslinger47 and tjstrf were reverting. this guy has [[obsessive compulsive disorder]], someone should look into those three accounts, you will find that those three accounts have similar partners, updating similar articles, lots of japanese cartons, and most importantly, reverting like a crazy man. he does not care what that article is, all he cares is to revert after revert. that is serious vandalism. he has been reverting the same articles for last few days.

check out [[Government of China]], he has gone crazy! someone should suspend all those three accounts. it is the same person who is doing the same reverting.



===={{vandal|The Damaja}}====
===={{vandal|The Damaja}}====

Revision as of 10:22, 3 January 2007

←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

    • Paul R. Ehrlich biography is currently biased and has been vandalized with bias since 2003. Ehrlich is Stanford population biologist warning of overpopulation in bestsellers such as THE POPULATION EXPLOSION (1990). Look at long history of edits since 2003, and extensive discussion page: Religious extremists against birth control, who deny existence of overpopulation, repeatedly vandalized webpage with propaganda slanted against Ehrlich. I edited a dozen times before giving up. Current version is still biased POV: As a biography it barely mentions five decades of Ehrlich's accomplishments or other books Ehrlich wrote. IE, he is world's foremost expert on butterfly population dynamics. Biography is overwhelmed by several paragraphs of "criticisms" of overpopulation theory. Criticisms should be limited to one paragraph, yet criticisms can be found in every sentence throughout biography, and CRITICISMS section is biggest section of biography, and centered on webpage. I re-wrote it several times but religious extremists repeatedly vandalize and revert. It should be re-written with more objective point of view and include subject's five decades of accomplishments. It needs warning flags and should be locked to prevent future biased vandalism. 209.78.98.26 22:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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]

    • Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and related pages such as Li Hongzhi. There have been two main camps of people on this page, one pro-Falun Gong and the other as Falun Gong critics. As the holidays approach, the entire Falun Gong critic camp will probably be going away on holiday. I ask the page be watched so that NO SECTION BLANKING will be engaged in, or entire paragraphs of content be altered to be clearly POV. I refer especially to Omido (talk · contribs) who has persistently done so for the past week despite having been warned before. Naturally if the situation gets worse then watching alone will not be enough, but we are in the seasonal spirit at present. Any help or further advice concerning this would be greatly appreciated. Jsw663 04:50, 22 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

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

    This user is apparently a grammar and spelling stickler. When this user comes across article talk pages the user edits other people's comments, mainly for small grammar and spelling mistakes.

    This user also appears to use 24.14.139.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see talk page), and Mysterypaw and 66.191.117.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (see talk page). This user also appears to use *Ruby (see talk page). (As of this time, these usernames have made no contributions).

    The problem is not only that this user has edited other people's comments on talk pages. First it's that the user is systematically doing this. Second it's that this user has who knows how many IP addresses and I'm not sure how to warn or watch this user. Third is the issue of the user accounts. I have no idea if these are are this user's accounts. This user starts by signing with various fancy text sigs (i.e. "××××Mysterypaw××××") before moving to signing with a wiki sigMysterypaw. If this user doesn't actually have these accounts (they belong to someone else or haven't been created in the case of *Ruby) but is signing with them anyway, that's a whole other can of worms.

    I previously reported this user at AIV. This led to a discussion which was moved to the discussion page and then to the archives. TStein 09:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user recently vandalised Steve Irwin as noted in the article "The subject of this article has recently died, please be both respectful and informative in your edits as we try to improve the quality of the article. Vandalism to this article will be treated with blocks. Also, please be mindful of the fact that this article is a record of Mr. Irwin's life, not a memorial." If this procedure is to be followed the user should be blocked for this blatant and offensive vandalismOliver202 21:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP's edits appear to be almost entirely vandalism often subtle. Recent edits include:

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

    This IP has apparently randomly been removing tags and text from wikipedia for about 10 days. Random Passer-by 16:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No one has attempted to communicate with this editor on the IP's talk page. Welcome them first, then leave warnings as needed. If things escalate to a block warning then follow up here. DurovaCharge! 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the advice. I've added a welcome and warning to the IP talk page as you suggested and I'm checking back through the IP edits to clean-up any problems.Random Passer-by 20:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This anonymous IP is over zealously placing cleanup +tags etc. Headphonos 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet there's no block warning so far on this editor's talk page. See if you can work this out. Come back if it doesn't succeed. DurovaCharge! 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has been progressively adding more and more hoaxes over the past two months, mostly creating fake children's animations. Examples are Hamptsse Messy and Basil Hair the Squirrel. These pages have been created from the infobox at Tweenies, but the links given either don't exist or link to something else entirely. He has been editing pages for production houses and cartoons to insert references to these hoaxes, as here: [12] [13] [14]. He has also edited pages to include facts that are downright wrong, such as [15] and [16]. While some of his edits were quickly reverted, others were on obscure pages and remained in place from November until yesterday. He has made another hoax edit since I gave him a final warning yesterday, making this edit and being warned for hoaxing here. Please, please block him ... a lot. Vashti 11:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He is still at it today, making this edit. He also made this edit, which I have reverted as the only relevant Google hits for "shiff hoobs" were on the user-edited IMDB. Vashti 15:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    24 hour soft block; it's a shared IP. DurovaCharge! 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the respite for 24 hours was nice, but now he's back, adding hoax pages at Bronwineyne and Wankado, and adding bad information at Australian Children's Television Foundation ([17] shows the sum of bad edits including Topper's, and [18] being the one our friend did) and ABC Kids ([19]) . I would bet real money he's also the same user as Topper118 and various other Toppers, who has created similar hoax articles at Mr Cod, Fc. and Rocko (TV series). "shared IP" though it might be, all the users on that IP address are making exactly the same edits, if you look at the history - please can we have a more permanent block? Vashti 11:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made it 48 hours this time. If you need to return a third time I'll post a query to the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks for your patience. DurovaCharge! 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Vadalism of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service article. This IP keeps sneakily vandalising the Fire Station call signs (because they are written in the phonetic alphabet), and example of this vandalism can be found here [20]. This IP also wrote the phrase 'I am gayboy' on top of two of the headings, an example of this vandalism can be found here [21]. I have left a TEST4 template on their talk page because I thought this was necessary as they vandalised it seven times, although I was considering leaving a VW template. If you do decide to block this IP will you please tell me on my talk page which a link can be found in my signature!

    Cheers.......TellyaddictTalk 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    We've seen this article being attacked before. I've semi-protected. Post again when the need for protection has ended. DurovaCharge! 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected per editor request. Note to other admins: this is a persistent IP vandal with a shifting address who waits about 1 month between attacks. Merits blocking on sight for recognizable offenses. DurovaCharge! 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Nearly entire edit history is vandalism (e.g. this diff, which has been repeated something like 20 or 30 times in the last six months), and if it isn't clear vandalism, it's pushing a pro-England POV (note placement of English before Scottish in the ancestry). England is a fine country and all, but I'm getting really tired of cleaning up after this guy. He has been warned multiple times on his Talk page not to continue his vandalism, but without admin intervention and a resulting block, it's sort of pointless to warn him as he continues to vandalise.--chris.lawson 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks pretty fishy, but this editor has begun discussing changes on talk pages. Post again if vandalism resumes. This is very close to a block. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    As I call the UPN vandal, this IP delibirately adds incorrect information to articles (related to UPN), such as this, this, and this.

    He has sockpuppets, including:

    And others. Look at UPN's history for other socks I may have missed. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem is that most of these appear to be shared IP addresses (and the vandal can easily switch to others within those ranges at random). There's no way to reliably block him/her without potentially affecting many other anonymous users. This is why I've semi-protected UPN and 2007 in television. I'm also watching other articles targeted by this individual (and checking for new targets), and I'll consider semi-protecting them if the vandalism doesn't subside. —David Levy 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've caught two more socks. I need help. --AAA! (AAAA • AAAAAAAA) 03:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Will probably need more warnings and cleanup after the mess. Nordby73 23:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What mess specifically? DurovaCharge! 01:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possibly not much, but I was thinking of stuff like this. Nordby73 08:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Valid vandalism but a little old. This may wither from benign neglect. Post again if problem resumes. DurovaCharge! 00:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP was previously blocked as User:Skimall for personal attacks, & entering his entries [advertisements] into the main Telluride article. He continues to constantly add his personal advertisements to the article. skimall is not by any stretch of the imagination a valid local blog, guide to visitors, or source of news. That he considers it such is, if nothing else, proof of his own stretched imagination. I cannot go through regular means of attaching Vandal tags, etc as he is very malicious... Grye 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Correction: neither the registered account nor the IP have been blocked. The account's user page has been deleted as an advertisement. This may be a new user who is unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. I recommend first giving them a welcome, then if necessary a warning. Let's hope they become a useful contributor. Follow up here if things don't improve and the warnings escalate to level 3. Regards, DurovaCharge! 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Appears to be using a cable modem - IP hops around but the behavior remains the same - inserts a claim that Danny DeVito is a Scientologist. I can find no reputable source backing this up - and the link provided by the IP doesn't state this. A few forum/blog appear to have picked up the same claim (possibly from here). This is extremely dicey per WP:BLP and despite attempts to question the IP in question (including via the article history) it persists in reinstating the claim. Probable socks of the IP:

    A block would cause massive collateral damage and I'm getting tired of reverting the same thing on a daily basis. Megapixie 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected this article. DurovaCharge! 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This IP address is being used by a banned user. Daniel575 has been banned, his first 2 sockpuppets have been banned as well, and he is now using this IP to do his edits. I know that he lives in Jerusalem, and the IP address points to NJ, but the IP is used company wide and Daniel works in the Jerusalem office. You can also see that for the most part, this IP is editing the same articles, and in the same way as Daniel575. Yossiea 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like you need to go to WP:SSP and file a suspected sockpuppet report. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I did but nothing has happened. I filed the request days ago, my two original requests are still there as well, even though the user has been banned twice. Yossiea 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you'd like to provide detailed evidence that this editor is a sockpuppet including relevant diffs, I could look at what you've got and possibly act on that. DurovaCharge! 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    User appears to be consistently editing articles related to Thomas the Tank Engine, but his or her edits do much more harm than good. Although perhaps not a vandal, a preventative block may be very useful. Gracenotes T § 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Editor has been blocked. DurovaCharge! 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]



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

    An individual using this IP address has recently engaged in disruptive editing in the John Calvin biography and talk page. The disruptive edits and uncivil remarks on the talk page are similar and sometimes identical in a pattern identifiable under multiple IP addresses since October. Several editors have attempted discussion and polite warnings, but the disruptive individual has rudely disregarded the consensus.

    Other possible sock puppet IP addresses include: 198.150.40.60, 128.104.50.213, 128.104.49.216, 128.104.49.140, 128.104.48.118, 128.104.50.147

    Please investigate.--Rgfolsom 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. The individual repetitively edits the article contrary to consensus, and has stated on the talk page that he doesn't care what the other editors think, he's going to continue doing so.TheologyJohn 10:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't help but agree. He acts as if Wikipedia belongs to him alone. Yahnatan 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This complaint is not to say that the article cannot be improved in the direction the allegedly disruptive anon would like, but the heavy-handed way s/he goes about it is what we have a problem with. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure that I understand why this user's edits are considered to be vandalism? 69.140.173.15 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    As I understood the guideline, a request for investigation is appropriate after other steps have failed; the disruptive editor flatly vowed not to respect the consensus, hence this request.--Rgfolsom 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    No activity since 12 December. If problems resume then follow up with specific page diffs that demonstrate the problem. DurovaCharge! 04:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Activity fitting the pattern on 13 November and 14 November, in both cases coming from IP addresses (or similar) listed above. Thank you. --Rgfolsom 20:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Explain to me how those two edits are disruptive. DurovaCharge! 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    By themselves those two edits are not disruptive. The disruption is in the pattern of similar edits and uncivil talk page remarks that willfully disregard the group consensus. Also, your (reasonable) request for an explanation led me to look more thoroughly into the article history. The pattern began as early as this past March, not October. The diffs below came from IP addresses that WHOIS traces to the same location (two in April showed similar edits/comments coming from User:Jeremy4031, now not active).

    • Partial list of article diffs
    [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] (misattributes an inflammatory quote to Calvin), [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
    • Partial list of talk page diffs
    [40] (deleting another editor's talk page comment), [41] (includes profanity), [42] [43] [44] [45]

    Other IP addresses the editor used: 128.104.50.44, 128.104.50.219, 144.92.231.110

    Thank you. --Rgfolsom 19:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Since this editor is using multiple IP addresses it's simpler to semi-protect this article. I've cited WP:OWN and WP:NPOV on the talk page. Quote me as necessary. DurovaCharge! 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much for your help.--Rgfolsom 22:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Final block warning issued. 48 hour block applied after continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. DurovaCharge! 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Block being evaded 23 minutes after implementation, see last part of this diff. Tim Shuba 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Block extended to 1 week. Sock blocked 1 week also. Semi-protected the article talk page. Report any new problems. DurovaCharge! 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Article talk page unprotected per editor request. DurovaCharge! 01:15, 23 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)
    Semi-protected page, then unprotected per editor request. Not sure what's left to investigate if this editor continues switching IP addresses and the registered users are content with reverting the changes. DurovaCharge! 04:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ===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]

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

    This anon-user, has been vandalizing Colorado Avalanche. Forcing diacritics on the article. GoodDay 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem seems to have subsided. Post again if it resumes. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 2 January 2007 (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, [46], here [47]. 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, [48] 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 [49], you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here [50]

    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 ]), [51] 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 [52], [53] 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) [54].
    • At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here [55]. *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 [56].
    • At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page [57].


    If we look at the user contribution for 72.91.169.22 [58] 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 [59] 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 [60]

    If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon 72.91.4.91; here, [61], 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, [62], 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 [63] 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 [64] or arbitration [65]. Except on others pages [66] where he seeks advice and attempt to discredit me and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. [67].

    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. [68] 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. [69]. 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]

    User:Bkwatch either hasn't edited or has had all his edits deleted. ---J.S (T/C) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all in arbitration now. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 21 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: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77]

    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: [78] and [79]. 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: [80], [81] and [82]. 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]


    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 [83])[84] Repeated allegations and blanking his talk page to avoid prosecution: [85] Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well. [86] Direct insults to persons.[87] Finally, user 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked (within a week) and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page:[88] and [89] 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:

    [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] (note that both users in question do not delete each others work but rather complement it) [95] (User Brahmakumaris.info took away the sprotect tag placed by admin. In this way user 195.82.106.244 could post) [96] (brhmakumais.info moved pages to a new page, however here:[97] Note November 15th changes and here[98] user 195.82.106.244 activity on the same day.) link to versions: [99] 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)...
    [100] [101]

    Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...
    He also reported riveros11 on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... [102] Someone answered. [103] 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it! [104]

    Personal attack on Riveros11...
    [105] Bad faith edit comments.... [106] [107] [108] [109]

    Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet...
    [110]

    Intimidation...
    [111]
    Taunting...
    [112] [113] [114]

    Removing NPOV...
    [115]

    Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)...
    [116]

    Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment....
    [117] [118]

    Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article...
    [119]

    Forest fire...
    [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]

    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, [128]
    With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear; [129]
    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]
    This matter is now in arbitration. DurovaCharge! 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Template:Allen Greenfield - I have definite information that the person calling for deletion of this article has a long history of writing crank letters about this specific subject for entirely personal, rather than critical or cited, reasons. Some claims made by this person, a V. Cybert of Alabama, are apparently defamatory as well as misrepresented. This hardly seems a legitimate reason to call for a vote on deletion of an article, especially when said motive is masked. //Allen Greenfield

    Talk:Spider-Man 3 (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Spider-Man 3|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (Moved from Admin Noticeboard to AN/I, and now to RFI, hopefully finding the right place for action) Can an admin please help regarding events on this page which happened saturday, yesterday, and today. Saturday night, both 222.152.186.32 and Boggydark got into a revert war here. Bignole, Erik, Ace Class Shadow, User:Wiki-newbie, Veracious Rey, and myself have all counseled both editors on things like civility[130], citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal[131], and more[132] for weeks now[133]. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names [134], [135] for working hard on the page and not wanting POV edits added, and it's time for it to stop. ThuranX 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC) (Additional information: One of the posters, the IP user, has also begun to take his issues to another site, IMDb, as seen here[136]. ThuranX 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)) Since posting and moving this, the IP user has continued to be hostile, insulting the other editor mentioned on topics, as well as continuing to provoke the regular, Good Faith editors with comments like this [137]. He's clearly gone over to trolling for a fight, to judge by tonight's insulting edits. Many of the editors here are really about to leap out of their skins and get truly incivil back to him. We need Admin help. // ThuranX 03:34, 26 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

    someguy0830 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), tjstrf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), gunslinger47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person who is doing some serious vandalism.

    this person has gone crazy. i don't know how many more accounts he has created so far. check out his contribs, he is doing nothing, but to revert and revert. and he is reverting the same things that gunslinger47 and tjstrf were reverting. this guy has obsessive compulsive disorder, someone should look into those three accounts, you will find that those three accounts have similar partners, updating similar articles, lots of japanese cartons, and most importantly, reverting like a crazy man. he does not care what that article is, all he cares is to revert after revert. that is serious vandalism. he has been reverting the same articles for last few days.

    check out Government of China, he has gone crazy! someone should suspend all those three accounts. it is the same person who is doing the same reverting.


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

    This user is a persistant abuser of wrestling related articles and is a constant nuisance. He was reported for vandalism but the reporter was told it was a content dispute. As is visible from both his talk page, and the WP:PW talk page he has been asked many times to stop and read the WP:PW guidelines, then told, then warned. Yet he continues to ignore everything and persist with his disruptive edits; any help would be useful. DavyJonesLocker 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    There is currently a Vote about some +categories and as the vote is occurring Fresheneesz moved the articles to the main category. Would you please advise him to revert all of his changes. Thank you Headphonos 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That's usually something editors take care of themselves. If there's a deeper problem at work please post details with diffs. DurovaCharge! 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user appears to be engaging in autobiography (which I've tagged for speedy deletion) and spamming to promote his record company and possibly also anonymous sockpuppeteering as IP 217.235.190.206 to add more advertising spam for the same record company. Random Passer-by 20:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    You better take a look at these user boxes User:Otherone/Userboxes

    Yes, some of them are objectionable. I suggest you leave a polite note to that effect on the editor's talk page. DurovaCharge! 18:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This user has avoided formal mediation, is ignoring informal mediation requests and RfC consensus, and is not accepting Third party viewpoints. He reverts any constructive edits, in spite of consensus from outside admins and long-time editors, to retain a 'attack' section called Controversy in the IIPM article, which is on a large educational institution, and possibly is covered under the 'living persons' category, as the Wikipedia article affects the lives of its students directly. Iipmstudent9 07:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide specific links and diffs. DurovaCharge! 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Inra20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has been vandalizing articles on many former beauty queen contestants. This is a newly sockpuppet account and the user has used names User:RESIA20, User:Urali20, and IP Address 70.126.2.82 to continued to make unconstructive edits. In the article for Denise Quinones and Shanna Moakler she has not listen to several editors' request for citations. I have pleaded many times and yet no success. She has been blocked once on Friday for the 3RR rule. Unfortunately, me trying to stop her vandalism also was blocked for reverting the article in itsstage prior to it being vandalized. --XLR8TION 05:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This is a very different request, this user has created over 50 "bio stubs" - looks like he's going through some Armenian "who's who" list and creating 1 or 2 line stubs, non-referenced, non-sourced. I did put a kind "heads up" on his user page, and am tagging all of these as {db-xxx}. Perchance an admin could watch/explain the WP:BIO and other categories before this becomes a nasty situation. Not 100% sure if this is vandalism, leave that call to the experts.SkierRMH 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user has repeatedly removed maintenence templates from a page s/he created which is in desperate need of cleanup and sources. I have left requests for him/her to stop, and later warnings to stop, on this user's talk page many times. The user has not acknowledged them, nor stopped removing the templates. I don't think that the editor is intentionally being a vandal, but after multiple warnings I don't know what else to do. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    flybd5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    • I have edited and made proper grammatical, punctuation, and typo corrections on the aryicle for Pedro Rossello many times. This user who apparently is a person who goes against many of my personal political beliefs (as discussed on discussions boards) has been reverting my changes and feels that he personally owns this article. If you take a look at the history of my changes, my edits have made the article sound much more professional and informative. I have even listed citations and he deletes them. I have reported him to numerous admins to no ado. Please tell him to stop reverting my changes. Many other Wikipedians agree with me that he has crossed the line. I will revert my changes. pleas take a look at my edits and you will clearly see that this is not vandalism. --XLR8TION 17:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Article is now locked and I'm watching the situation. ---J.S (T/C) 18:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We're back to the same story again. Go look at the latest round of edits on Pedro Rossello. This user is claiming that I am the vandal, when in fact the latest diffs show that XLR8TION is making wholesale changes with obvious grammatical errors and removing information that is shown as factual with cites and refs. XL8RTION continues the exact same pattern of behavior on the article that caused the issues in the past week and a block of the article. I'm tired of dealing with this issue, if you won't do something about it at the level of the user I will simply abandon any effort to keep the article accurate and in good condition. XLR8TION can't even spell correctly! See above! Flybd5 04:19, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left a block warning. Follow up if this editor deletes sourced material again. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Soccerguy1039 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Looking at this user's block log, he was previously blocked by Friday on the 9th of Dec. 2006 for problem editing. I initially contacted Friday, but have not received a response. Soccerguy1039 is continuing his disruptive edits, refusing to sign comments, then removing the {{unsigned2}} templates that other users place next to his comments [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146]. Several users have asked him to stop, yet he continues. I believe he is also operating a sockpuppet by the name Emokid200618 (talk · contribs). Their contribs are identical, including the removal of unsigned templates on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII [147] [148] [149]. Soccerguy1039 and Emokid200618 have also made identical edits on Template:Kingdom Hearts series (Soccer = [150]; Emokid = [151] [152]). Emokid has also vandalized George W. Bush, though it was a minor nuisance. ([153] [154]) Apologies if this is the incorrect place to report this, but it doesn't seem to fit WP:AN, it isn't obvious vandalism (WP:AIV) and isn't only about sockpuppets. AuburnPilottalk 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Soccerguy1039 has been blocked for 48 hours by Friday. I will take the other issues to WP:SSP. AuburnPilottalk 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Category:Anti-Semitic people Vote

    There was a recent Vote to change the +cat name from Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:Antisemitic people and it was decided to keep the hyphen. Hashomer has moved the category anyway and without any further vote. In addition, the editor has changed the link at the articles in the category. Would you please move the category back and have the editor revert back all the changes made to each article linking to the new category Category:Antisemitic people. Thank you 69.156.78.94 12:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, I'm a new user and this was an honest mistake. I noticed that the parent category used the spelling Antisemitic for instance "Category:Antisemitism" and that the article on the subject was Antisemitism. I thought retaining the hyphen in the Anti-Semitic people category name was just an oversight and it would just be a housekeeping change to move it over since most encyclopedias try to be consistent in their spelling. I was unaware of the vote in November otherwise I would have left well enough alone. I will revert the move now. Hashomer 19:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Is it possible to consider giving a warning to this user for this clearly heinous post. [155] ? Thanks talk 03:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Definitely worth a warning. You can issue that yourself. DurovaCharge! 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I suggest a warning to User:Chesdovi as he is messing around with the Holiest sites in Islam article by adding numerous non-islamic sites and irrelevant content. (He was a major contributor to this article in the early stages and I'm sure he knows very well about what he's doing) . See the following edits :

    [156] [157] [158] [159]

    There are more of such kind of edits. thestick 12:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He's already gotten a final warning and continued adding nonsense. 48 hour block issued. DurovaCharge! 08:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

    I would suggest a warning be given to User:Cheekychops as he has repeatedly edited living person biographies to add comments stating that various male actors are actually "gay and are dating casting director Lee Dennison". When these entries are removed by other editors he repeatedly replaces them. He cites fake sources and even when confronted continues to insist that the citation is genuine, or alternatively suggest a different citation, resulting in more work for other contributers to disprove him yet again. Examples of this vandalism include

    1. Many edits to Colin Farrell
    2. Vin Diesel
    3. Ron Livingston
    4. Mark Anstee
    5. Rob James-Collier

    In light of the potentially defamatory nature of these comments, and the sheer number of them, perhaps it would be wise to block this user?

    The "Lee Dennison" mentioned in all these quotes seems to have also existed for a short time as User:LeeDennison who created a vanity article about himself which was subsequently deleted. I think this is the same user as User:Cheekychops.

    The user has also added many other entries referring to "Lee Dennison" to various articles.

    It's surprising that this has gone on for so long without any user block. I've left a warning. Post again if the problem resumes. DurovaCharge! 03:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm on OTRS, and we got a (very very polite) complaint about this. I too am surprised it went on for as long as it did, but at least it let me use an amusing edit summary when blocking ("user is obsessed with casting director Lee Dennison"). DS 15:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Love is all we need (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    I would suggest a warning be issued to User:Love is all we need as the user is using multiple user accounts, claiming to follow wikipedia policies. The user uses his/her accounts in different discussions so that the reader gets the impression that it is several users commenting an article. MoRsE 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Please go to WP:SSP and follow the suspected sockpuppet report directions there. We do other types of investigations at this board. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the instructions led me to believe so, but well. MoRsE 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe that should be worded more clearly: what's obvious to an involved editor may not be obvious from a distance. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bluechevylover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Lord Tortiville II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Please see this nonsense edit of Back to the Future by Bluechevylover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[160] from 12/11, followed by the same edit by Lord Tortiville II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on 12/14.[161] First user name got a Test4, and I gave the second a blatantvandal warning last night. Checking the second name's contribs brought me to the spurious articles Fisherman's Choice and Bailey's Creek Fisherman's Challenge. I tagged them as hoaxes, and 68.39.174.238‎ tagged them for speedy, which apparently went through today. Lord Tortiville II has already recreated the Bailey article. Neither account has many edits. The first one made some to automotive articles, which I didn't look at; the other has basically only touched Back to the Future and the two nonsense articles. I'm thinking there are probably older accounts I don't know about. I'm not sure what is to be done, except to mention the situation here. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The warnings are appropriate. One account has only a single edit and the other hasn't been active since 11 December. This may wither from benign neglect. In case it doesn't, post again with new diffs and I'll follow up on your warnings with a block. DurovaCharge! 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually there were more edits on the newer name, but they appear to have been rolled back or something. (There were two edits each to create the now-deleted articles, if I recall correctly, and one more today to recreate one of them.) The recreated article has been salted, and the other one has not made a return appearance. I'll let you know if anything else happens. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Media anthro and User:Squeakbox

    I've had a user come to the mulatto board making constant changes. When I left him a personal note on his user talk, he responded to me on his own talk page. The only way I knew he did that was I went back to explain another edit I did. I told him that if he needed to leave me a message he needed to leave it for me on MY page, not his. He finally figured it out and posted a message on my page saying something about he would block me because he was an edittor. He's a new user and in no way was I vandalising, he was. I told him I would report him for both vandalism and harassment because there was nothing to show he was an editor. Then some guy named User:Squeakbox contacted me saying that administrators would block me if I reported User:Media anthro saying he wasn't an editor because he really was. Does this sound fishy to you?

    Please provide page diffs and sign your request. DurovaCharge! 04:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Report to WP:SSP per their requirements. We do other types of investigations here. They handle suspected sockpuppets. DurovaCharge! 04:03, 16 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 [162] 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 [163] and [164] 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]
    The thread at his talk page has grown rather long. As I stated in the block notice, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is recommended reading and this editor is risking a community siteban. DurovaCharge! 04:58, 14 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: [166].

    Her edits to Tessa Keller section: [167].

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

    Genuine vandalism here, but no activity in nearly a week. I would have blocked if I had read this sooner. Report again if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 04:02, 16 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]

    Only one edit since 9 December. Post again with page diffs if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 04:09, 16 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]

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

    Nadia Kittel works on themes around the Dresden article and the former GDR. He therefore uploaded a couple of images that break copyrights. He reverts deletion of this images from articles [168]. Further he is destroying articles with a dump of data [169]. He is neither justifying his changes nor naming his sources nor minding that he overwrites referenced data. He breakes communication down by just deleting all messages on his talk page [170]. His changes are all without comment or justification. Geo-Loge 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Avoidant vandalism Geo-Loge 17:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have left a note for Nadia and for Geo-Loge. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 03:43, 31 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, [171], creation of bizarre fake userpages, User:SurvivorIMDB , User:Spider-Man, and creation of numerous redundant categories: [172], [173], [174], [175], and [176]. 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[177]. 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]
    Checkuser result was nil, but user has since been permablocked. ThuranX 18:40, 24 December 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: [178], and my report here: [179]. 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.[180] 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]
    Arbitration is underway. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 14 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.[181][182][183][184][185][186] 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 [187], 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 [188] 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) [189].

    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 [190] (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 [191], [192]

    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[193]. —Centrx→talk • 02:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nationality is irrelevant MariusM. Your assuming bad faith by implying otherwise. ---J.S (T/C) 22:29, 18 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]

    The account has been blocked [194] and the page was deleted in AFD. ---J.S (T/C) 22:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyrenius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Impartiality regarding Transpressionism is questioned

    • . He is the person who has started many articles on stuckism in Wiki (see her/his user page) In that page he/she claims -- perhaps with all honesty he/she could master:

    I find, not infrequently, that I am editing (and sometimes starting) articles which do not have any prior personal interest for me. I also find that I am inserting edits, with which I may personally disagree or may not believe. This is in order to work towards a comprehensive, informative, authoritative and balanced encyclopedia.

    Here are his other articles related to stuckism: Spectrum London the first West End commercial gallery to show the Stuckists, Go West the title of the first Stuckist artists exhibition, Stuckist demonstrations,Stuckism Photography, Art manifesto according to the article the Stuckists have made particular use of this to start worldwide movement of affiliated groups,Michael Dickinson He is a member of the Stuckist movement, and many more -- so much for being disinterested in a topic!!.I wonder what Stuckists think of meatpuppets? 24.81.86.162 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    After I brought this in the discussion page he abruptly decided that a consensus has reached and deleted the page on Transpressionism. He wrote:

    • My particular interest is contemporary UK art. You don't need to search out the articles I've started (mainly on Stuckism, Turner Prize nominees, YBAs and FBA artists). They are on my user page. You seem to have missed out quite a few. Regarding "his articles", see WP:OWN. I suggest you also have a look at WP:NPA as you're currently violating it, as well as checking out what a meatpuppet actually is. Your observations are irrelevant as to whether this article should or should not be deleted. It will be judged in its own right. You would be better off finding reliable sources to VERIFY it. Tyrenius 04:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    He and his sockpuppets have continuously tried to ban me from posting, as well they have deleted any references to Transpressionism in all arts related material. I have read carefully all the Wikipedia's policies and I am convinced that there is a place for Transpressionism. I have posted some of these policies in the discussion page.

    I am familiar with Guity Novin's work foremost because of my interest in Kant's philosophy. All the best. 24.81.86.162 23:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The article was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transpressionism. Tyrenius was not the deleting administrator. The appropriate venue is deletion review, please follow the instructions at that page -- Samir धर्म 04:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You claim Tyrenius "abruptly decided that a consensus has reached and deleted the page on Transpressionism" yet the logs show that Tyrenius has never deleted that article. It has been deleted three times by three different administrators and Tyrenius was not one of them [195]. Furthermore, the AfD was closed by another administrator, Quarl, and not Tyrenius as you claim. From what I can see, Tyrenius' behaviour has been well within policy and guidelines, however, yours has not. You have engaged in personal attacks, edit warred and ignored consensus. You have accused a long standing administrator of engaging in sockpuppetry without providing any evidence whatsoever. Likewise, your allegation that Tyrenius has attempted to ban you is without foundation. He has appropriately warned you about your behaviour, however, he has at no time used admin tools against you, blocked you or lobbied for you to banned. I strongly advise you to cease making spurious, unfounded and blatantly untrue allegations against other editors. Sarah 14:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to second the above comment re: Tyrenius. The accuser is guilty of many of the allegations against Tyrenius, including attempting to delete my userpage for presumed retaliation for my editing some fairly ludicrous additions. This call for investigation is petty and the matter should be dropped. Freshacconci 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    CORRECTION. I doublechecked, and the IP address from the person who attempted to delete my userpage differs from the one above. However, the rest stands. Freshacconci 22:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See also

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=98148380"