Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2007/01

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation | Archives
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2007/01)
Latest comment: 17 years ago by BenBurch in topic Registered users


Watchlist Requests

Latest comment: 17 years ago33 comments23 people in discussion
  • 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)
  • The Mitt Romney article was significantly altered within the last two or three months, probably by someone connected with the Romney campaign. The page reads like a piece of campaign literature and contains numerous links to official Romney press releases as its "sources", as well as several glossy photographs of Romney conducting "official" business, plus most criticism of Romney has been removed. A neutrality tag has finally been added to the page, but as it may have been changed by a Romney staffer, I believe a full investigation is required. The glossy photographs were added by User:Waverider5, whose editing history is almost entirely concerned with the Romney article.
  • 152.163.101.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - is an AOL proxy IP address. A user behind this address carried out possible vandalism (which went unnoticed for 2 months!) but has apparently stopped. 69.140.173.15 02:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Profile Page for the Federal Bureau of Investigation was Vandalized - Federal Bureau of Investigation I'm not going to fix it because: 1) I'm not sure how to 2) The last time I made a valid contibution the Wiki someone (a flaming queer per his profile) came along and undid my edit then accused me of spaming.
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)
  • 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)
  • CVRD 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)
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)
Semi-protected. Follow up with a full report and page diffs if necessary. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

  • 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)

IP users

Latest comment: 17 years ago115 comments42 people in discussion

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

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

Please see Rashad Khalifa and its discussion page. The guy's name is AHMAD NISHITOBA. Ahmad Nishitoba predicted an earthquake to hit two days ago in S.F., 1/19/07, and quickly changed the prediction yet again to 11/9/07 - this has been way more than half a dozen predictions coming out empty handed. He has absolutely nothing to do with Rashad Khalifa, and he has vandalised the article over 20 times in the last few months. It's getting ridiculous!

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

This IP seems to be used only for trolling. As of yet, all of his/her edits must be considered as deceptive vandalism.[12] After a warning on his talk page (and a rev of his 2nd edit), the IP not only repeated the vandalising edit, but also made in the edit summary [13] a deliberately false statement (rv to last Rev by Shell Kinney) and a defamatory, insulting claim (due to vandalism by antipapist Túrelio), thereby violating WP:NPA. --Túrelio 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

IP editor hasn't edited since Jan 12. Perhaps IP address has cycled or they gave up? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This IP seems to be being used only for trolling. From day 1 all of the edits seem trollish and I'm seeing textbook trolling activity on my talk page and others. I'm trying not to feed it (he got me for one round) but I also don't want to leave the comments on my talk page. The IP was blocked on 21 DEC 2006 but the user talked his way out of it. The policy doesn't state whether this is a blockable offense but someone reading this will know better than I. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Dosn't seem likly that the IP is realy a school (seems like one user). The user apears to be young. Good news is that the user hasn't edited since the 17th and nothing realy disruptive for a while. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I am looking for some help in a little edit war that has been going on with an anonymous user on the Cogswell College page. He/She has already reverted 3 times, and there is no page in which to come to a compromise, or speak about how the article can satisfy both parties.

My own revisions actually have the proof listed--satisfying any point of view additions--which was a description of a complaint, and a link to where the complaint was filed...and who was involved with the complaint.

I am looking for a third party to look into the matter. Joel Lindley 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a content dispute that ended a week ago. RFI is not the right place for content disputes. Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no page in which to come to a compromise". Why not Talk:Cogswell College? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Might be a spambot. [14] are all from this static IP-address, the same thing in other languages ([15] for example; I just cleaned de-WP where it didn't react when asked to stop). Perhaps someone who knows about this stuff can put the domain on the blacklist? NoCultureIcons 01:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC) P.S.: Sorry if I didn't do this right, I don't know much about how to do stuff on enWP, just trying to find someone who does. P.P.S.: It's interesting to look at this IP's contributions on es, pt, fi, sv, it etc., it all looks quite the same

This doesn't look like a spambot since it's adding the link in different places in different articles. (Spambots typically blank entire pages with spam or add spam to the end or beginning of an article or talk page). I threw a {{spam3}} on their talk page even though s/he hasn't edited in over a week. Looks pretty benign. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This person has repeatedly edited Mei Lan (the panda cub), changing the translation of her name from "Atlanta Beauty" to "Beautiful Orchid". While the latter name is one transliteration of the Chinese characters, it is not the intended meaning of her name. I've reverted the change twice (on different days), written notices on the IP's talk page and the article's talk page, and, added an explanation of the transliteration in the article —— all to no effect. This person must have very strong feelings about the translation, but it is still a PPOV. I don't know how to get through to them. tess 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple IPs in the 167.128.0.0/16 network

Anon. user at 167.128.59.219 was blocked due to vandalizing Corvallis High School (Oregon) after repeated warnings regarding vandalism of other pages. Since then, that article has been further vandalized by anon. user(s) at the other two IP addresses. --LarryGilbert 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

All IPs reverse-resolve to hostnames in the corvallis.k12.or.us subdomain. --LarryGilbert 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Additional vandalism from 167.128.54.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --LarryGilbert 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Person has been repetitively vandalizing multiple pages that I have been working on improving (In specific, Angel (Lilo & Stitch) and other pages in that catagory) by adding incorrect information and re-adding it after it is removed, and has ignored all my requests for citing his sources or discussing the issue with me on the talk page. There was once much more incorrect information on the pages in specific, but after many weeks my editing persistance has gotten the person to only add one bit of incorrect information per edit. Because the person still re-adds the incorrect information, and sometimes re-adds it seconds after I correct it and several times in a short period, I think the person is purpously vandalizing the articles to get on my nerves. I believe that the IP is always the same person since he/she always works on the same catagories of pages. Other people have told me that the person is an "obvious vandal" and that I should consider seeking a ban, and he/she has been blocked twice before, once very recently. I posted this ban request earlier on the "obvious" page and was told "It looks like this person stopped", but since then the person has re-vandalized a page I corrected, despite warnings to stop. Please reconsider my request. Miriam The Bat 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Is also continually re-inserting incorrect text into Mater and List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch despite multiple warnings, including a final warning. Rhindle The Red 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

This user is also either 65.95.6.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) aka Turtlepaw, or, this user just edited 65.95.5.123's talk page comment not just for capitalization, but for username as well.
This users edits are also harmful. Here the user edited other people's comments for content, changing the flow of a past discussing (user 1 says A and B, user 2 says no, it's B and C, and 24.183.40.221 changed the discussion so that it read user 1 says B and C and user 2 says no, it's B and C).
I'm also guessing that this user is also 67.71.43.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP with one edit (fixing typos on a talk page that this user was working on) that also originates from Ontario, Canada, where 65.95.6.123 originates from.
Obviously, this is a really complicated case. This user moves a fair amount or at least accesses the internet lots of places, and is claiming lots of user accounts that haven't been created and that someone else will have one day. I don't know how to solve this problem, but from the IPs of the user I can connect, the user hasn't really seemed to take breaks from editing--the user has just edited elsewhere. I urge that this manner be investigated and dealt with. TStein 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
On this page the user went so far as to delete information on the talk page. This deletion wasn't caught or restored in the next edits, but must have been fixed at some point because it is in the archives for the talk page. In the next edit, the user gave up on the name "Rainpool" and changed all instances of "Rainpool" to "Mysterypaw"--including where other people had replied to "Rainpool". TStein 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


  • This user is still vandalizing talk pages. I've also now stumbled across Special:Listusers and checked all of the accounts that I know this user to have signed with and none of these accounts exist. If this user did not move around so regularly and used only one IP, it would be easy to warn this user and watch edits for future behavoir. But this user is a constant editor on Wikipedia no matter what city this user is in and has ignored suggestions to get a user account. Blocking this user's IP addresses might get this user's attention and get the user to finally create an account so that future problems would be dealt with as simply as a talk page warning. 13:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

220.233.0.0/16 IPs

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: [16] [17] [18]. He has also edited pages to include facts that are downright wrong, such as [19] and [20]. 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)

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)
24 hour soft block; it's a shared IP. DurovaCharge! 18:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
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 ([21] shows the sum of bad edits including Topper's, and [22] being the one our friend did) and ABC Kids ([23]) . 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. [disambiguation needed] 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)
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)
He appears to be back and editing from 220.233.226.170 now - impressive since he held onto his previous IP address for at least two months. Four edits today, two which appear to be accurate ([24] and [25]) and two which are characteristic of his vandalism pattern (editing an article to refer to Cosgrove Hall Films and then linking back to their article) - [26] [27]. If he's made Topper edits today, I can't find them. In view of the pattern of abuse I'd characterise the last couple of edits as vandalism. Vashti 08:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
User:Topper122 appeared today and created a hoax article at The Toys (TV series). He also created a stub at Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends (2D Animated), which was promptly redirected to the proper Thomas article. The article is simply a cut-and-paste of the original article's opening and infobox, except that Topper has added false creation information ("A Collingwood O'Hare production for Playhouse Disney in association with Silver Fox Films"). He then edited the Collingwood O'Hare to insert a link to his bastardised article.[28] and to insert another series into it [29].
User:Topper123 also appeared today and created a hoax article at Woodland Animations.
User:Topper1235 also appeared today and created a hoax article at The Many Adventure of Pasley the Toy Lion, which was referred to in The Toys (TV series).
User:220.233.226.170 has made two edits to The Toys (TV series) [30] [31] He has also edited Woodland Animations [32], again, as is typical, correcting typoes in Topper's initial page creation. He also added false information on animation houses at The Koala Brothers [33], Fimbles [34], Tots TV [35], Brum (TV series) [36], Rosie and Jim [37], Teletubbies [38] and Boohbah [39].
I have reverted all of these edits and expect that I have not caught them all. For the love of God, someone help me out with this guy. Vashti 09:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive my use of horizontal rules; the indents are getting stupid now.

Today I discovered User:Topper888's contribution from December 2nd - he created a hoax article at [[The Wind in the Willows {2007 Film)]]. The links are all invalid.

I also reverted vandalism at Ragdoll Productions dating from December 3rd. [40]

User:Topper1235 logged in again today (unusual) and created a hoax article at The Topsy-Turvy Show.

User:220.233.226.170 made the following edits today:

  • vandalised Fun Song Factory, changing the creator information and removing the link to the genuine creators. [42]

Vashti 12:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, he removed a prod tag at The Topsy-Turvy Show. [46] (AFD here).

He also removed the prod tag and the broken links at The Wind in the Willows (2007 Film) [47] (AFD here).

He also removed the prod tag and the questionable date I'd pointed out in the prod at Giddy Goanna (TV Shows) [48] (AFD here).

Vashti 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation at HIT Entertainment [49]. No independent Google backup. Vashti 00:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

New user User:Richgard1 created hoax page The boundy Hunter Guinea Pig. He also added a link to this hoax at List of CITV programmes [50]

User:220.233.226.170} then added a link to the hoax at Collingwood O'Hare [51] and ABC Rollercoaster [52]] Vashti 11:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had his old IP address indef blocked yesterday, he moved to 220.233.227.249.

Misinformation at Cosgrove Hall Films. [53]

Misinformation at Bertha (TV series) [54].

Misinformation at Entertainment Rights [55] Vashti 07:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation at HIT Entertainment [56] Vashti 07:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had his old IP address indef blocked last night, he moved to 220.233.228.82. Are we seeing a pattern yet?

Complete bollocks at Snailsbury tales [57]

Complete bollocks at Cosgrove Hall Films [58]

Probable bollocks at Sesame Workshop [59]

Probable bollocks at HIT Entertainment [60]

Vashti 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Vashti 07:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

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 [61]. 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 [62]. 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)


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)
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)
Update - this has been reprotected recently by Durova. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
I realise it's been a while, but it happened again yesterday.--chris.lawson 22:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Acknowledged. Keep an eye on this. A single edit isn't worth reopening this issue but if it resumes with more frequency, I will block pretty quickly. This is obvious bad faith behavior and not worth risking a disruption of any magnitude. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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 film-related articles, such as this, this, and this.

He's been known to use sockpuppets; a list of them can be found here. Look at UPN's history for other socks I may have missed. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

He's now moved on to members usually under names of "Delariondavis", which means he can create nonsense pages, such as this. Other activity he/she's currently doing is claiming there's a Simpsons movie soundtrack coming out. [63] We need help. --AAA! (AAAA) 07:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked all of the accounts indefinitely and speedily deleted/protected the reposted nonsense page. —David Levy 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


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)

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)

You're right, sorry about that, it was the user's page + comments that were removed. But no, no doubt whatsoever, it is the same person. Their only objective is to place advertisements, & place them before other links. Grye 22:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

===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)


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

Really random edits, some good, some bad. Some just pointless. futurebird 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Examples

valdalism [64] [65] [66]

questionable? I don't know if these changes are correct or not, but they seem ... wierd. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

...and many more. futurebird 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks like your typical shared IP. This one traces to Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa (I added a {{SharedIPEDU}} tag to that effect). There are several good faith helpful edits from the IP and the activity there is fairly sporadic. I'd recommend treating it like any other shared IP: assume that no two edits are from the same person. Revert vandalism, revert questionable unsourced material with an edit summary to that effect, leave good edits alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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, [72], here [73]. 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, [74] 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 [75], you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here [76]

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 ]), [77] 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 [78], [79] 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) [80].
  • At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here [81]. *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 [82].
  • At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page [83].


If we look at the user contribution for 72.91.169.22 [84] 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 [85] 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 [86]

If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon 72.91.4.91; here, [87], 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, [88], 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 [89] 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 [90] or arbitration [91]. Except on others pages [92] where he seeks advice and attempt to discredit me and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. [93].

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. [94] 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. [95]. It is worth noting JUST for the amount of effort he puts into this.

195.82.106.244 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

195.82.106.244 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Post page diffs. DurovaCharge! 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
I was judging this based on the WHOIS for both: [97] and [98]. 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)
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)
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)
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)
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: [99], [100] and [101]. 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)
I have semi-protected Urban exploration. —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)

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 [102])[103] Repeated allegations and blanking his talk page to avoid prosecution: [104] Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Wikipedia. He has published my personal information as well. [105] Direct insults to persons.[106] Finally, user 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked (within a week) and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page:[107] and [108] Please attend this unfortunate matter asap. Thank you. 72.91.4.91 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7

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

[109] [110] [111] [112] [113] (note that both users in question do not delete each others work but rather complement it) [114] (User Brahmakumaris.info took away the sprotect tag placed by admin. In this way user 195.82.106.244 could post) [115] (brhmakumais.info moved pages to a new page, however here:[116] Note November 15th changes and here[117] user 195.82.106.244 activity on the same day.) link to versions: [118] 72.91.169.22 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7

Here are more differentials submitted by another user to me:
Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling)...
[119] [120]

Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...
He also reported riveros11 on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... [121] Someone answered. [122] 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it! [123]

Personal attack on Riveros11...
[124] Bad faith edit comments.... [125] [126] [127] [128]

Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet...
[129]

Intimidation...
[130]
Taunting...
[131] [132] [133]

Removing NPOV...
[134]

Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)...
[135]

Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment....
[136] [137]

Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article...
[138]

Forest fire...
[139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146]

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

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)

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

I semi-protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
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, [147]
With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear; [148]
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)
This matter is now in arbitration. DurovaCharge! 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


Allen Greenfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - 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[149], citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal[150], and more[151] for weeks now[152]. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names [153], [154] 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[155]. 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 [156]. 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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

The problem seems to have subsided. Post again if it resumes. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

It looks like you need to go to WP:SSP and file a suspected sockpuppet report. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
I can't help but agree. He acts as if Wikipedia belongs to him alone. Yahnatan 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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
[157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] (misattributes an inflammatory quote to Calvin), [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]
  • Partial list of talk page diffs
[175] (deleting another editor's talk page comment), [176] (includes profanity), [177] [178] [179] [180]

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)

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)

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

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)

Final block warning issued. 48 hour block applied after continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. DurovaCharge! 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Block being evaded 23 minutes after implementation, see last part of this diff. Tim Shuba 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
Article talk page unprotected per editor request. DurovaCharge! 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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: [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187]

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)

Registered users

Latest comment: 17 years ago72 comments33 people in discussion

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

Multiple sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets possibly including as the latest one User:DeanHinnen who represented to the unblocking list that he was not a sock and got unblocked. The claim is that all of these people making these edits are just "family members". Isn't that the definition of a meatpuppet then? See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine, current issues at Wikipedia:ANI#Confirmed_sockpuppets_of_User:BryanFromPalatine_via_checkuser. and edit histories, Note also the not-so-veiled legal threat at User:DeanHinnen. As I point out in ANI, he is a volunteer lawyer for the entity he says will sue Wikipedia. I see that as a legal threat. Is it? You decide, please. I've been accused of and given a block for mischaracterization in this case, and that is absolutely not my intention, but something isn't right here at all, and I wish it would all get investigated and resolved. I wish I could just let this drop, but I just know that something about this needs to be looked into. Thank you.

BenBurch 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BenBurch, please stop your false accusations
You made the same accusation against me before, and an exhaustive investigation by Unblock-en-l proved that it was a false accusation. You made the same accusation against Fensteren, and a Check User proved that it was also a false accusation. Running around to every dispute resolution venue at Wikipedia and repeating these false accusations is only going to get you blocked again for misrepresentation. Please stop immediately. Dino 16:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If I believed this were false, I would not have posted it here. I am being totally honest that I believe that this is a coordinated and dangerous multiple sock puppeting by somebody who has threatened Whikipedia legally and who is quite dangerous to our mission here. This matter is beyond suspicious. I will not stop until this is properly investigated. If this means that you get a sympathetic admin to block me permanently, fine. I have to do what my sense of duty demands of me. --BenBurch 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I arrived at Paternity fraud on a recent changes patrol and reverted content removal, of a well sourced reference to an academic study, by User:Samantha Dean (I also had to do some other formatting clean up) and I put a template on the user's talk page requesting the user not to remove content from the article. The user removed the same content a second time so I issued a vandal warning. The user is now editing the article to introduce POV problems and personal commentary. I don't want to get involved in a potential WP:3RR with this user over this article so it's now someone else's turn to deal with further problems. Random Passer-by 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the proposed deletion for this page, realised that it was probably pointless posting here, and decided to just keep on reverting. Random Passer-by 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Sklocke has repeatedly engaged in a series of seemingly random actions. Articles are being moved to nonsensical new locations without any attempt at discussion, frequently accompanied by bizarre edit summaries. Some examples include: Metre to Measurement System in Meters ("Most Americans don't patially know what 'metre' is."); Roundabout to The Mega-Traffic Circle ("This title will be better!") and then to Roundabout (Intersection) ("Someone may block me if I "badly" move something. Thanks for the paps message, dude!"); and Film to Motion-Picture Film ("Title is itty bitty dull"). The editor has made several other page moves against Wikipedia guidelines, as well as a series of "strange" edits to articles and user pages, including BiancaOfHell's user page and talk page. I have been attempting to clean up after him/her, as well as leaving messages at User talk:Sklocke, but have had no response to date. Other editors have also left warning messages, with similar results. It might be worthwhile to have an administrator look over this matter to see if it is a deliberate series of actions, or something else. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


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

The user is bullying me and harassing for no reason. He uses a English book with "Kannada POV" but objects and removes the cited info by me be it in my native language or English. He is highly elitist and hates anyone editing 'his' articles. I tried a ceasefire here gave the details of my citations.He told me he has located the book and he is still reverting chalukya and rashtrakuta. Mr.nichalp and mr.utcursch have been approached as well. He himself proclaims that marathi books should not be quoted but wikipedia does allow other languages books also. Now he has two English books which i have quoted he is still going on with his reverts by asking the ID, pub.date etc etc.The book i have is old (1924 AD) and hence it will not have such details. Its plain harassment. The user is accompanied by mr.sarvagnya1,2, 3 and mr.knmSarvabhaum 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Grkbkny69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Hi, I have been in a long edit war across many pages with goethean. I would like you look into Goethean's activities, I direct you to his talk page which shows that he is abusive towards fellow editors besides me. I even strongly have reason to believe that he has a meatpuppet Grey under his direction. He has gone to many pages I have written on and makes a comment out of nowhere after making the original comment. Goethean and me have been investigated by a sys admin Larry V but goethean has been admonished to take the high road and violates this every time with me. He has gotten me blocked for 3RR rule but if you were to look at the Ken Wilber page, I am sure he has been a horrible violator of the 3RR rule. I will admit I have no love lost for goethean, but I think his behavior towards me is systematic of how he acts as an editor. Please help.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs).

Please help, it greatly upsets me when an editor like him makes new editors like me feel most unwelcomed by challenging every edit by reversing every edit. Please like goethean should not get away with such behavior. goethean is living up to Steven Colbert's word wikireality! ForrestLane42 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)ForrestLane42

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

User:WorldJKD is making legal threats on the talk page of the Jeet Kune Do article, and removing comments. User:Bruceleeman and User:Jeetman may be sockpuppets. He left the e-mail address info@leejkd.com, and asked that the editor User:FrankWilliams contact him. He left the following on his talk page: MR. WILLIAMS. YOU CANNOT IGNORE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. WE WANT TO SPEAK WITH YOU. YOU DELEATED YOUR WIKIPEDIA EMAIL SO WE CAN NO LONGER ATTEMPT CONTACT OFFLINE LIKE MR. PATRICK REQUESTED OF YOU. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT INFO@LEEJKD.COM OR OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE PATTON LAW OFFICE JON@JONPATTON.COM. --WORLDJKD 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I reverted the talk page for the Jeet Kune Do article back to its original form. User:Brad Patrick wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation has been contacted about the legal threats, but User:WorldJKD doesn't seem to be stopping their vandalism and repeated legal demands the talk page. There has also been quite an edit war on the article itself, if you look at the history. Asarelah 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Investigative info included in the following links: [188],[189] [190],[191],[192] I can almost Guarentee you that this will be vandalized in some way. Report: Upon becoming aware of User:LUCPOL, a user blocked 4 times before, and constantly reminded to stop vandalizing articles, in 2006 i started to grow quite suspicious of his activities, and one day editing an article and removing a seemingly unnessecary image of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, which i later accepted, and that reversion was soon edited to say "Silesia City" first, which is not the formal name for the region and is only used locally.Upon seeing this i suspect User:LUCPOL became angered and he then moved Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union to Silesia City, without anyone elses consensus(2-3 times.) Over this period i soon found out that LUCPOL was monitoring and watching my every reversion, even requests into his identity, in which he would soon respond and make himself apparent in personal conversations. I was later blocked unjustly as was he had used this cyber-stalking technique and pulled me into his block sentence. I started also adding an image of Frankfurt am Main, which was strangely removed a few times. The insuing events took place, in which i learned that User:LUCPOL had a personal agenda to promote an apparent RADICAL Pan-Polish/Pan-Slavic agenda (NOTE:LUCPOL has very little knowledge of the English language, leading to many unencyclopedic reversions previously.)He has also added warning templates to other users talk pages, which are almost always unsigned.

Example incident: [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199]

I know now through intense research that his opininated editing has led him to create articles in other language wikipedias that say eiether the non-formal "metropolis katowice" or "silesia city." I also now know that his seeming radical agenda has led him to create tens of other accounts across the wikipedia domain(NOTE:The following is a list of user pages, both created, and not yet existant with text. Consequently, some of the different WikipediaUserPage editions listed might not feature any true editing by User:LUCPOL):

  1. [200]
  2. [201]
  3. [202]
  4. [203]
  5. [204]
  6. [205]
  7. [206]
  8. [207]
  9. [208]
  10. [209]
  11. [210]
  12. [211]
  13. [212]
  14. [213]
  15. [214]
  16. [215]
  17. [216]
  18. [217]
  19. [218]
  20. [219]
  21. [220]
  22. [221]
  23. [222]
  24. [223]
  25. [224]
  26. [225]
  27. [226]
  28. [227]
  29. [228]
  30. [229]
  31. [230]
  32. [231]
  33. [232]
  34. [233]
  35. [234]
  36. [235]
  37. [236]
  38. [237]
  39. [238]
  40. [239]
  41. [240]
  42. [241]
  43. [242]
  44. [243]
  45. [244]
  46. [245]
  47. [246]
  48. [247]
  49. [248]
  50. [249]
  51. [250]
  52. [251]
  53. [252]
  54. [253]
  55. [254]
  56. [255]
  57. [256]
  58. [257]
  59. [258]
  60. [259]
  61. [260]
  62. [261]
  63. [262]
  64. [263]
  65. [264]
  66. [265]
  67. [266]
  68. [267]
  69. [268]
  70. [269]
  71. [270]
  72. [271]
  73. [272]
  74. [273]
  75. [274]
  76. [275]
  77. [276]
  78. [277]
  79. [278]
  80. [279]
  81. [280]
  82. [281]
  83. [282]
  84. [283]
  85. [284]
  86. [285]
  87. [286]
  88. [287]
  89. [288]
  90. [289]
  91. [290]
  92. [291]
  93. [292]
  94. [293]
  95. [294]
  96. [295]
  97. [296]
  98. [297]
  99. [298]
  100. [299]
  101. [300]
  102. [301]
  103. [302]
  104. [303]
  105. [304]
  106. [305]
  107. [306]
  108. [307]
  109. [308]
  110. [309]
  111. [310]
  112. [311]
  113. [312]
  114. [313]
  115. [314]
  116. [315]
  117. [316]
  118. [317]
  119. [318]
  120. [319]
  121. [320]
  122. [321]
  123. [322]
  124. [323]
  125. [324]
  126. [325]
  127. [326]
  128. [327]
  129. [328]
  130. [329]
  131. [330]
  132. [331]
  133. [332]
  134. [333]
  135. [334]
  136. [335]
  137. [336]
  138. [337]
  139. [http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laman_Utama
  140. [338]
  141. [339]
  142. [340]
  143. [341]
  144. [342]
  145. [343]
  146. [344]
  147. [345]
  148. [346]
  149. [347]
  150. [348]
  151. [349]
  152. [350]
  153. [351]
  154. [352]
  155. [353]
  156. [354]
  157. [355]
  158. [356]
  159. [357]
  160. [358]
  161. [359]
  162. [360]
  163. [361]
  164. [362]
  165. [363]
  166. [364]
  167. [365]
  168. [366]
  169. [367]
  170. [368]
  171. [369]
  172. [370]
  173. [371]
  174. [372]
  175. [373]
  176. [374]
  177. [375]
  178. [376]
  179. [377]
  180. [378]
  181. [379]
  182. [380]
  183. [381]
  184. [382]
  185. [383]
  186. [384]
  187. [385]
  188. [386]
  189. [387]
  190. [388]
  191. [389]
  192. [390]
  193. [391]
  194. [392]
  195. [393]
  196. [394]
  197. [395]
  198. [396]
  199. [397]
  200. [398]
  201. [399]
  202. [400]
  203. [401]
  204. [402]
  205. [403]
  206. [404]
  207. [405]
  208. [406]
  209. [407]
  210. [408]
  211. [409]
  212. [410]
  213. [411]
  214. [412]
  215. [413]
  216. [414]
  217. [415]
  218. [416]
  219. [417]
  220. [418]
  221. [419]
  222. [420]
  223. [421]
  224. [422]
  225. [423]
  226. [424]
  227. [425]
  228. [426]
  229. [427]
  230. [428]
  231. [429]
  232. [430]
  233. [431]
  234. [432]
  235. [433]
  236. [434]
  237. [435]
  238. [436]
  239. [437]
  240. [438]
  241. [439]
  242. [440]
  243. [441]
  244. [442]
  245. [443]
  246. [444]

More recently User:LUCPOL has vandalized these other following pages:

  1. Upper Silesian Industry Area No apparent reason to revert other than personal bias against myself.
  2. Talk:Kottonmouth Kings
  3. Template:Infobox City Poland (Vandalized reversions by the templates creator.).(Vandalised again today by user)
  • Template:User Silesia (Added Silesia as a 'Nation' when it is not a nation at all.).(Vandalised again today by user)
  1. Template:User European Union (Added EU as being a 'Nation'.)
  2. Silesian; (quote from User:LUCPOL("Polish Silesia"? - this is hoax)(Silesia actually is divided into 2 regions by an expert on the subject, Polish Silesia, and Czech Silesia, but apparently this is a hoax.)
  3. Silesia; (total vandalism by adding a category called "state" which lists Poland and the Czech Republic, when they are 100% classified as Nations.)

I found out an anonymous IP today attempted to request the protection of the "upper silesia metropolitan union" article mentioning the constant 2 month reversion-vandalism campaign by User:LUCPOL, but when User:LUCPOL saw this, he changed select words to his personal benefit, and later even completely removed the request without permission and added his own version of it(before an action had been taken), stating it was ("unneeded") (apparently this has gone unnoticed so far).I looked into this anonymous IPs talk history for any past incidents and suspicious behavior and instead i found this.-- Hrödberäht 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday, Janurary 19, 2007
  • Blocked content of the article Katowice by placing large panorama image in an inappropriate location at the top.
  • User adds Music video link on Cypress Hill, link is removed due to its irrelevance, but adds link back again and disobeys authority:

[445] [446] [447] [448]

  • found out that USER:LUCPOL has created almost every different language article on Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, or using the fake title of Metropolis Katowice, or Silesia Cityand lieing about their validity.
Saturday, January 20, 2007
  • Added the fake "Silesia City" to Metropolis in place of the real Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union.
  • Reverted Template:User European Union back to saying it was a nation, when its is not.
  • Reverted Template:User Silesia back to saying it was a nation, when its is not.
  • Notcied that he reverted Edits to Upper Silesian Industry Area and added his concept of 'Silesia City' back to it again.
  • Did some research into past blocks of User:LUCPOL:
  • 1 14:09, May 9, 2006 C12H22O11 blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 1 month (WP:3RR at Rapcore, talk page blanking & legal threats at User talk:Ulayiti)
    • 15:26, May 9, 2006 Prodego decreased block to 24hrs for 3RR,"user says he'll stop"
  • 2 16:54, August 4, 2006 Alai blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 1 hour (revert-warring on Rapcore)
  • 3 07:41, September 6, 2006 Alphachimp blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Rapcore)
  • 4 05:20, December 29, 2006 William M. Connolley blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Metropolis)
Sunday, January 21, 2007
  • A user other than myself requested that Category:Villages in Silesia be deleted, click here to see that request. After posting his own thoughts on how he thought the category was 'ok' an administrator deleted the category.

I am translating LUCPOL's statement per reuqest, I don't endorse it - I am just a translator.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Answer:

My English is poor, indeed, I had much difficulty understanding R9tgokunks. So:

  1. Case: Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union - Name Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (polish: Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny) it's an old, now unused name retired by the new government (after elections of November 2006 [449]). "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" was replaced by "Silesia". Examples: [450] in [451]: [452], [453], [454] in [455], [456], [457], [458] (etc...) and pl.Wikinews. Polish Wikipedia for long months had article pl:Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny, and were politicians changed the name to "Silesia" than Polish wiki gained a new article pl:Silesia (miasto) (english: "Silesia city"). They both described the same thing after some discussions I created a redirect [459], but we delayed renaming "Silesia (miasto)" as it is a current process and we want to see what happens. But Polish wiki article states: "Silesia (dawniej Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny)" - english: Silesia city (long ago Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union") [460]. So you see: R9tgokunks inserted wrong info into the article and engaged in revert wars [461], without any knowledge of the "Silesia (miasto)" issue - and he accusses me of vandalism. Further, he removed the name "Silesia" from article which seems to me to be clear vandalism: [462].
  2. Case Frankfurt am Main - Simply, I never edited that article and have no idea why I am accused of editing it.I never even accused you of editing this article.... R9tgokunks 20:52, 20 January 2007
  3. Other accounts. I am an experienced Wikipedian - Ihave 15 000 edits on pl.wikipedia [463], 2000 on en.wikipedia [464], and I decided to have an account on other Wikis for interwiki additions, so they appear under my account and not anon's IP. I don't understand what's wrong with that.
  4. IP (ex: 91.120.107.93, 168.213.1.132, 207.245.84.70, 131.104.218.46, 216.171.96.18) are not mine and checkuser will verify this.Yes, sorry, I mistakenly added these based on other vandals on wikipedia that i was wishing to check on. R9tgokunks 20:52, 20 January 2007
  5. Case Template:Infobox City Poland - As for my revert [465] it's easy to explain: User:Fujicolor changes completly revamped the infobox, and I think it damaged the layout on en.wiki. I disagree with this change, thus I revert it. As simple as that.
  6. Case Silesian - There is no such entity as "Polish Silesia", there is just Silesia region on the territory of 3 countries. Thus I reverted R9tgokunks' edit [466].
  7. Case Silesia - Old version of the article had "Nation" and my dictionary tells me it translates to Polish "naród" (people); I think "State" is more correct.In america and the rest of Europe, they call Poland and the Czech republic countries(Nations),so obviously it doesnt matter what you think when it goes up against [Common Knowledge]]. User:Olessi change to "Country" is fine with me and I consider the matter closed.
  8. Case Katowice - I reverted R9tgokunks' edit [467] as it damaged the layout of article (see for yourselves). Panoramas should go at the top, I think it's a common policy.

I did not execute no vandalism. LUCPOL 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. Case Template:Infobox City Poland - Reverted a template that wasnt even created by himself...and it was reverted back by the user that created it..
  1. Case: Silesia - Ok then...If you yourself KNOW that Silesia exists in 3 different countries...then WHY did you revert my edit???It doesnt make any sense....
  2. Case: Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union - User LUCPOL lied about the validity of the names 'Metropolis Katowice' and 'Silesia City', he said they were true, but recently i found out they are fake and arent even used in Poland. Subsequent trans-language articles of wikipedia have all been created by USER:LUCPOL under the fake name of 'Metropolis Katowice', and almost all have been changed to (this case, in English) 'Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union', with MANY users telling him 'Metropolis Katowice', and 'silesia city' dont even exist, and that its the wrong name, but STILL he choses to disobey authority and switch it back because his your ignorace in thinking.
  3. Case Katowice - Wrong, its not 'common policy', view the Frankfurt and Warsaw articles... which are some of the best articles on wikipedia.-- Hrödberäht 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Ad.1 Without comment.
Ad.3 Now official name this "Silesia (miasto)" - english "silesia city". This is fact. Proofs are above. Do you understand?
Ad.4 Without comment. LUCPOL 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am translating new reply by LUCPOL. R9tgokunks, please don't remove LUCPOL Polish comments - he has asked others for translation and it is acceptable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To: R9tgokunks. I want to reach a compromise with you. Let's leave aside the issues of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, Upper Silesian Industry Area and Silesian for now. Please reply to those questions of mine:
  1. IP 91.120.107.93, 168.213.1.132, 207.245.84.70, 131.104.218.46, 216.171.96.18 - this is not me. Can we discard it?This was already solved a while ago...-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Template:Infobox City Poland - I explained that I disagreed with infobox new look; I have reached a compromise with the user who did the change and the matter is closed. Can we discard it?-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Other Wikipedias - I know of no rule that prohibits me having those other accounts. Can we discard it?
  4. Katowice - your edit damagaged the layout ([468]). It was a single revert and I see no reason we should discuss it further. Can we discard it?No it didn't 'damage the layout'????Explain to me why you believe a contrary version of Wikipedia Policy?-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Silesia - I am happy with Olessi's "country". Can we discard it?This isn't really problematic since Olessi solved the problem a while ago.-- Hrödberäht 04:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reply to the points in order. Let's try to finish some issues so we can discuss others. If you agree we can discard a point please strike it out. I hope we can raech an understanding as soon as possible. LUCPOL 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Concerning Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, I'm afraid that the present dispute is somehow pointless (no offence, see what follows). I think the article should be virtually blanked and rebuild from scratch (on the pl.wiki article basis, say), the reason being that it does not describe correctly its subject. Observe that the article does not mention any sources - pl.wiki version does (in external links section). One could be surprised how different the subjects are... Actually, en.wiki text corresponds roughly to the old pl.wiki version which has been deleted (and replaced) on grounds of h-word rationale; disclaimer: at the beginning I was involved there. I put a version of this post in the relevant talk page, I'm willing to do what is necessary. To make it clear: I suggest not discussing it further here but moving to the relevant talk page instead. --Beaumont (@) 11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

L46kok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandal keeps removing speedy tag on Sokwhan Huh article, and is also using User:MNuser to try and remove the tag also. Possible sockpuppet accounts. Chrisch 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has been warned and blocked before I got around to it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SnakePlane789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no idea what's going on with the redirect pages DickLick Single and The_Not-So-Great_Krapli but someone smarter than me should probably try to work it out. Random Passer-by 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pages have been deleted, user warned and he has not edited since.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Evans The article has been posted again Sean Evans Headphonos 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note about that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


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

Sam Wereb (talk · contribs) has been following me around wikipedia editing anything I have written and undermining all my edits, he has become a serial pest. He has made bold personal attacks in the past followed up recently by snide comments in an attempt to provoke some outburst that will never come. Sam Wereb (talk · contribs) is frequently sarcastic about other editor's good faith editing; for example, referring to "Mikey's little article" when I put a well-referenced article (Ernest Emerson) up for Good Article review [469], prior to this he unsuccessfully tried to delete a large well referenced portion calling it "spam,spammity spam" because it contained a single link to the subject's website and his belief that mere mention of any company is advertising, even when the article is about the company in question[470]. When JzG (talk · contribs), [471]SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) [472] and Jeffpw (talk · contribs) [473] pointed out to him that my edits to Ernest Emerson were not spam and were very well-referenced, he condescendingly replied with, " All very cozy -- and irrelevant". [474] He has been warned in the past by Durova (talk · contribs) (his libelous accusations against me are archived on the WP:PAIN )around 11/18/2006-11/20/2006, %28aeropagitica%29 (talk · contribs) [475], and Jeffpw (talk · contribs) [476], and myself[477] yet he simply blanks his talk page, removing indications of past behavior without archiving. [478] [479] I've offered links to wiki: civil, and have tried working with this caustic individual to no avail. One of his latest tactics is to call wikilinks to other wikipedia articles I have worked on as spam and advertising. He has personally posted objections to the length of the Knife entry, yet the only change he has made was to lead people away from an article I have written that is linked from there Walker linerlock.

There's plenty of other constructive work he could do on wikipedia if he's got too much time on his hands. He's turned this into a vendetta for whatever reason. Please investigate this stalker-like behavior. I just want it to stop so I can continue to be a positive contributor and not have to check on every last article I've written or contributed to just because of Wereb's histrionic outbursts and blatant vandalism.

A simple comparison of his history against mine will confirm this.

Thank you. --Mike Searson 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that in the past this user sarcastic behaviour was counterproductive, and if continued, he should get more seriously warned, can you offer any diffs to the specific posts that you consider offending recently?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus,

Here's one: [480] Calls me "Mikey Boy" as if he's talking to a child, 4-5 days ago. Calls me a "girlscout" [481] 4 days ago for referring him to WP:Civil. Same time period, libels a list of celbrities who own another knifemaker's knives:[482], [483] refers to my article as a "love letter":[484]

Calls me a "shill" for my friends: [485]

It may seem petty to an outside observer, but wereb started life on Wikipedia with an agenda [486], which he lied about when confronted with it and tried to hide it: [487] And it's all an attempt to derail a GA Nomination. I would like to just ignore this person, I've offered several attempts to work constructively with him, to no avail. Latest tactic is to libel magazine writers in a lame attempt to discredit the source material:[488] perhaps that's better than him deleting 1/3 of an article under GA review, but why should I have to defend sources who are professional journalists in Cutlery trade publications that have been around for 30+years?

I made this report a 5 days ago, wereb has not been around for a few days, but I am sure this will resume when he returns. All it does is keep me from positively contributing to articles and forces me to debate him. --Mike Searson 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SNIyer12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I honestly don’t know if this is the right place to put this, however, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention says this page is the place to report “serial pests”, and SNIyer12 definitely qualifies as that, while I’m not sure if s/he is an “obvious vandal”. When I was a far more active editor, I was frustrated by this user so much that I started an RfC which unfortunately failed to garner much comment either way—including from the user, even though s/he was informed on his/her talkpage. Based on recent additions to the RfC which I noticed in my Watchlist, and on this recent comment on the aforementioned user-talk page (which, as usual, the editor has failed to respond to), I felt it was time to seriously seek admin help in dealing with this problem. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left that user a note to reply to RfC. If s/he does not, and continues to disruptivly edit those articles, I think a ban may be in order. On the other hand, since that user seems to be doing edits to other articles that seem to mostly constructive, perhaps a WP:MEDIATION may be helpful? Personaly I dislike RfCs as they rarely produce a concluson (your case with the user refusing to reply seems to be an exception, though).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Mediation is a socond-step dispute resolution process. At the time I filed the RfC, I was under the impression that mediation requests were being turned down unless a first-step process had been completed. Then, s/he never replied to the RfC( in fact, almost no one did) and I ended up becoming inactive on Wikipedia. I may try to file a mediation request, but I fear that s/he will again ignore it, not even explicitly refusing to participate. Although, I suppose that inaction in and of itself could make the issue eligible for arbitration. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A review of Wellreadone's user contributions indicates a history of subtle vandalization of articles. He removes tags such as "unreferenced" from articles without comment [489] and replaces information with bogus information not verified by sources (eg [490] he overwrote the previous biography replacing "Marcello I'm Bored" with "I'm So Bored" and included a large section of writing and directing credits many of which are not included in the person's IMDB listing). He has also deleted his own user talk page to remove negative comments and vandalism warnings by editors (these comments are visible by reviewing the history page). Had the user on my watch list from a couple of months ago as well due to similar behavior that is cropping up again now in January. Requesting an investigation on the user's contribution history to determine if admin intervention is needed. Dugwiki 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks like not so subtle vandalization. I think you can report it at WP:AIV; I have warned him with {{Vand3}} - he has not edited for over a week anyway.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. The day after you posted your warning above (Jan 22) Wellreadone then vandalized a user page, User:Mikkalai, calling him a "nazi" under his picture caption. Dugwiki 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
And again, on Jan 24, Wellreadone blanked his talk page to remove the warning notices then proceeded to vandalize User:Will Pittenger's user page, inserting "Self-appointed CENSOR & Serial Copyright Infringer" at the top. Wellreadone definitely needs to be blocked. Dugwiki 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This editor has edits all contents relating to Periyar and Vaikom Satyagraha.He also edits all contents relating to Brahmin and deletes contents like in Justice Party (India) or adds hate comments like in Periyar University all uncited .He is will not allow an alternate view with anything relating to Brahmanism even if well cited He also uses Ramananrv123 and ip address and deletes content which he does not like .He added blog as citation in Periyar.Tametiger 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs. Sockpuppet accusations should be taken before WP:RFCU. Blog citations are sometimes acceptable, see WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Because of copyvio. He ignores all attempts to contact him or do anything against the copyvio in Kim Mehmenti-article. Now he also uses his user talk for the copyvio. Also works as IP and not only here but also in the other wikis. In the German wiki known as Benutzer:Semimk, in the Albanian one he uses the same as here. In the German wiki we wrote an article to stop him and now we only have to remove the pictures now and then. As far as I've seen the Bulgarian wiki has done the same. I'm not sure if the Macedonian one knows about the problem, but the French has deleted the article, and the Albanian one has decided to ignore the copyvio. -- CecilK 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios should be reported on WP:CP. Sockpuppet accusations at WP:RFCU.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I request that the above user be investigated for violating the policy on vandalism, especially filing reports rather than using dispute resolution to get the facts discussed rather than trying to delete the facts, user used vandalism criteria and complained and got IP user 75.15.203.99 banned, while the facts that were posted were not only true but taken from other articles on wikipedia. I think the facts should be checked from a neutral point of view

trueblood 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users found that edits by an anonymous user operating under IP 75.15.203.99 constituted vandalism. I documented these and requested the block, which was reviewed and granted by administrator (aeropagitica). The same anonymous user appears to have then switched to IP 75.15.204.215 and continued vandalizing articles. Other editors have since reverted these edits. Given the record of vandalism and uncivil behaviour by User:Trueblood786, I wonder if User:Trueblood786 may have been the anonymous editor in question and sought to avoid accountability by editing under the IPs mentioned above.
Other editors who have acted on the vandalism in question include User:Eagle 101 and User:The Haunted Angel (both recipients of multiple barnstars including The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar) and User:Eliyahu S. -- Aylahs (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I looked though Aylahs's contributions and I didn't see any indications of vandalism. I also don't see any reason why requesting that an admin help with a situation is a problem. Please you can provide diffs. Otherwise, any kind of investigation is quite difficult. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has continually removed negative content from their talk page. I have warned the user, and waded through the history of edits (going back about a month) to return what content I can. However, the user has reverted my edits and removed the warning about this I gave the user. 88.107.102.255 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not this time he hasnt. I thought users were allowed to delete content from their user pages, SqueakBox 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
The only things I have deleted from MY own talkpage that were left by you or your sockpuppets in what I perceived as bad faith or are issues have been sorted out - plus I will delete any edits made from unregistered sockpuppets--Vintagekits 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
No, you have removed warning messages from other users from your talk page such that other users cannot see you have already been warned about certain things - such as personal attacks. This means users continue to give you just warnings, unaware that you should fully understand what you are doing is wrong, given the pervious warnings. Thus, you can continue to get away with what you are doing - principally being uncivil. Logoistic 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
NB My sockpuppets are legitimate. Logoistic 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
You only admitted they were sockpuppets AFTER I left the sockpuppet tag on your page. I removed your edits on my talk page as I considered them to be left in bad faith. I consider that your (and your various sockpuppets) treatment of me is coming close to harrassment and I am trying to stay away from you and not get drawn into edit wars or arguements with you but you are making it very difficult.--Vintagekits 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
We have discussed this elsewhere, and it is not relevent here. The matter at hand is removal of negative content. Logoistic 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the deletions, no further comment from me--Vintagekits 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The user is now removing a tag that highlights he has confirmed illegitimate sockpuppets. Logoistic 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I have NO "illegitimate sockpuppets" - if someonelse wants to raise the subject with me then I will be happy to discuss with them - but not you as Iconsider that you act in bad faith towards me--Vintagekits 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits Logoistic 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
yes, that is not an "illegitimate sockpuppet"--Vintagekits 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
it is, it's now been banned by an admin. End of story. I just want the admin to look at the removal of negative content. Logoistic 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

I support any punishment offered as a result of this, The Damaja's disruptive edits and lack of communication have become tiresome and, to put it crudely, a persistant pain in the arse. SteveLamacq43 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Under investigation

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)

Warrants further monitoring. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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 [491] [492] [493] [494] [495] [496] [497] [498] [499]. 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 [500] [501] [502]. Soccerguy1039 and Emokid200618 have also made identical edits on Template:Kingdom Hearts series (Soccer = [503]; Emokid = [504] [505]). Emokid has also vandalized George W. Bush, though it was a minor nuisance. ([506] [507]) 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)

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)
User appears to be harassing another user. Otherwise confrontational behavior. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


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.[508][509][510][511][512][513] Whether or not he is intentionally distructive his edits are still harmful.--CyberGhostface 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

72 hour block for vandalism. DurovaCharge! 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
User is still editing in a broken fashion. It's hard to tell if his additions are in good-faith, but they are questionable and without sources unverifiable, and they are full of spelling and grammatical errors, etc. I have advised him about this on his talk page. Even if this user is acting in good faith, he may be doing more harm than good. —Centrx→talk • 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:Attack from Cali567

Latest comment: 17 years ago89 comments26 people in discussion

This member Cali567 had already been given warnings of now to attack others, but he has continued to vanadlise my talk page in Seong0980. I have reached out in my talk page and suggested he could be a nice person, and I apologised if I made any incorrect suspicions, but he keeps on calling me crap, amongst other racial puns. This is getting really annoying, and he doesn't seem to care if he gets IP blocked unitl it has happened to him. Please help. -- Seong0980 29 January 2007.

From the discussion board in another area, he said: "Now a little tattle-tail is going and trying to get administrators on his side...I'm NOT SORRY FOR SAYING THAT and I'm NOT sorry for adding that he may be of Asian descent!." I am thinking, is Wikipedia anti-Korean, thus he was not given a punishment? Seong0980



Chifumbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Ezeu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps adding the same image to Black People. Could be sock puppet? I don't know how to tell. This is getting silly. Please help.futurebird 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I overreacted. Trying to sort this out. futurebird 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obvious vandalism to [Barbara Bush] and [John Locke] FranksValli 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Has been warned and hasn't contribute since, I think we can archive this RFI.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Zserango (account created yesterday) posted some blatantly incorrect information to at least the articles Helsinki (see diff 1 and diff 2), Lake Ladoga (see diff) and Guns 'N Roses (see diff) and as a result was blocked for 18 hours (expired now). Zserango has also added some personal analysis/commentary in articles such as George Best (see diff) and unsourced negative information to Nemanja Vidić (see diff). The user has so far made about 30-40 other edits, most (but not all) of which have been reverted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
Well, the instructions led me to believe so, but well. MoRsE 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
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)

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)[514] 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.[515] 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)

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)
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)

Candyonashell (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)

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

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)

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

This user has been reported here [516] 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 [517] and [518] 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)

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)
1 month block issued. DurovaCharge! 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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: [520].

Her edits to Tessa Keller section: [521].

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After months of interaction with this user, I am afraid I have lost hope that he can contribute positivly to our project. While he occasionaly does useful copyediting, a very significant portion of that user's edits (see statistics appendix below) seem to unconstructive remarks on various talk pages. Of course a fondness of discussions is nothing serious (Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but we have more important things to deal with) - however his remarks are almost always off topic to the issue discussed and are further highly sarcastic, usually ad hominem, bordering on personal attacks and way too often leading to flaming, wasting times of other editors and stressing them out. The user has been warned to change his attitude many times - examples from his talk page: 29 January 2006, 26 June 2006, 29 June 2006, 4 July 2006, and particulary see 30 July 2006, 11 December 2006, 12 December 2006 and 12 January 2007. Unfortunatly I see no change in his behaviour - other then he is getting increasingly bold with hostile, provocative comments (this is the newest one which prompted me to file this report). Recently some editors have tried to contain the flame wars that habitually erupt after his remarks by removing or achiving his posts before they get too many replies (once, twice , thrice, not that it seems to have any effect on him. His constant snipping remarks contributed, among other things, to months long withdrawal from our project of one of the most active contributors - User:Halibutt, the the 168 most active editor (see also his accusation of that user being 'a very warped, and lying propagandist at his absolute worst'). Or just see this gem, where he reffers to Halibutt's contributions as 'flaming and anti-Lithuanian propaganda' and 'a weird, hateful history of editing'. As obviously warnings are ineffective, I'd like to ask the community to consider other actions before this user manages to offend and chase of other editors from our project.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) PS. In a recent post, Dr. Dan calls me a 'self proclaimed wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland on English Wikipedia'. Here he accusses me of 'falsehood'...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So granted: 24 hour block. Your analysis appears to be topical and substantive, but the persistent sniping violates WP:CIVIL. When the block expires please continue the content discussions without personalizing the disputes. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am very surprised by this move. Particular contributor Dr. Dan directly asked for time to respond to this matter, the time was not given. There is WP:AGF? Dr. Dan is the best copy editor and he deserved the right to present his view and point the problems. Also does the policy which states: Please remember that reporters may not be entirely ‘innocent’ themselves, so be sure to check their edits and treat all sides fairly. Also was carried out? Because looking in presented “evidence” contributor Piotrus did not mentioned some issues which should be mentioned in this case. Also does this case should not be placed in under investigation case? So I convinced that the ban should revoke and let contributors present their cases without any rush. M.K. 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm also very surprised. First of all, although I don't know Dr. Dan well, I have come across him on pages where he was arguing with a friend of mine, and found that his behaviour with people on a different side was fine. I've looked at these "offences", and they don't seem to have anything like the level of disruption to justify a block. Remember, blocks are not meant to be punitive. From experience, I think that if this had been taken to WP:ANI, people would have been told to get a thicker skin or to have a nice cup of tea. Finally, Dr. Dan specifically asked for time to respond to the matter. I think it's precisely because of concerns about it turning into a forum for "Please, teacher. Johnny said something naughty" that WP:PAIN was recently abolished. This block should be undone. Musical Linguist 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
If Dr. Dan has time to post several personal attacks and flame other contributors on various talk pages a day, but no time to do a minor copyedit more often then once a week or so, perhaps this will give him something to think about and reevaluate his priorities. He has been warned enough on his talk page, and he had ample time (months) to respond to those warnings and adjust his behaviour. And, Musical, there is a level where 'Johny being noughty' is too much for our community to take, and when Johnny suceeeds in getting one of our most active users to go on months-long wikiholiday with his personal attacks, it's a proof enough that growing thick skin is not enough in this case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all your "evidence" should be placed under full investigation. For instance in this case, this "personal attack" was under big suspicion among editors [522]. And let remind you that person have quite a problem in his real life, and he did not hide just noted about timing. And if you hold such attitude which you presented, I am regret, but I am not regret Dan, but you instead. M.K. 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I am quite confident that experienced RFI editors like Durova know when they've investigated enough. For instance in the discussion you brought up most editors criticized Dr. Dan for it, and the defence 'grow thick skin' as I explained above is not the one I recognize. I don't see why I should learn to take such abuse - per WP:CIV and our policies, it is the uncivil editors who should learn how to behave.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Especially then admin making such statements as this [523]. BTW, what do you calling among other things, to months long withdrawal I understand that you historically related with user:Halibutt ([524]), looking his contributions from 06.12.23 [525] I cant see any so called "months long withdrawal". And another note do you intent to prosecute and all Lithuanian community, because Halibutt unambiguous made clear (bold some points to better see):
"Unfortunately, an ongoing campaign of slander and blackmail against me has forced me to abandon wikipedia for some time. Death threats from Ghirlandajo, anti-semitic comments from Renata and her Lithuanian pals, offending my parents by Dr.Dan, offending my nationality and culture by the nationalist Lithuanian community here - all these were a step too far. Perhaps I'll come back when they change their ways - or wiki finally starts to defend serious editors against trolls and ultra-nationalists. Regards, //Halibutt" "Interesting" statment deserves reaction, you say WP:CIV? BTW, did you mentioned here (for the background) that your friend, as you call it he 168 most active editor, Halibutt recently already started to mocking particular nations language, as well as living persons etc. ? M.K. 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Anybody who want's to verify how Dr. Dan (and M.K's) campaign effects Halibutt, you are welcome to check stats here (comapre pre-September to post-September). If you'd like us to investigate Halibutt's offences, or those of any other editor, you are free to post here with diffs or start a WP:DR procedure; otherwise, please stop your campaign against Halibutt (and if I can understand your post correctly, myself).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Dan's outrageous suggestion that my parents were members of the commie party, while funny in itself, was meant to discredit my views. This is not the way to go.
Secondly, I was indeed on wikivacations. Recently I thought that it could be nice to come back, but apparently it was not. Sorry for that, M.K., next time I'll think twice before posting anything on wikipedia. //Halibutt 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Take this with a huge grain of salt

I would like to warn anyone who was lucky enough to not have had any disputes with user:Piotrus, and therefore having not been a victim of his intimidation, to take his complaints with a huge grain of salt.

The essence of all these conflicts is never civility but the long-lasting content disagreements over many articles tendentiously edited by Piotrus to suite his Poland-centered world-view (I would have gone one step further and called this even Polish nationalist world view but Piotrus' nationalism is admittedly, less extreme than that of some others). Piotrus' persisting with pushing the Polish nationalist POV into various articles brought about conflicts with valuable editors from all countries that happen to be the neighbors of Poland and have lots of shared history, primarily Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans. This by itself would not have been abnormal if not Piotrus' reprehensible tactics he is persistently using by trying to win such content disputes through expulsion of his opponents through blocks or forcing them quit. In the past he used false 3RR reports, cherry-picking of admins to bring his complaints to, WP:AN, WP:ANI. Most recently he used several times the WP:PAIN which is now thankfully shut-down specifically because of the Piotrus'-like abuse of it. Now he found a new venue to push for expulsion of his opponents, this board.

He has succeeded in achieving one of his goals already. User:Ghirlandajo, the jewel contributor, left the Wikipedia and does not seem returning. Now it is Dr. Dan's turn. Who will be next I wonder?

To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk, RfC's, etc. Attempts to present this as civility issues or policy violations are misleading and aimed at achieving another content "victory" by expuslsion of another opponent. When such tricks were tried against Piotrus' friend Halibutt, I was equally critical then.

Anyway, I've seen enough to initiate the administrative recall of Piotrus for the unethical behavior unbecoming for an admin. I refused to do that earlier despite many calls I received in private from the Russian, Lithuanian and German editors in the past year. I was mistaken then and it's time to correct this now. --Irpen 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I never expected you, Irpen, to scoop so low and to present so many misinterpretations (to say the least). I have just four comments. 1) No diffs in the above post should give everyone a pause. Fiction, of course, is hard to back up with diffs. 2). Similar accusations were raised by Ghirla and M.K at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. M.K's rant was not supported by anyone except Dr. Dan (suprise...), and Ghirla ended up in ArbCom and Mediation, where he agreed to put himself under a civility parole (requested for, among other things, to stop a flow of similar unfounded accusations). I'd thus advice, Irpen, that you don't repeat his mistakes. 3) In any case, according to the message at User:Ghirlandajo, I had nothing to do with his wikibreak (and Irpen tryong to insinuate anything else is just another example of fallacies of his arguments). That said, you are free to try DR or initiate my voluntary recall, the last attempt to do so proved quite fruitfull, I think. 4) As for my 'persistent pushing of Polish nationalist POV' - I invite anybody to read comments by our Featured Articles Director on my RfC. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) PS. Important note: To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk is completly untrue, as I have no problems with Dr. Dan content editing (occasional copyediting). It's his flaming on talk which is usually off-topic to article's in question I have the problem with.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, you won't impress or scare me by showing what happened to your other opponents. So, please no "advises not to repeat" stuff. As for diffs, I could dig them if memories fail you somehow. I thought you remember you false 3RR report against Ghirla, that was dismissed false. Also, you may recall your inciting Elonka to post a complaint on him to WP:ANI. You may also recall your inciting someone who I never met to submit a report on myself during our dispute over Taras Fedorovych. You may also recall your asking William M. Connolley to block Fisenko over a content dispute he had with you. Should I dig the diffs or you remember those cases? --Irpen 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I see you are trying to catch up with the party you missed - i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, where those issues were brought up and dismissed. I am sorry to disappoint you, but WP:RFI report against another user is not a good place to try to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus 2, and if you think you can try to turn this from discussing Dr. Dan to discussing Piotrus, I am afraid you'll not succeed. Per my last post, I am waiting for an apology for claims dismissed by my RfC as well as other accusations ('persistent nationalist POV pushing' and similar).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have evidence to back up such a claim of POV pushing, I would be very interested in seeing it. Can you please provide diffs? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
WD, you have not been around where everyone who edited with Piotrus have been lately. At the same time you just love to get involved in all sorts of personal conflicts with your uninformed opinions. I suggest simply that you study every matter before opining. The disputes here are deep. They run for years and your last attempt to get involved was extremely unhelpful. I would rather prefer that this is dealt by Durova or anyone else more or less familiar with the context, if you would please allow this. --Irpen 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Durova is actively working in a mediation which involves Piotrus, so I do not think she would be the best person to look into the matter. I can myself, or another user may, but in either event you should provide diffs to support your claim. If you can indeed support such a claim I would support a recal of Piotrus, but if you cannot I would ask you to withdraw this damaging accusation. I realise my efforts earlier with Ghirla did not go as well as could have been hoped, and I have taken that as a learning experience. In my defense a series of other users that seemed to have some agenda "supported" me, and in the end were altogether unhelpful in the matter. I can of course leave the issue be if you so wish, however, as I said, you should prove this claim or withdraw it, as it's a fairly damaging thing to accuse someone of. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
WD, I just want to say I have always appreciated yours (and Durova) attempts to uphold WP:CIV and other policies here. I think that your actions have always upheld high standards.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, WD, I would prefer that you leave the issue alone. I consider you by your attitude unfit to get involved in interpersonal conflict resolution and this was best demonstrated at PAIN. That said, I can't prevent you from further involvement into such issues as this is what seems you want to do. But since you asked me about this particular issue, then yes. Please stay out of it if you can. --Irpen 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. So there was a mistake, huh? And was there an apology? Anyway, was your offer to leave the dispute if I request so meaningful, or you intend to persist with your involvement despite I gave a clear answer to your offer? --Irpen 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And WD, please consider my request to stay in; I always found your comments helfpul and well-meaning. PS. I second WD request for a diffs (proving that point) or an apology.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Any attempt at a sort of mediation or informal dispute resolution only works if all parties to it agree to the matter, and Irpen clearly does not, so I will not further investigate or look into the matter, though I reserve the right to get involved at a later time should I feel compelled to do so. I will however, clarify a few things. First of all, Irpen - I left Ghirla a large apology on his talk page. He is an extremely valued contributor, and someone I regard with a tremendous deal of respect. I never intended to slight him in any way. Secondly, I stand by my request for Irpen to provide diffs, or at least give some reassurances that he is having this looked at by a third party. I don't feel comfortable leaving an issue with what, if unproven and unbacked, amounts to a personal attack unresolved. So, Irpen, I beseech you, please provide some diffs, or some evidence this matter is being looked into. All I ask if I am to be uninvolved is to have assurance that someone is looking into it. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus and Durova would know exactly what I mean and I gave above some hints to refresh Piotrus' memories. Now, you can rest assured that Durova is a very thorough person and she will get to the bottom of this if she chooses to stay in. I trust her judgment a lot. Thank you. --Irpen 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
WD, to fill you in - those issues where discussed in December at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus filled against me by Ghirla. As his accusations were supported by 5 out of 40+ people who commented there, and criticized by many more, the case ended up at ArbCom and User:Durova/Mediation, where Ghirla withdrew most of them, apologized and agreed to be put under civility parole, I really wonder what's Irpen's angle here with trying to revive this - but as I said above WP:RFI is not WP:RFC and this entire section is only distracting us from discussing Dr. Dan abuses.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There were raised questions about pushing POV, interesting example [526], and I am sure if not intervention form the side particular article would mislead till now. Interesting stance Piotrus demonstrated then one contributor started to mocking one nations language again [527] contributors made clear about such behavior [528], but Piotrus "explanations" [529] were no good, especially then some time ago same situation arise and was noted that there was no "mistakes" in such case [530]. Does explanations needed for [531] accusations of various organizations, which Dr. Dan presented? M.K. 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
User contributions analysis

Of last 500 edits (that's since mid-September'06) using these scripts:

  • article space: 37%; Wikipedia space: 3%
    • Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.6% (13)
  • talk (article, user, etc.) space: 60%
Is trolling prohibited?

Since this is not a Request For Comments call, I'll refrain from posting a longer comment on Dr. Dan's behaviour or Irpen's absurd accusations above. I'm however concerned about the grounds for this RFI in the first place. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits trolling. Is the fact that an editor is being counter-productive enough to call for admin actions against him ? --Lysytalk 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, thank you for what appears to be your support concerning this investigation (I mean its grounds, etc.) Fortunately there is not a wikipedia policy explicitly prohibiting trolling. In that case, I wouldn't be able to thank you. Dr. Dan 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Lysy, that you don't like something does not make it absurd. That Piotrus' in the past many times played various tricks to achieve the blocks of his content opponents is a fact.
  • His false report against Ghirla to 3RR board is a fact.
  • His provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla is a fact.
  • His contacting William M. Connolley regarding his conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable is a fact.
  • His advising someone to submit a 3RR report on myself over Piotrus' dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych is a fact.
  • His report to PAIN on Ghirla that was promptly removed by JzG as trolling is also a fact.
Now that the PAIN is deleted because it was most often frivolously used as Wikipedia:Request to block my opponent board, the new venue for this activity has been found, this board.
Piotrus should just cease attempting to eject his opponents from Wikipedia through blocks. This report is just another take on it. I say, this board should likely follow PAIN into the wastebasket because complaints are always brought out of context and investigating them in full requires an incredible patience of the investigator to reveal the full scale of events. --Irpen 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The only thing that is a fact is your bad faith interpretation of the events, Irpen. I ask you once again to stop repeating claims already discredited in my RfC and either blank them or apologize.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need diffs, Piotrus? I am sure you remember now each and every instance I brought up above. I can back them up with diffs and you know that. I hope Durova will finally figure this all out once she is back. Once this "investigation" is over, I will submit this board for deletion to follow WP:PAIN. There is a normal DR course and there are also attempts to circumvent it using various pages as a substitute for the Wikipedia:Request to block my opponent board. --Irpen 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Several users asked you for diffs. But you know what - we are just joking, we don't really want them... Sigh. I hope Durova or some other admin will look at your posts and take appopriate actions. And it was actions of people like you who try to gain immunity from wiki policies like WP:CIV that doomed PAIN, not actions of those like me or WD who try to deal with such abuses.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Piotrus, since your memories seem to be failing you, here are the diffs that show your pattern to use various sneaky tricks to achieve the blocks of your content opponents:

This attempt to block Dr. Dan fits nicely into the same pattern. You forced me to spend time to dig those out as if you forgot but they are all here now for review. --Irpen 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break

And as I mentioned several times they are also discussed at my RfC in the aftermath which Ghirla got a civility parole. I will not deny I have a habit of trying to curb violations of our policies, from WP:CIV to WP:VAND. That, Irpen, is what any sensible user does. In any case, the Ghirla case was difficult as we dealt with a user who while often violating WP:CIV was also an immense content creator. This case is not the case, as Dr. Dan content creation is rather close to non-existent (per stat's discussed above and below). I am still awaiting your apology for your statements above (that I was acting in bad faith and try to promote some 'nationalist Polish POV-pushing agenda').-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla is not on civility parole, that's for one. Secondly, I am glad that now you stopped demanding proofs that seeking blocks of your content opponents is your tactic as these were exposed. Good.

Now, I know that you just love to demand diffs pretty aware that they exist just in order to waste your opponents' time. This had happened before as well. Proofs of your polonocentric POV-pushing into articles are even more abundant and I can supply plenty of diffs as well. I just don't want to waste time on something that seems to me too obvious. If Durova is unfamiliar with your editing habits, which I doubt, and requests me to provide her with some material, I will set aside some time to build an equally convincing set of diffs. --Irpen 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla has agreed to a civility parole on mediation page, Irpen. I see no point in repeating myself over and over again; I can agree with you on one: I hope Durova will comment here and curbs your pointless and offending accusations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the beginning of my comment, this is not an RFC, and certainly not Ghirla/Piotrus RFC. Sorry guys, but this is also not a proper place to discuss your past animosities. --Lysytalk 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is disruptive. With this in mind, may I ask you a few questions? Is trolling prohibited?... (rhetoric question). More seriously, are we supposed to be overindulgent to counter-productive disputes? Shall we (even implicitely) encourage trolish-like behavior? Would it build a nice and user-friendly working environment? Further, the problem is not that there are content disputes (they always will be there) - but the way we handle them. I'm afraid Dr. Dan follows one of the worst patterns - consequently and for a long time. Personally, I think some kind of talking he enjoys does not belong to wikipedia talk pages. See our discussion on Talk:Jan Dzierzon, where he deliberately led an OT "pissing match" (his own term [532]; he did also a good work to discuorage me [533]). I have some more interesting examples, if you wish, including one where he attacked your Polish-Lithuanian cooperation proposition(about 4 months old diffs at request), and another one, where some recent direct pro-Lithuanian comments by Piotrus were nitpicked. One gets impression that he is really interested in maintaining some conflicts, in which he willingly participates. And, finally, your own words to him: "your recent attempts to group or divide editors by their nationality in a number of talk pages can be harmful". Are you still concerned about the grounds for this RFI? Best, --Beaumont (@) 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Beaumont, nice of you to participate. Regarding your link, nitpicked, my contributions there are something that I felt were very relevant to the discussion, and I'm pleased with them. Do you see them violating any civility? Do you think perhaps a greater degree of censorship prohibiting people from expressing their opinions would be more to your liking? Regarding Lysy, I go back along way with him, and we were having a frivolous "pissing match" regarding a fictitious WP entry Henryk Batuta, sorry it, and my choice of words concerning it, offended you. Since Lysy didn't seem offended (and I doubt that he was), maybe you should get over it. If Lysy was offended, my apologies to him too. Dr. Dan 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Just read my text. Concerning nitpicked comment and the other co-operation proposition by Lysy I do not mean incivility, I mean conflict-aimed useless remarks. A phenomenon observed yet elsewhere by Lysy some time ago... --Beaumont (@) 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont, Dan's remark might have contributed to conflicts but I doubt that was his intention. People often feel angry when they write to Wikipedia talk pages. I have been called all sorts of names by Piotrus and his friends. Piotrus called me a Polonophobe, Lysy called me "affected by Soviet education" and made highly offensive remarks about my ethnicity, Halibutt called me all sorts of things and I am not even mentioning Molobo and other less respectable editors here. Still, I did not rush to various boards to seek any of them blocked. Some things we say may provoke conflicts. I say, grow a thicker skin and concern yourself with content creation not the POV pushing and expulsion of opponents. What is utterly reprehensible is to play dirty running from board to board agitating for blocks of those who oppose your POV. Piotrus has been doing it for a while. Time to stop it, dismiss this frivolous "request for investigation" and send this trollboard to the oblivion to follow the WP:PAIN's path. --Irpen 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did I call you a 'Polonophobe'? Please support your accusations with diffs. Unlike you, who accuses others (above on this page) of 'spreading nationalist POV', I don't have the habit of making such remarks about others.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Piotrus, you did call me a polonophobe. And there is an edit of yours somewhere out there. You did it just once, perhaps you were agitated, and I did not run with that to various admins screaming "block him". Nor did I save it to hit you with it later. I am not to go dig through dozens of thousands of your edits to find it. I mean, if this was an ArbCom and the whole case would be hinged on that, I would have put aside half-a-day and found that diff but for now I won't. I do remember it clearly though and suffice that I provided diffs to every of your previous challenges on this board.
Don't worry too much. "Polonophobe" is not the worse offense I was called here and, anyway, I did not make a big deal out of that and I still don't. Besides, your friend Lysy called me worse and Hali used quite an offensive language as well. The only time I complained about civility is when one fellow called me a "purulent faggot from the hooker's town" and even then, only because he did not contribute a single content line and was just revert warring and spreading hatred. I hope this here was the last time you sought for the opponent's block. This "investigation" will go bust anyway and please do not produce any more of this. Just accept that some articles may end up differently from your POV as other editors can also have an opinion on them and can contribute accordingly. If you dislike that, use talk pages and not admin boards. --Irpen 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


If I may be so bold as to interject with a comment, and commenting only in general and not on this case in particular, I don't think it's the venues of these discussions that's leading to these disagreements, it's the people. If a court has a mistrial or a bad descision that is overturned, it's not the courthouse that's to blame, it's the people in the courthouse. Likewise for these boards. PAIN was fine, and it should be noted that Durova was a regular there for a while, until certain people turned it into the civility police. I hope that these people do not turn this board into such a thing, as this board has a useful purpose. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some judicial systems are better and produce less mistrials than the others. Boards that attract sorts of editors eager to provide their opinions on interpersonal conflicts inflaming matters are likely to produce wrong outcomes. Boards presided by the members of the community entrusted by this very community (elected arbcom members) produce by far less questionable verdicts.

If you have an opponent in the content dispute, deal with the person you have, not the one you would like to have. If your opponent is an obvious troll, go to WP:ANI. If the case is complex, you tried everything and failed, go to RfArb not to the kangaroo court where random people occasionally step in to be a judge and jury on the whim. ANI is attended by enough editors to make whimsical verdicts less likely. Here we may get lucky and get Durova put aside a day of her life, dig this all out and see that the report is a bad faith one. Or we can get quick uninformed opinions provided in haste, warning templates stamped left and right to "gauge the reaction" and other similarly productive actions. This board is exactly the forum that guarantees frequent errors and hurt feelings. PAIN is gone, thanks god. Time for this one to follow. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Peter, should I ask you to warn Piotrus to not call me a Polonophobe (as he did), Lysy to not make ridiculing remarks about my ethnicity and Halibutt not to call me a lier. I can spend another 1/2 hour to provide you with diffs but better yet, I advise you to help me bring this trollmagnet board to a closure. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. --Irpen 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dodge, I do not know you, and probably you do not know much about me (other than this investigation). But obviously you did not recuse yourself from this matter afterall, at least not totally. Personally, I thought Irpen's last remarks were quite "on the mark" and worthy of consideration. Forgive my being "dense" but I understood him asking you to give warning, but where did you, er, see him wanting non-involvement? Best Dr. Dan 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, I did ask for Peter's non-involvement further above for the reasons irrelevant to this matter. --Irpen 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Irpen, I think you meant that you wanted his further involvement rather than non-involvement. My remarks were not meant to dissuade him from participation, I just thought he "recused" himself earlier. I am against censorship. Period! He's more than welcome to participate here. The more the merrier. Just the same, I don't see where you were asking for non-involvement. If I'm mistaken, then as they say in certain sections of New York, fugheddaboudit. Dr. Dan 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no position on this RFI, Piotr, or Irpen. I was merely making an interjection about how the editors are responsible for their behaviour whatever venue they are in on Wikipedia, and that they cannot blame bad behaviour on a certain board or area's "climate". Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) And yes, I'm going now. Really, really. Just wanted to clear that up.


Dr. Dan's reply
I wish to begin my belated response by giving you all my overview of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I believe it is a superb venue to acquire and exchange information. I am proud to be a member of the project. P.P.'s "Statistics Appendix Box", is interesting in itself because it truly does not reflect my participation in WP. 90% of my involvement in Wikipedia is reading it, and getting knowledge from it, about the many, many subjects that I have never had any familiarity with like the fig wasp, Bohuslav Martinů, or Indian Standard Time, and believe me, I play a mean game of Jeopardy!. You see, P.P., how a person contributes to Wikipedia is their business. It can be copyediting or going to the discussion pages and correcting or questioning or shaping an article. It takes quite a big ego to think, Hrmph!, I created articles like Żydokomuna, while Dr. Dan merely goes to its talk page and has the temerity to question it and give me a hard time over it. This argument of yours is truly a strawman argument because you had the same problems you are complaining about me with user:Ghirlandajo, one of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Allow me to digress and say, Ghirla, if you are listening, please come back. I salute you, and the great Russian people, and the many fine contributions to Wikipedia that have come out of there.
I would also like to take a moment to thank the many people who took the time to support me and question the validity of this investigation and my block. I was also surprised by the many E-mails of support that I received from contributors who preferred to "remain off the record". It was comforting. I am especially grateful for the input of user:Musical Linguist, as I consider her to be not only extremely fair-minded and an impartial editor, but one who was not even remotely involved with the "personalities" of this issue. Durova, I must respectfully say that I am dissapointed that in your rush to judgement, I was not able to make my points of defense before the block occured. It had a quality of censorship that does not concur with your professed hesitancy to not shoot first and ask questions later. I should hope that in the future if the concept of the RFI should be successful "one should not be sentenced before the trial", hanged before (actually during) Eid ul-Adha, or before all the evidence and testimony are fully presented. I hope I can get a chuckle out of you, or at least a smile when I tell you IMHO, that this particular charge of yours was more of a Lord Cardigan, rather than a Nadezhda Durova. As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did, but if you, Durova, do not see the other side's equal guilt, maybe you should at least consider some of the protests to your decision and what motivated them. As a small example, I ask Durova to read Talk:Laurynas Gucevicius (archive 3) to get a small sense of what I mean. Rather than being uncivil, I'm probably more guilty of being sarcastic or what you have referred to as "sniping" or P.P. has referred to as "snipping". Would you agree, Durova, that a good example of this type of sarcasm would be, "You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours...Due to you busy schedule this is unlikely to interfere very much with your participation at Wikipedia." Actually this statement caused me to smile and actually laugh a little. You know kind of like touché. In any case, it wouldn't cause me to tear open my żupan or my caftan. Sorry.
Now to the heart of the matter. These remarks are for everyone's benefit especially fair-minded and objective people. Like most of you, until now I was unfamiliar with the organization, Vilnija. On January 13, 2007, the participarts of Wikipedia were treated to a new article by the esoteric entity that P.P. called We, I suppose this We (I asked him and he never did say what he meant) meaning he and his friends. It's title Vilnija. It has since been toned down quite a bit since then, but it began with a rather unusually hostile opening statement containing no less that seven (yes, seven) citations, followed by lots of other goodies, and ending with an edit summary, "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one." (sic) The following six entries were made by P.P., Halibutt, and Lysy (three of the most vociferous non-Lithuanian contributors to Lithuanian subjects), who seem to be having a hard time understanding why their input is challenged. I don't think it's unfair to say that the Vilnija article is a pretty good example of what starts the "ball rolling" in these frequent disputes. So much for attaining the elusive "modus vivendi" that P.P. has frequently asked for. And I've said over and over we all have to walk the walk, not just talk, the talk. Then the "article" moved to the discussion pages where a particularly onerous accusation was made against me by P.P. that "I was a supporter" of this organization. Or was it someone else? Falsehood #1. As I tried to get more information about this "extremist" organization, I ran across an edit entered in Wikipedia on November 8, 2005, in the "oeuvre" that the prokonsul created, Żydokomuna, in which P.P. stated that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona were extremist and anti-Semitic. This declarative statement he made seems to the best of my investigating to be untrue. Falsehood #2. Evidently P.P. did not remember his edit, because he demanded to know the basis of my claim. In fact, I believe more than anything this so angered him (the straw that broke the camel's back), that this was the true reason he instigated this investigation. Yet he made the declarative statement about these organizations, without explanation, sources, or citations. Upon being shown where he made the statement, his explanation was that he "translated" the statement from Polish Wikipedia. He was further angered by the fact that after I read the Polish text, I informed him that his statement was not a translation, but at best an extrapolation from an unreferenced source. He denied that and continued to claim his sentence was a translation. Falsehood #3. Btw, I can imagine the outcry from the "club," if I had authored this article.
In this RFI, P.P., shows us that I have been warned to change my attitude many times, and gives us 8 examples from my talk starting January 29, 2006, ending January 12, 2007. Let me go to two of them (the first and the last) to save time. In the first example, he invokes the user:Molobo, a role model of civil and constructive contributions. An editor with quite a interesting history of editing to say the least. But one who P.P., never blocked (but unblocked numerous times), never even chided , and of course did not bring about an RFI or an analysis of his contributions to anyone's attention. In the second example, as things began to "heat up" a little lately, P.P. made a Request to me on my talk page (01.12.07). It seemed sincere and I told him that in essence I agreed. Peace at last? A roadmap for some type of consensus? One day later we get the Vilnija article (with "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one"). In this RFI, P.P. states that certain editors remarks caused Halibutt to withdraw from Wikipedia for Months Long Withdrwal (sic) Falsehood #4 (more like a couple of days). In fact I myself did withdraw from the project for a month last November, because I found the escalation of bad will very tedious. I also suggested at the time to mutually lay off "controversial" topics for a while. Regarding Halibutt's months long withdrwal, it's announcement is there for all to read in user:Halibutt/News (you have to go to the history)on December 23, 2006. In a very bizarre edit Halibutt tells us he is being blackmailed. By whom? Falsehood #1, That Ghirlandajo made death threats against him. Falsehood #2, That administrator Renata and her Lithuanian pals made anti-Semitic comments toward him. Falsehood #3, and that Dr. Dan offended his parents (never did) Falsehood #4.
There may have been a time when all of these type of "contributions" went unchallenged. Slowly this began to change as more and more people began to question the fairness and veracity of some of the information that we were reading. A particularly thorny issue was the use of sources out of Communist Poland that were often a magazine or newspaper article. And please understand me on this point, I wouldn't claim that one should use Der Sturmer as a reference either. Maybe something good will come out of this RFI, because I will definitely work on becoming more civil. As for civility, and the lack of it, I still contend there is plenty of blame to share by all of the participants in this matter. It would be a good idea for each and everyone to keep this in mind. With that, I wish all Happy Editing! Dr. Dan 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Dan. Nobody suggested that you should be blocked from reading Wikipedia; in fact nobody ever has been or will be blocked from using our project (at least, not by us). There is a difference between using and contributing to Wikipdia, and while certainly how you use it is your business (with respect to GFDL), how you contribute may become a business of others. Your occasional copyediting is welcomed; however as parts of the discussion above (not hijacked by Irpen to discuss grieviances against other editors) show, quite a few users have problems with your comments in discussions, which were found to be unconstructive and offensive. I will not, forgive me, go off topic and discuss other's actions (feel free to start such discussions at apprpriate sections). You admit above youself that As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did and I will definitely work on becoming more civil. I appreciate such honest admissions. I hope to see many more of your helpful copyedits, and your comments on talk will have no 'snipping' quality. I hope that this and previous discussion, and the block you received, will convince you to follow my and other advices and there will be no need for discussing your actions again in the future in context of WP:CIV violations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2007/01&oldid=1142514116"