Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2005/10

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation | Archives
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Katefan0


IP addresses

IP Severe

IP Moderate

IP Low

Looks like it's quit for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Only one edit, ever. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Still going as recently as today. Apparently an admin also uses the same IP address, so the indefinite ban was revoked. Will need to continue to keep an eye on this one. Jdavidb (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • stopped 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Hurricane Stan" page has been vandalised - it has had junk words inserted at various parts eg. "Tropical Storm Stan and began its evil reighn of bunnies" so needs to be reverted to previous version but I don't know how to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.221.7 (talk • contribs) ~2005-10-06 02:35:46
  • Gosh I'm slow. Thanks for helping!

Registered Users

RU Severe

This is a content dispute. Work out your differences on the article's talk page and avail yourselves of the suggestions in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. · Katefan0(scribble) 20:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Two reports:


I blocked Q1werty indefinitely for multiple page move vandalisms and Q2werty indefinitely as an obvious sockpuppet of Q1werty who has done nothing but vandalize. Any admin disagrees, feel free to unblock. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

RU Moderate

  • Monicasdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Has reverted the addition of a new album link on the A Bigger Bang page three times, undoing perfectly valid improvements to the factuality of the album chronology and insists I have removed a link that I am unaware of. Monicasdude spends much of his time undoing my work, due to personal dislike rather than for the actual benefit of any articles. He is very close to a 3RR violation due to his persistent reverting. This user is also the recipient of an RfC page: [10], which may prove an interesting read, as many users have endorsed its claims. BGC 21:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Malicious report, obvious retaliation/spite. Bringing a listing into compliance with WP:ALBUM is not vandalism; guidelines call for chronology links to end with "latest" album, without link to upcoming releases. Bulk of challenged edit removed obvious NPOV violation, presenting editor's opinion of musical merits of album as though they were factual. EOD Monicasdude 22:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
As anyone will read, no vandalism has been committed by either JDG or myself. Perhaps a look here may shed some light on Monicadude's working habits on Wikipedia: [11]. In addition, if anyone cares to investigate, Monicasdude has a history of stalking users - of which I am one - and vandalously reverting their work. BGC 20:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." You are tag-team deleting material whose accuracy and appropriateness for inclusion. That meets the definition of vandalism. Your reference to a spurious RfC and fabricated claim of stalking simply demonstrate your bad faith. Monicasdude 20:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Your well-earned and justified RfC (as endorsed by many users), in addition to your edit history, demonstrates the meaning of "bad faith". BGC 21:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
That's what you said about Mel Etitis, too. You consistently respond to disagreement with personal attacks and claims of bad faith editing, without ever addressing substance. And that is paradigmatic bad faith behavior here. Monicasdude 21:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
What personal attacks? I'm just stating facts. Facts that are supported by both of your RfC pages. BGC 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I will consider any further characterization of my edits as "vandalism" to be a form of "wiki-libel" and will bring "wiki-charges" against Monicasdude accordingly. Quite simply, Monicasdude has severe online behavior problems that have resulted in many dozens of wasted hours for responsible contributors dealing with the idle disputes he creates with his excessive reversions and peter-and-the-wolf cries of "vandalism" and "personal attacks" when editors are in fact going about the business of building a high-quality reference work. The RfC on him was far from spurious and was endorsed by many editors-in-good-standing. Those same editors will be ready to endorse the upcoming RfAr, also richly earned by this troublemaker JDG 23:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism is "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." Your deliberate deletion of accurate, pertinent, well-sourced information and in some cases substitution of NPOV-violation opinions and original, subjectively framed research in announced defiance of applicable policy is vandalism. And your long run of personal abuse is tiresome. Monicasdude 15:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Blanked their talk page that contained the vandalism warnings and replaced it with the advertising spiel, plus blanked the entry about them on this page (the latter of which someone reverted). SchuminWeb | Talk 05:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Update: User hasn't made an edit to any page but his own talk page since 19:47, 13 October 2005. | Keithlaw 20:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Jake013 just blanked the above [12], so it seems the V-word is certainly in order. -- Egil 12:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
He also blanked my first complaint of his bad-faith AFD's on his talk page. If he does something like that again, I'm blocking him for a month. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
In addition to disrupting Wikipedia with his spurious AFD nominations, he has vandalized Jascha Heifetz[13], [14], so I blocked him for 24 hours. If he persists, I'm blocking him for longer. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
He returned and vandalized my talk page, so I blocked him for 48 hours this time. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a content dispute. Please see the instructions I have left on your page, Ben's page, and the page of the anonymous user Ben reported (which I presume is you). Also, you did not follow policy to report, as Ben has not received the warnings specified above. Jdavidb 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I for one am well aware of it, as I am one of the victims. He's already in arbitration, he's showing remarkable restraint in that he's currently unblocked and yet only editing his talk page, and the consensus on WP:AN was that he could do what he wanted with his talk page as long as he didn't leave comments misattributed. Jdavidb (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • IS he currently unblocked? According to this page[20], his IP address is blocked until 3:14 , 6 Oct. If that's true, he's not showing "remarkable restraint" at all. But I could be misreading this, Jdavidb. I assume, as an admin, you have a better method of determining whether he's unblocked. Thanks. Eleemosynary 19:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm a new admin, so I'm a little uncertain. But clicking on the "block log" link above (my thanks for someone providing the vandalism template for BigDaddy777, as it was very helpful when I wanted to look at that earlier, anyway) [21], I see two blocks: one from Fvw at 2005-10-03 15:51:57 (my time, I think) which was for 24 hours, and one from CesarB which CesarB himself unblocked at 2005-10-04 22:42:07. As near as I can tell, that does mean he really is unblocked. I'm honestly shocked that he's stuck to touching his talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • OTOH, his IP may be blocked. But my understanding of that (possibly, maybe even probably faulty) is that we deliberately allow unblocked accounts to post from blocked IPs so, for example, we can tell users who share an IP with a troublesome user that they can just log in to get around it. Feel free to correct me; I want to know. BTW, we've probably gone beyond the purpose of WP:VIP, here. Jdavidb (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

RU Low

I'd agree with Fourohfour here; user has already been blocked once for removing AfD tag (see block log), but did it again even after a warning. That warrants another block, I'd say. MCB 17:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like the Afd issue has stopped. Current edits are in areas I know nothing about, so let me know if they are productive or vandalistic. Will block on site if vandalism occurs again. Jdavidb (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It has already been decided by consensus, that categorising articles on Scripture as "mythology" reflects an uncommon pov and is also highly ambiguous. The agreement was to use alternative cats, several of which have now been created. See CategoryTalk:Christian mythology. This anon sock keeps putting them back in "mythology" on his insistence, has already broken 3rr at Tower of Babel and yet he calls me the vandal! Codex Sinaiticus 16:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
You insist on removing correct catagories based on your personal bias. That is vandalism. You claim that these articles are "alternativly" catagorized, but I fail to see how an article catagorized ONLY as "jesu" is alternativly catagorized to "christian mythology". That is exactly the OPPOSITE bias you are spewing by removing the catagories. Go away, vandal.
Note: While calling me a vandal ;o) , anon has now gone on to make +3RR reverts in the articles Resurrection of Jesus and Miracles of Jesus by classing them as "mythology" according to his pov. We have already discussed every aspect of this before in the Christian mythology Category Talk page. From the abundance of personal attacks from this anon, I suspect he is User:Festival of Souls, the main proponent of insisting these be called "mythology" by the wikipedia. Codex Sinaiticus 17:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Note: while vandalizing the above articles Codex Sina* has been pushing his personal religious beliefs on wikipedia. He is claiming that Category:jesus is a substitute for Category:Christian mythology. He is claiming that these articles are alternativly categorized, but i see no reference to christian mythology in ANY of the categorizations. He claims i am making personal attacks, which is pure lies, unless saying refusing to allow correct categorization is pov, and insisting christianity have special treatment is bigotry is a personal attack, and not pointing out that his actions are both POV and bigoted. 134.161.138.166 17:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • 211.245.243.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Not-quite-newbie originally drew my attention by posting nonexistent or obscure pseudo-abbrevs to disambig pages. Appears to be same user as Mirmo!. Overall problem with user behaviour (see talk page for details) is exacerbated by fact he/she/it does not respond to questions/warnings on talk page, so it's hard to tell if they've read and/or are ignoring them. Latest problem is AfD tag removal; they have previously been warned that tag removal is vandalism. Whilst I consider this user's behaviour more annoying than malevolant, they're unwilling to resolve disputes through the normal channels, so I'm not sure what else can be done. - Please see new entry near top. Fourohfour 17:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This appears to be more of a content dispute, though it is annoying that the person won't respond apparently. However, this page is for reporting vandalism -- you might have better luck trying to get some of the pages protected at WP:RFP as a way to force the person to start replying to you. At any rate, they've stopped editing for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2005/10&oldid=1088313123"