Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/03

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation | Archives
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Petros471 in topic Registered users


IP addresses

Latest comment: 18 years ago23 comments11 people in discussion

Registered users

Latest comment: 18 years ago79 comments31 people in discussion
UPDATE: Jwhitesecure seems to be going around inverting numbers. Since 'final warning' he has turned '45' to '54' [here] Bucketsofg 01:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Roitr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been warned but has continued in this vandalisiation of 2002 Winter Olympics we requested he use to talk to discuess his grevinces but he was reverted the page many many times.
    • Was blocked but seems to have returned. Needs edits checking, then possible further block.Petros471 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
      • This user should seriously be banned from the site as he has used at least 4 registered sockpuppets and dozens of anon ip addresses to make nonesense changes to articles, circumvent the 3RR rule and pretty much doesnt give a damn about Wikipedia policies but is only here to cause problems and push his own point of view. We are dealing with another "Wiki on Wheels", I feel. Any suggestions on how to put a stop to this guy? -Husnock 15:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
        • The user has been indefinitely blocked for further violation of the three-revert rule soon after their last block expired, ignoring invitations to discuss by other editors. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Will Beback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a case of "Complex vandalism requiring in-depth investigation", because it seems like he has a very focused abuse of administrator powers against only a very small coterie of articles in which he subjectively purges Bush Administration related topics cloaked as "admin" edits. This is long though please bear with me. I apologize for the length though I wanted to demonstrate a pattern of behavior that was not simply linked to me, though has gone on a long time unaddressed with at least a dozen other people on his discussion page--which he never addresses or comments on. The discussion I have been having with "Will Beback" over this is only at the Skull and Bones discussion page.

    This is now split up into paragraphs as per request.

    I would contend that the user Will BeBack, recently given some sort of admin powers I think in the "mediation" committee, is not really acting the part of mediator, and is acting the part of purger. Is he some sort of professional troll that has infiltrated Wikipedia? I think so because of the repeated failures of others to vandalize the Skull and Bones articles or refute (they are welcome to) the facts it points out. So now he is saying he is going to subjectively roll back the article to long before factual information was even placed in it! (He has employed this strategy before to destroy articles, see below example).

    As I said his pattern of behavior is both topically related to purging Bush Administration related issues, as well as very strident and highhanded about doing it without explanation. These two issues make him very suspect for abusing his power of administration at Wikipedia.

    Examples follow.

    My request is that he be removed from the mediation committee for systemic administrator abuse that is only around his very personal goals across subjective articles.

    DATA FOLLOWS, YOU CAN STOP HERE AND RESEARCH YOURSELF, THOUGH BELOW IS HOW I WOULD BUILD MY CASE TO SAVE YOU TIME:

    With the Skull and Bones article, a lot of threats came down the pipe within days after the 'discussion page' user-requested added section "Bones and Opium" finally added to the article. Some had mentioned they wanted it for a long time and were surprised it was not addressed. Others have had no problem with it--except Will BeBack and several anonymous trolls and user trolls like user:Rotten. When the latter two failed to damage the article (and when Rotten was warned to desist by Jossi admin.), next within only a day the Will BeBack character starts appearing and attacking the article in the same manner, now claiming to have the power to "roll back" (i.e., vandalize with his admin powers and remove both the Bones and Opium sections and detailed information in other sections that have been added int he past several months).

    Thus his rollback power is being abused because it is exactly the same thing that the vandal Rotten was attempting to do several days beforehand and failed to do. In this case, 'rollback' and 'vandalism' will achieve the same goal of a "defactualized" article and a total purge of the Bones and Opium section--which as you can imagine is a politically sensitive topic, though it is not controversial factually. Jossi, another admin., can attest that that there was a complete wipe/purge by user Rotten, who he warned about that. Within a day, this Will BeBack guy is among a group of people (many anonymous IP's--see the Skull and Bones 'history' and 'discussion' pages, talking vandalism threats without specific critiques.)

    For instance one of them said something like someone "needs to come in with a chainsaw and hack through the garbage" (despite it being calmly edited by about six people it looks like right now); next someone has adding all sorts of warning tags (such warning tags were removed about two weeks ago without complaint, because the issues of "factual accuracy" were resolved and made it superfluous.

    Then, Will BeBack will roll back the article back before these factual additions were added, I note, making it incomplete once more. (See the Bones as German Society section for an example of the documentation--this will be "officially vandalized" by Will BeBack); Since the total purge of certain sections wasn't acheived by either anon IPs and then with registered users like Rotten (who were warned by Jossi for vandalism), Will BeBack comes in playing the next game of now an offical vandalism to purge back to an very shallow article, which achieves what Rotten or anon IPs wanted. There is a lot of support for this version (as you can see from the micro-edits and more positive comments of the past week or so on the 'page history', anonymous comments like 67.71.122.143 are positive and reflect what is suddenly going on without much explanation ("Article has been here a long time; unfounded flags are suspicious now").

    I think trolls or agents of some sort don't like it because it IS NOW so well documented, with a fine tooth comb. I have added cross-referenced data from the Skull and Bones roster, making it so, with thus original historical sources. Understandably, this would sort of make some very powerful people mad. However, they are free to add to the article of course where they see fit in changing it if it is inaccurate. Instead there have been no attempts at factual improvement, and only attempts at total purging under various guises without explanation a few days ago, and now in my opinion lots of very angry hot comments that are generated by one person back to back (that is a supposition, though it seems like the same unexplained hostility).

    Actually, there is an outpouring of support (see for yourself) in this version against "roll back" threats to what would become once more a suspect article--i.e., a purge without improving.

    TOPICAL SECTION CLOSED. NOW TO HIS REPETITIVE PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR, AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE:

    Frankly, Will Beback sounds like he has infiltrated Wikipedia to keep watch on contoversial issues and cut them out of only one area: he has only a strange concern over Terry Schiavo, Skull and Bones, neoconservatism, Kaiser Permanante, Larouche, etc., all very current Bush administration related issues only. These issues are topics that are critical of the Bush administration by nature of them being political topics.

    The fact that he groups his article attacks (under the rubric of "mediation" when no mediation is really occuring) puts HIS potential disinterest in complete doubt, and I think he should have his powers removed as a transparent plant of some sort here at Wikipedia. For other people who would back up this type of behavior you can view his discussion page:

    He has additionally, without any follow up explanation, purged this from another article according to this comment there: "Why are you removing the fact that Barbara Boxer is pro choice from her article?" (no response) [B. Boxer is one of the few Senators who has opposed the Bush Administration quite vocally and in action]....another example of his subjective vandalism disguised as "administrative powers" is this quote: "Could you please explain why you think this action [of yours] was an improvement: 23:41, 22 February 2006 Will Beback m (Reverted edits by Lance W. Haverkamp (talk) to last version by JesseRafe) You seem to be re-introducing all the things people were arguing about: Bashing the organization at the beginning of the article & a sales pitch at the bottom. Are you sure you meant to do that???" ... (I think he definitely meant to do that. This is the same pattern of behavior he intends to do with the Skull and Bones article.)

    Several other examples....."Will Beback" claims to have joined the mediation committee right before he started attacking this Skull and Bones article. Others from his talk history page have complained "Don't send me messages" which he doesn't comment on, and simply erases evidence that they wrote it there. Frankly, I think you have a psychopath on your "mediation committee." Another quote from his discussion page on this issue critiqing him: "I'm sorry for butting in but you just deleted just about every single thing I edited. Please try to be more collaborative and friendly."

    Other knee jerk reactions noted in "Will, I am registerd user "Oklahoma" I anonymously edited the Cosmotheism page and was banned by Mel Etitis for "Vandalism". If you look at the history you will see that what I did was not vandalism."...and yet another person on this guy : "Hey bub. Before warning people and threatening me with blocking like you so rudely did [1] why don't you keep your own house clean first? You reached the three reverts limit BEFORE I did and you have the gall to give me a warning?"...This is clearly admin abuse. Will BeBack was additionally warned by someone about this "Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. - Crawfishboil"...Others write once more to him responding to some sort of rude continuous stalking or intimidation strategy it seems: "I don't know you, nor do I want to. Quit leaving messages on my talk"

    Will Beback sums up his own attitude right here which I think is very UnWikipedia: "Warning: You have been added to my watchlist. I will be watching your every edit and contribution. Expect anything you put down to be immediately vetted. [i.e., vandalized without even looking at it, by him with admin powers.] Any false info or lies and your information will be deleted and your actions will be noted on your talk page. [Then a truly psychopathic comment closes this threat:] Enjoy the rest of your time at Wikipedia" ....and yet another complaint about him: "the comment that you left on my talk page... are you refering to the links that I put on conspiracy related disscusions about a conspiracy based wiki? or to links I put on articles? cause neither fit the criteria. I would hardly call any of them private web site or a commercial site (since its contained within the wiki group). Plus since I don't know you you may want to tone down how you speak to me. don't come flying onto my page accusing me of something without telling me when I did it (using italics on the word content... I took that to imply that you somehow felt I had never added content to wikipedia.) I dont mean to be rude I just want some clarification but I do feel that you were being a bit sharp with me(obviously looking at this board I'm not alone)....

    Will Beback has yet another person upset with his unprofessional and arbitrary admin behavior: "If your going to discuss me then do so with me. I am not a 'sockpuppet'. Nor am I in any way dishonest. The above statement (another new Larouche account) indicates why I have contacted the parent corporation of this website. Sean, I bring up relevant points you did not answer and others attacked me. The point's I made, I did not only make on that page I made them to the above group including providing my full name etc. I am very displeased with the tactics used here and the labeling going on and the abuse I see.".....another example is: "I'm being accused again of adding material where I have not. I sign ALL my contributions."......

    He's additionally quite often hostile and out of his depth, though he makes what could only be described as subjective edits with his admin powers, as noted by this comment..."i think you are over-reacting on the POV issue. i wrote this intro...i am a scientist who has studied Petaluma and authored 12 different documents on this city. the terms used are in fact objective in the urban planning context."

    IN CONCLUSION, ABOUT THE CASE ISSUE OF THE SKULL AND BONES ARTICLE,

    and the request about Will BeBack, I would like someone to suspend Will BeBack's admin powers because of subjective abuse of position.

    Personality style indicates that he is the wrong type to have any kind of power over another on a wiki, he's a real martinet and quite a loose cannon not really improving Wikipedia with his admin powers--instead his pattern of behavior is reversion to incompleteness with a personal bias on where he does this. I hope you read this because it is hardly just my personal issue: this has affected a dozen people or more, across multiple pages. Will Beback demonstrates systemic administrator abuse, with malicious "roll back" strategies toward incompleteness on subjective political areas. Please don't condone it or tolerate it. I request again his suspension of mediation priviledges for a pattern of point of view behavior that is destructive and can be considered vandalism cloaked with an official title. Thank you. // --ReSearcher 10:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

    • I confess. Everything ReSearcher has said is true. I am "a transparent plant of some sort". In fact, my real identity is user:Rotten. He only caught me because I forgot to archive the talk page of my sock puppet (Will Beback) regularly. But my admission means nothing because I am going to use my admin powers to cast a spell of "ignore". Shazzam. -Will Beback 12:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
These are all highly-suspected sockpuppets of TruthCrusader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has recently had both an RFA and RFC against me dismissed for lack of merit. - Chadbryant 21:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:The Filmaker reported User:Pawnofwhite for repeatedly adding dubious statements to Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith and related articles, and being rude/hostile/dismissive: when these statements were challenged, Pawnofwhite responded that the information is "well-known" but refused to provide a source, saying that The Filmaker should look up the info himself (Google provided nothing, and there was nothing relevant on the official Star Wars site). Pawnofwhite was blocked for 24 hours for 3RR, but not before first reporting The Filmaker for vandalism on the same articles. I blocked them both, and left notes explaining that they were both blocked until I could sort out who was telling the truth.
Outcome: The Filmaker was telling the truth, and was unblocked; Pawnofwhite's block was extended to one month for repeatedly making false statements and for falsely reporting other editors as vandals (and for being rude). DS 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

  • 65.92.130.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) / Cronodevir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / Muslim_Sunni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (He is NOT a mainstream Sunni) is the web-master of http://www.sunna.info and http://www.qiblah.us and several other web-sites. He belongs to Al-Ahbash / Habashies / Assocaition of Islamic Charitable Prjects (AICP) sect which is NOT a mainstream Sunni sect. To faciliate recruitment and seek legitimacy, he and his fellowers lurks around WikiPedia Islam-related pages like Islam, Qibla, Sunnah, Sunni Islam .etc and actively incorporte hidden links to their web-sites. Consequently, they are NOT only vandalizing WikiPedia pages delibrately but also jeopardizing the integrity of WikiPedia content by impostering as mainstream Sunnis which they are not.

    Their strategy has been outlined in a research paper - by THOMAS PIERRET), The International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World (ISIM) as per following:

    At first sight, devices such as live interactive lessons or voice chat groups seem to encourage debates within the movement, but, on the contrary, close examination reveals that these instruments are primarily used by the leadership to increase its ideological control on their followers and to attract new devotees. Similarly, if one checks the AICP’s unofficial e-forums (www.talkaboutislam.com), one discovers that they function as ideological spider webs. Nothing points to the fact that these websites, which only present themselves as being “Islamic,” are actually part of the Ahbash’s cyber network. For instance, they are not related to the official websites by any hypertext link. Therefore, the random visitor is normally unaware that he or she is exposed to a set of selected opinions through carefully controlled debates. Firstly, zealous participants frequently post chapters of books edited in Lebanon by the AICP, but without any reference to the author or the editor. Secondly, veteran members answer questions concerning fiqh (jurisprudence) and reprimand novices whose religious knowledge is considered “deviant.” Thirdly, a team of regulators supervise the discussions and are in charge of censoring the Ahbash who are too keen to use takfir (excommunication) —since such a stance is considered a mark of extremism by most of the Sunnis—but above all of eliminating most of the messages posted by participants of Salafi persuasion. Ideological hegemony is thus achieved by the creation of a neo-traditionalist virtual space in which they assess very critically the ideas of leading Islamic personalities such as Amr Khalid, Khalid al-Jundi and Yusuf al-Qaradawi. In the same way they reduce the Wahhabi doctrine to a mere “heresy” in line with the Ottoman scholarly tradition of which they consider themselves to be the inheritors. (Source: http://www.isim.nl/files/Review_15/Review_15-50.pdf)

    I hope someone will loot at this complex and delibrate vandalism. McKhan

After some initial friction, he seems to have calmed down and has been using article talk pages to discuss potentially controversial changes. --GraemeL (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
The suspected sockpuppets include: User:J is me, User:The man from OZ, User:130.130.37.6, User:60.225.200.50 and User:60.225.202.61. Grant65 | Talk 11:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
User:60.225.200.50 has also tried to portray User:CambridgeBayWeather as my sockpuppet.[18] Grant65 | Talk 12:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Licinius has now disregarded the results of a poll at Talk:Football and insists on editing the article once again to reflect his/her own (eccentric) POV. I have asked an op to restore the page protection. Grant65 | Talk 11:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I think the case of randazzo56 is very clear considering the manner in which he has vandalized even this page. Signaturebrendel 02:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
It is probably not neccesay to mention but he has vandalized this page again. Signaturebrendel 02:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Appolo-boy, Brendel, and anyone else concerned can see my user talk page for the end word on this charraderandazzo56
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/03&oldid=1087971466"