Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a discussion archive created in December 2006, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

[edit] IP users

[edit] 81.99.178.151 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

User has been adding false summaries for the upcoming Saw IV to Saw (film series).[1][2][3] He has been warned in his talk page a number of times and he shows no signs of stopping or offering his point of view on the matter. CyberGhostface 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't edited since the final warning. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 21:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 222.225.117.108 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

Resurrection of an old problem. Just back off a month's block, the address is making the same unexplained, and as far as I can see incorrect, changes to Formula One race results. User has never responded to any requests for discussion on the issue. I'm open to other suggestions, but in the past a block has been the only thing that has stopped this. Cheers. 4u1e 09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

A few more this morning, as well as another lot on the same pattern by user:220.221.17.154 yesterday. as usual, no response to messages left on the talk page. 4u1e 08:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, 3 month block this time. We don't indef block IP addresses because they sometimes do change. At least you won't have to deal with this again for a while. Let's hope they tire of this. Durova^Charge! 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Seems a shame, but I can't see where else we can go with this. 4u1e 07:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I agree. It'd be better if we could talk to this person, but we've made every reasonable effort. Durova^Charge!

[edit] 124.150.117.78 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)

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

Chrisch 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a one day spree. Post again if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 04:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registered users

[edit] Wateva100 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

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

[edit] BooyakaDell (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

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

You say I'm a sockpuppet when I'm not and yet you're accusing me of acting in bad faith. My acts were entirely in good faith and I am trying to compromise with you. I've basically given up trying to convince you because obviously you're not going to be convinced.BooyakaDell 02:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to compromise by you. You have stuck hard and fast to a single rule when flexibility and common sense is called for. And when I applied that flexibility and common sense you refused to listen and repeated your actions. That's vandal behaviour. Curse of Fenric 21:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"There has been no attempt to compromise by you." - false

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

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

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

Before this gets classified as a "He Said/He Said" kind of issue, there is reason to believe that User:BooyakaDell is a WP:Sock account to get around User:JB196's community ban, there is a page at WP:AN/I requesting action. SirFozzie 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well said, Fozzie. I'll ignore Booyaka's above contribution because all one has to do is look at his contributions list to see that I'm right. Curse of Fenric 06:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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

• Additional information here [4] and here [5]. As stated there the evidence is growing. The part from my talk page was a personal attack that Booyaka then removed - probably realising he gave himself away with it! Curse of Fenric 10:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of personal attacks (which I've never done to you, Curse of Fenric...not even once), you need to stop personally attacking me.BooyakaDell 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Matter is now urgent. Three more bad faith tags - including a repeated one at Action Zone Wrestling. This user is clearly trouble. I have issued three blatant vandal warnings, and will be bringing this up in the appropriate page. Curse of Fenric 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Curse of Fenric is removing tags from numerous articles which have been 100% accounted for as well as engaging in personal attacks, and trying to play it off as if I am vandalizing which I have never done here on Wikipedia. He is also spamming my talk page with "warnings" that have no correspondence to the edits that I have made. Substantial evidence has been provided to argue that Action Zone Wrestling fails WP:NOTABILITY and the importance standards on Wikipedia. I will continue to revert any of Curse of Fenric's edits which are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. This is not to say that all of his edits are in direct violation of Wikipedia, it is only to say that some are. Now, I politely request that he give up this campaign as it's not doing either of us any good.BooyakaDell 23:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated edit warring and spamming of tags on professional wrestling articles is the exact same modus operandi of banned vandal JB196, action should be taken forthwith 81.155.178.248 23:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

81.155.178.248's edit ignores the fact that Wikipedia templates are available for use when pages appear to go against what is stated in Wikipedia policies which is what they are being used for in this case. Any similarity between my and "JB196"'s edits is by chance.BooyakaDell 23:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I've done some sleuthing and left a long query at the RFC talk page. The most serious claim here is that BooyakaDell is a sockpuppet of a banned account. That's first priority. Durova^Charge! 03:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

BooyakaDell and other socks have been sitebanned. Durova^Charge! 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)