Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/01 (2)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This is a discussion archive created in January 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.

Contents

[edit] Pages

  • Fundamentalist atheist (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The article has had its AfD tag removed multiple times. // James084 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is an issue to be taken up with the individual editor if he continues, over at WP:AIV. I'll look into whether a block is needed, but this is not an alert that needs to be listed here. // Mo0[talk] 08:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • * World Financial Group (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Repeated vandalism by multiple parties (including Gelfling, 68.11.247.132, and 70.176.129.48) (please see history). ShAd0w N1nJa 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    This seems to be an edit war between you and Gelfling over a POV tag. I have temporarily protected the article, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or discuss on the article's talk page. Protection prevents edit warring while it is in place, but inevitably one version gets protected and not the other; this does not constitute an endorsement of one version over the other. -- Curps 08:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    As Curps said, this article was protected. // Mo0[talk] 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Political compass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - repeated addition of uncited assertions by 211.30.206.11 (static address) -- Chris Q 07:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
    No recent heavy vandalism. // Mo0[talk] 17:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weetabix Minis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Some idiot radio station has apparently encouraged its listeners to vandalize this page. Vandalism by multiple anons in progress. --Malthusian (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Semi-protected. Ian13ID:540053 18:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • He-Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Penny arcade is displaying a strip in which this page is vandalized. Well, monkey see, monkey do. Melchoir 16:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Added as a "watch" because while this article probably won't be vandalised as much as, say, when the strip was on the front page, the strip is still recent enough that people browsing through recent archives might still get funny ideas. // Mo0[talk] 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mark Chapman (DJ) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - mentioned on national radio. David Johnson [T|C] 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Now locked - thanks to whoever did that. David Johnson [T|C] 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Edith Bowman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - as above, article was mentioned on national radio. David Johnson [T|C] 16:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Article was semiprotected from vandalism. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Belarusian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) reverts by AndriyK and Rydel 13 times since mid-December. Despite my numerous appeals for discussion. --Kuban kazak 10:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Image:England_flag_large.png (edit|[[Talk::Image:England_flag_large.png|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 05:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fox News Channel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - There's been a revert war going on here for a while, but now lots of anons (which are probable sockpuppets) are getting involved. In particular, check the history page, where the anons are leaving many vandalism-style comments in their edit summaries. Also note User:200.69.177.214, whose user contribution page indicates an interest in overt racism and WP:NPA violations, and whose user talk page indicates he/she doesn't care a whole lot about the rules. --Aaron 01:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Kevin Nash (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) repeatedly vandalized by anons --EvilZak 21:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Article was semi-protected, watchlisted by admin. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • History of the Soviet Union (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been repeatedly edited by several IP addresses with identical first three numbers (it is my opinion that a couple of students or some such are editing it) to include statements such as "F2 rocks" and "F2 still rocks". Battlemonk 20:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It appears that the vandalism has ceased for the time being. Battlemonk 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The range 142.150.0.0 - 142.150.255.255 is owned by the University of Toronto; due to the large range and potential for good edits on some IPs, a range block isn't feasible. The page has been watchlisted, please relist if the level of vandalism becomes more intense. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Napoleon I of France (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) had a small but significant inaccuracy. The painting of the Crowning of Napoleon was labelled as the "Crowning of Josephine by Napoleon". I don't see how this could be a mistake. I changed it rather than reverted it because the false edit seems to have buried under many legitimate edits. I don't know how to find who made this specific edit. It worries me because even though it's small, it seems deliberate and could be misleading: to someone who does not know about the subject, the false label is very believable. Eje211 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • high-profile page watchlisted by a large number of users and administrators, no further need for listing here. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Viktor Tsoi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has vandalized with stupid joke (...He might have choked on a piece of his favorite Matso food...), same process in Russian wiki. --Winterheart 16:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Max Wright (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) repeatedly vandalized by anons. --Stlemur 17:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • MosheZadka has changed the words of the quote in this page [[1]] and deformed its meaning into what he likes. Mansari 09:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Alicia Simmons (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is being repeatedly defaced by Anon IPs (probably the same person). I've reverted about 5 times today and about 10 times over the last 2 days. It might be worth locking the page for 48 hours or something. Megapixie 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Article watchlisted by vandal-fighters, vandalism level manageable. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • CBC Newsworld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) One or more anonymous editors have made several edits a day to this page over the past few days, adding repeated outrageous POV. --TreyHarris 22:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • 69.156.37.211 has repeatedly vandalized this page. I reverted but I'm sure they will do it again. Probably also using 67.70.10.72 as vandalism is exactly the same. Scottanon 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Vandal is now using 64.231.244.230 to make exact same vandalism. No point in reporting them, they'll just use a new IP. Scottanon 15:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
        • After a several-day holiday break, it's been vandalized again, now from 64.231.246.93. --TreyHarris 02:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Customer service (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) seems to be the subject of competing vandalism by 62.254.173.98 and 62.254.173.97
    • The users in question have already been blocked. // Pathoschild 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Blond (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) user Oahc is having revert wars with me,he keeps using a picture of a bleached hair women instead of a person with natural blonde hair.
  • Arthur (TV series) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - constantly being vandalized by an unknown troll who insists that a character named "April" that was created in a fanfic story is canon with the TV show's and book's universe. The troll's latest reincarnation seems to be IP address 64.106.85.129 . Latest reincarnations has also taken to attacking a regular contributor.
    No recent reforms to that effect. Ian13ID:540053 17:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2005

[edit] IP Addresses

[edit] Registered users

  • All P**fed Up - Asterisks are missing in actual name, which violates the no offensive user names policy. He has been asked to change it but has not yet responded. Contributions seem to be OK, They're albeit rather trivial ones that relate to Tintin books but they're not vandalism. Arno 05:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd love to have a chat with this user about his username, but you didn't tell us what's behind the asterisks, so I can't go to his userpage. Mo0[talk] 05:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
      • It's the letter 'o' that the asterisks replaced. However, he has not entered anything in his/her user page; the talk page is where you need to go. He/she is still using this user ID. Arno 02:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Is "poof" a slang term that I'm not aware of? I don't see anything wrong with this username. Mo0[talk] 03:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It's a swear word, for goodness sakes!! A derogatory word for homosexual, to be precise.Arno 03:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
            • Really? Being gay myself, you'd figure I would've known about that one already. I think it's meant more in the sense of a pillow being poofed up to look more... poofy. I don't think this is really a username that presents a problem, and the user is not vandalising at all, so I'm moving this to the archives. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Dboba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- User has warned many times but still blanking pages--Ugur Basak 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked 31 hours. Ian13ID:540053 18:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Martinheward (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Blanking France. --Pixeltoo 15:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Blocked 24 hours. Ian13ID:540053 18:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Roger Danger Field Account created today appears to be someone's sockpuppet, probably a blocked or banned user. Is vandalizing pages and leaving profane responses to RfC requests. Durova 17:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

    • I haven't vandalised anything. Wikipedia does not have a swear filter, and it has been widely said that the censoring of content deemed bad by some ages is not part of the agenda. That said, I can swear if I feel like it, as long as I'm making my point.

      If you don't like it, then I'm sorry, I'll try not to swear as much, but calling it vandalism when I'm clearly making valid points is incorrect. I also am not a clone, if that's what I assume you mean by "sockpuppet". Thank you. Roger Danger Field 18:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

      • Refer to this user's edits at Jordan. User:Roger Danger Field vandalized it three times today, including once after I left a note on his/her userpage and filed this notice. This user violated WP:3RR in order to claim that the country of Jordan exists as an excuse for Michael Jordan. With one of those edits (the second ever on this username), this editor requests discussion on the talk page. A genuinely new user wouldn't know Wikipedia that well. Durova 21:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
        • You are incorrect sir. I reverted twice, not 3 times. The first edit was adding a quote, which got some coverage when it was said. It was also a prominent quote on Jordan, which did have some coverage at the time it was made. So I'd like to make clear this is not vandalism, but a content dispute. Clearly, some of you have not read the "biting the newcomer" thing, which may I add is a cracking read. You have not once asked me or gave a reason why the line needed to be removed, and I think there is a certain amount of bad faith in that. Some of the honourable gentlemen here need to realize that some of us are learners, and that if content shouldn't be where it is, you should help not continually go on a defaming exercise. Content Disputes are not vandalism. Roger Danger Field 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
          • No action taken. The content the user added to the page in question was valid trivia; whether it belongs in the article or not is a matter for discussion. There was no violation of the three-revert rule, and the user responded to warnings with reasonable civility. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Danielle_Cunio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- This user is on a mission to evangelize Wikipedia [3]. She has repeatedly inserted "It's the one true religion." into Christianity, using multiple sock puppets:
  • Beast Gripper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- vandalasing pages, replacing with his thoughts etc. Also vandalised my user pages. He has warned 2 times--Ugur Basak 01:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Indef blocked as vandalism only account. Ian13ID:540053 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Arabiangoggles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has vandalised my Userpage. [4] and i have good reason to believe he is a socketpuppet of User:Cooliomccool
    • Moved alert from "Pages" to "Registered users". // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Indef blocked as vandalism only account. Ian13ID:540053 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Jebubby placing offensive images on random pages. RealityDistortionField 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Indef blocked as vandalism only account. Ian13ID:540053 18:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A.J.A. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Abuse of tags. Bad-faith placing of {{afd}} tags on articles that do not meet such criteria. Vandalism is in progress as he keeps nominating only Christian biography entries for deletion; most of which are authors of numerous books and presidents of universities. He is up to 10 and counting. --Jason Gastrich 05:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User A.J.A. is, apparently, a Christian. Gastrich's complaint is based on the fact that it's his articles that are being nominated. Gastrich's obvious disagreement that the articles should be deleted is not evidence of bad faith on the part of A.J.A., nor is it vandalism. - WarriorScribe 06:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Untrue. I didn't write all of those articles. When a person nominates only 10 Christian biographies in the same day (some of which you voted to keep), it's vandalism. --Jason Gastrich 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I sit corrected. Indeed, not all were originally written by Gastrich. However, there is no definition of vandalism that I know of that says that an editor (and a Christian) nominating articles for deletion that he/she feels should be deleted constitutes "vandalism." By the way, I only voted to keep one. It's still not vandalism. - WarriorScribe 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm trying to correct the fact that there are a bunch of unencyclopedic stubs (mostly started by you) about people in your little corner of fundamentalism. A.J.A. 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Cleaning up an encyclopedia is certainly a noble goal. I'm still waiting for how it is that the fact that they happen to be "Christian" biographies, most of which Gastrich either wrote or edited (and many of which are, hey, surprise, affiliated with LBU) is "vandalism" or constitutes "bad faith" editing. - WarriorScribe 06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm mostly agnostic (literally and figuratively in this debate) but as an outsider, this certainly looks like a vendetta, A.J.A. Could be coincidence, as some of your AFD noms look legit, but others are hard to construe as good faith, try as I might. Not really vandalism by my definition, but especailly in light of the personal attacks I have to wonder about your motivations. - Jaysus Chris 06:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I had a look and if I thought it wasn't notable, I nominated it. There were some I didn't nominate. A.J.A. 06:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, but it might serve you to review Wikipedia:Notability. "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." I don't have time to go through all of your AFD nominations, every one I have looked at more than satisfies this criterea. - Jaysus Chris 06:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Given Mr Gastrich's dubious conduct in relation to these AfDs, including vote recruiting based on some perceived vendetta, I'm surprised he's drawing attention to them. I haven't seen a policy forbidding vote recruiting, but going on about this persecution is at least skirting WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Given his experience on this website he should understand our deletion policy by now, and why nominating 10 or indeed 100 articles in good faith does not constitute vandalism. --Malthusian (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Let's make one thing clear.I'm looking up each person individually on the internet and forming an independent opinion of each before I vote.Because of this I won't even have time to look at some of the names until tomorrow.If I were just rubber stamping each right in a row you would have a right to complain, otherwise it's ridiculous. No where on that talk page do I promise how I'll vote.I said I would check out.I don't know how I will vote until I look at each one. Are you trying to obstruct freedom of speech between other wikians ? This is getting to feel more like some sort of vendetta by the moment. California12 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Assuming you're talking to me (please use indenting so people can follow the thread structure (fixed since post)), I haven't ever suggested, neither here nor in the AfDs, that you shouldn't vote just Gastrich notified you of the discussions, or that your votes were rubber stamping. All I'm saying is that a) nominating several similar articles is not vandalism (true), that going onto talk pages to ask people to vote a certain way is generally bad form (true) and that nailing oneself to a cross directly violates WP:AGF, skirts WP:NPA and is generally not a constructive way to develop this encyclopaedia (true). --Malthusian (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
            • Jason notified me because I've been discussing with him several cases where possibly biased actions were taken against articles or users that were Christian.I am the one who originally initiated these discussions.He asked me to vote and voice an opinion, but he did not ask me to vote a certain way.California12 04:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
              • I can't help feeling that's a rather academic distinction when he begins his request with bemoaning the atheist cabal and attacking a good editor as a troll. --Malthusian (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
      • No action taken. As this is either a content or a user dispute, depending on the way you choose to look at it, please see the dispute resolution process. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Cooliomccool has been vandalising India related pages since yesterdays [5], [6], [7] . When i confronted him on his talkpage, he racially abused me [8].अमेय आरयन AMbroodEY 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked by Longhair. Wikibofh(talk) 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Moved alert from "Pages" to "Registered users". // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Govin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been removing links to Bogdanov affair from articles. His second-ever edit was to replace the redirect at Bogdanoff affair with a copy of the page itself. Crossposting this to WP:AN/I. --Angr (tɔk) 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No action taken, as this appears to be a content dispute. The user has removed references to a disputed theory from pages that describe various hoaxes, which may be a good-faith desire to disassociate a potentially valid theory from known hoaxes. Please see the dispute resolution process and relist if the user makes any arguably bad-faith edits. // Pathoschild 05:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Canadian_champ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - user has been uploading nonattributed images of various World Wrestling Entertainment divas, as well as altering articles on said divas to include them. Possible clueless newbieism, however nature of images (photo spreads on Playboy, wardrobe malfunctions, etc) may be a sign of vandalism. Perhaps user believes Wikipedia is an image repository, for which it is not. kelvSYC 08:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Also to add: vandalized Trailer Park Boys.
      • No action taken. This user does not seem to have made any edits that are clearly bad faith, and there has been no attempt that I can see to discuss the issue with the user. Uploading images of semi-dressed or undressed woman in not in itself an indication of bad faith, nor is their inclusion into articles. Please see Assume Good Faith and the dispute resolution process. // Pathoschild 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mikeabundo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Mikeabundo has been constantly deleting links from the community pages simply because the deleted links in question appear to be competing against one cosplay webpage he owns that had already listed in the community sites. He is also close to breaking the 3RR rule, having edited more than once a day several times, and usually every time the link he has been deleting is re-added. Attempted tries to reach dispute resolution has failed. Mirshariff 11:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  • History_X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Repeated malicious/nonsense edits to Jesus. Justin Eiler 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No action taken, user stopped after warnings.. // Pathoschild 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nick-Rowan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - keeps making the following edit on the David Irving article: [9]-Carabinieri 15:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User already blocked one day for 3RR violation. // Pathoschild 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Super_Grover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Super Grover has made several personal attacks on User:Chadbryant, repeatedly adding his picture to the Terry Funk article and making libellous allegations. He has also persistently edited the Percy Pringle page without explanation and in the face of accepted facts. Several other registered users, e.g. Owen_Stevenson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), have made virtually identical edits to Super Grover, so an IP check might be prudent in case sokc puppets are being used. McPhail 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The user is already indefinitely blocked. // Pathoschild 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] December 2005