Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This is a discussion archive created in April 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] Unregistered users

  • 199.0.65.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- I think this guy is link spamming wikipedia. An nslookup on his ip give "gw01.penton.com". The website penton.com is a food service thing and this person is editing websites related to baking. Maybe a block on this IP would be good. I reverted his/her edits twice and I only have one left before 3RR. Tony 19:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've given a {{spam}} warning, but they seem to have stopped for now. Report again if needed. Petros471 17:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 24.86.67.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- changing heights and weights without citing any sources. They're all within the ballpark of plausibility, but unless the user is copying from a book or something, I'm wary. // Amcfreely 03:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Anon user at 66.228.245.85 had a similar pattern before being blocked as a vandal. Amcfreely 03:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to verify the information either way? Petros471 19:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 24.195.100.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- A long history of adding fake newscasts, and removing real ones on various local TV-related articles. Already warned many times. Requesting a ban for about a month. Good kitty 13:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whomp (talk • contribs) 16:47, 11 Apr 2006 (UTC)
    • User has never been blocked before, so a month is out of the question. --ZsinjTalk 13:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
    • If they return with clear vandalism then please report to WP:AIV. Petros471 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 194.128.151.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- This is an Elsevier IP address that is being used to subtly change information in articles that may be considered critical of Elsevier. Given the size and importance of Elsevier and its relation to discussions of intellectual property law, I think this qualifies as extremely important and in need of some form of urgent, official response on the part of Wikipedia. Elijahmeeks 23:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Warned them, watch more. Petros471 11:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Also 194.128.151.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) which edited Citation index immediately following .241 on 28 March. RIPE states that the entire 194.128.151.* range is registered to Elsevier, but I don't know of any easy way to check the contributions of all of them to see if there are any other active IP addresses in that range used for questionable edits. I'd rather not do it manually, but I will in this case given the nature of things. Elijahmeeks 19:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

These are some of the articles

Battle of kursk He removes 300 thousand casulites for the german side wihtout useing any source which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Kursk&diff=47294776&oldid=47142802

Winter war he alters the figures and removes 2 key paragraphs which are Finnish President Urho Kekkonen stated in September 1963, "When now, after more than 20 years, we put ourselves in the position of the Soviet Union, then in light of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, the concern that the USSR had, and should have had, in relation to its safety at the end of the 1930's becomes understandable." AND It was recently confirmed in a study by Finnish historian Lasse Laaksonen that the Finnish army was on the verge of total collapse when the armistice was signed.[1] It is speculated that since Stalin had practically wiped out his intelligence apparatus in Finland during the purges, he was not aware that continuing the war for only a week longer would have led to the inevitable and total defeat of the Finnish army. Despite the heroic resistance of the Finns, the Soviets would have inevitably won through attrition. This last part has been sourced and can easily be varified here http://www.hs.fi/english/article/1101978837065

Battle of Berlin he alters sourced figures without stateing any source which can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Berlin&diff=47120722&oldid=46740056

He has done the same in many article if there is any doubt that this is sneaky vandalism then I can provide more articles where he has done the same thing, altered sourced figures without himself proveding any source. (Deng 09:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC))

  • 81.99.182.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Over in Saw III, he keeps on false plot information with no sources to back it up. I revert it and tell him he needs to back up his sources. He says he IS the source and "I cant give you any wevsite sources because it has not been released onto the net, i work for the studio." I tell him that this violates the Wikipedia:Original research rule, but he kept on doing and ignored me. When I told him that I reported him, he said "y r u such a rat, bum head?" and "they have never had to deal with tattle-tales like you mr. bum head!"// --CyberGhostface 12:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Ugh, I didn't see this one down here at the bottom. I've commented on the Talk page and reverted his most recent addition of the uncited material from the article. If it continues, try to find a 3RR violation or a personal attack to block him for. --ZsinjTalk 14:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 83.109.24.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)----This IP's most recent "edit" at Fleur-de-lis includes: "(A warning (last chance) to the one who is in lack of knowlegde) dont chance this ! or your crown of life will be removed. ref: se the collection fleur de lys (external links). Best regards, Jesus..." There is a history of an anon user with various IPs spending a lot of time making edits with a religious/mystical flavour. No recent responses from him/her on talk page. Thanks for looking at this. --HJMG 12:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 69.59.189.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - a peculiar mix of legit edits and vandalism (usually simply blanking a comment or part of a page). Seems to be no regular pattern to it, except it's all in the last 36 hours. Have warned. PS - hope I've done this right - this page has got a hell of a lot more complicated recently! Grutness...wha? 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Archived. I suspect that this is either a tactic to evade detection or administrator intervention, or a shared IP. Since this is an IP editing for the first time, I assume the latter. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 09:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Registered users

  • Darkred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- The article Iranian Turks was drastically changed back to many revisions earlier by this user since he did not like one or two points. A brief look at his talk page, he seems to be complained about. I have put a protected sign in the article and reverted his edits back. 59.167.0.169 14:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Please see dispute resolution. Please see the note I left on the article talk page re:protection. Petros471 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has crossed the line from a mere content dispute to breaking the rules by deleting without cause my comments to a talk page. Additionally, Merecat is lying about this, and other things, using veiled ad hominems, is gaming the system. Merecat is apparently willing to do whatever it takes to obstruct progress on the rationale to impeach article, including break the rules and hope to slip by. This brazen rule breaking leads me to believe that merecat has been getting away with murder for some time now, and I request that merecat at least be recused from that article, and that whatever the process is to determine whether or not a user should be banned start. Nobody should have to quit adding comments or working on a project because as far as they know, anything they do ill just be deleted without cause. (and obviously and only for the purpose and obviously and only because those comments were inconvenient to merecats case, not because there was any good reason to delete.) Prometheuspan 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Merecat
    • The request for comment is receiving quite a lot of attention. If you need a block it would probably be best to post to WP:AN/I (as a block could be controversial) unless you can point to specific edits that are vandalism. Petros471 19:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Malcolm_McPloptick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- I suspect this user is part of the multiple IP vandalism efforts from IP space 80.47.*.* that is vandalizing the Scientology related articles. The two images uploaded by this user are both recently used by the persistent vandals from 80.47.*.* to vandalize the Scientology and David Miscavige articles among many others. Please check out the edit histories of those two articles. Note this user has only made one other edit, which was also vandalism to a Scientology-related article // Vivaldi (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Tagged the image in question for speedy deletion. Also, it might help to semi-protect Tom Cruise to deter the amount of vandalism that article experiences. --ZsinjTalk 17:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Archived with no further action at this stage, please re-report any further issues. Petros471 09:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Mackdrtosh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Overloads pages with random strings. [5]. This can only be generated through vandal bot or some other external program. Either way someones first edit being this kind of vandalism prompts indefinate block. This person may be a sockpuppet of MARMOT as he is known to run vandalism bots. Cat chi? 18:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Blocked. Petros471 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The_Psycho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- The user has made midely disparate (and almost random seeming) vandalism across a number of subjects. As of now, 7 different, unconnected, users have attempted to get him to acknowledge the issue and stop the bad edits, but he has not responded at all (see user's talk page). // Kickstart70·Talk 16:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
He has now attempted to remove the issues on his talk page rather than deal with them. --Kickstart70·Talk 02:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
A couple more points about this editor: 1) I believe it probable that he's a sockpuppet of a nameblocked user, because on his third day after registration he complained here on Jimbo's talk page about Curp's blocking usenames with "shit" in them. (2) he's edited some pretty fraught areas (espcially around Lolicon and the image deleted by Sam Korn in a really unhelpful way, e.g. "Ya, remove child porn is censorship" (sentiment and illiteracy typical) (3) this diff (both sides) and this block log indicate he's also likely nameblocked user "Child p0rnographer" (which in turn is one of many similar variations on that username, all blocked, used by one person) Herostratus

He uses ambiguous sources and although I asked him several times not to do so:

Again another claim in an article:

He confesses that "that indicates (points to) Virchow being a Freemason" but indication is speculation. He still pushes these unproven claims: [7]

He claims, that I have to proove that these ambiguous sources are not reliable and blames me that I cannot read: [8]

I would be glad if Virchow was a Freemason, but I cannot see a credible proove nor the relevance for these articles. Normally you should be able to mention at least the Lodge where a Mason was initiated. I am from Germany and I have lots of sources to check if somebody was a Freemason in Germany, but although Virchow was mentioned as the creator of the word Kulturkampf and as a friend of some individual Freemasons, he is not listed as a Freemason. There was not even a speculation eg. in contrast to Beethoven or Schiller where we still have no proof. As a Freemason, I have neither the time nor the interest in an edit war so I will no longer revert those non-encyclopedic claims and leave this case to you. But I hope you will be interested in quality like me.

I have the same account in the German Wikipedia with lots of edits and even got an award for my support recently: "Aktion Winterspeck" so I think I should be quite unsuspicious to be unreliable. Perhaps he's even another sockpuppet since JASpencer is a single purpose account and spreads his conspiracy theories against freemasonry like the other accounts? These socks seem to reincarnate faster than they can be blocked. --SGOvD webmaster (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First I've heard of this. Needless to say that there has been no dispute resolution tried on what is essentially a content dispute as to whether an assertion is properly and reliably sourced. As for being a sock or a single purpose account, as I have been around since 2003 so the allegations surprise me. Please let me know of the outcome. This user has been trying to throw dirt at me because of a series of content disputes. JASpencer 12:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Could this please be removed as (1) I was not warned and (2) this is a content dispute and there has been no RFC done on this. JASpencer 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Archived, per reasons given by JASpencer, which certainly does not appear to be a sockpuppet account. Possibly links for future reference: WP:RFCU and WP:DR. Petros471 20:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Xino User Xino has, in essence taken over the Shadow the Hedgehog page, if anyone makes any edit, especially to the Super Shadow section of the page, he reverts the edits and starts either insulting people or threatens to get admin action to ban them. I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but in my opinion Xino's behavior works against Wiki's ideals. --Zikar 02:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I copyedited and cleaned up the section of that page (Super Shadow) in question, however some of it is unnecessary, such as the list of proof it's really-super-not-hyper-because-i-made-it-a-list. Based upon the result of my actions, I hope a resolution can be found to this conflict. --ZsinjTalk 08:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I have not seen any edits by Xino since this report. Archiving in 24 hours. --ZsinjTalk 17:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Is this still an issue? If so, this belongs on WP:AN/I. --ZsinjTalk 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This may be a dead issue. I can't speak for Choess, but I personally haven't witnessed any suspicious activity for days. —Veyklevar 23:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Archived. --ZsinjTalk 17:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


  • (RIP DEB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) repeatedly blanking comments at Talk:Dennis Brown and on Dennis Brown relating to (now passed away) Brown's cocaine addiction. Has been warned by 2 separate users, SqueakBox 12:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • A very clear 3RR. I was about to move it over to the 3RR board, but opted against it. --ZsinjTalk 08:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    He's done it again, blanking sections of the article and talk page. It is getting very tiring reverting all the time...Reggaedelgado 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've given him a final warning. If he continues to add nonsense to the article, a post should be made on WP:AN/I. --ZsinjTalk 17:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Article was semi-protected for two days after this user made one of his usual edits on 4/9. Also created a sockpuppet for abusive purposes which has been blocked indefinately. If this continues, find an instance of 3RR and block. --ZsinjTalk 14:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
        • User was blocked for 24 hours on April 9th and has been contributing to discussion on the article's talk page ever since. Looks like our work here is done. Archived. --ZsinjTalk 17:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There is a complex pattern of vandalism going on at the Dalip Singh page (history) -- a good number of IP addresses are showing up and inserting (among other things) the text "HE KILLED A GUY!" These IP addresses have been warned repeatedly, and, once warned, the text starts coming from another IP. The IPs involved so far (from most recent to least recent):
68.206.131.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
64.90.150.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
72.56.69.104 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
152.163.101.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- AOL IP
141.219.72.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
172.144.14.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Blocked for 48 hours.
129.15.122.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log).

Others include Wikipedia users Babarossa27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ( Indefinitely blocked) and David Madden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). And that's just in the last two hours! The page history shows that this has apparently been going on since 2138 UTC on 7 April 2006. Yansa 04:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I suspect the person may be using open proxies to make these edits. I have copied these IPs to WP:OP for further investigation. --ZsinjTalk 07:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Proxy scans came back negative. --ZsinjTalk 14:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Cigammagicwizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- He keeps on posting nonsense information to the Saw III article. He has been reverted a number of times and has been warned by other people yet he keeps on persisting. // CyberGhostface 10:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Recieved a block on 4/6 for 3RR on another movie's article. If this continues like it is, find an instance of 3RR and he can be blocked for that. --ZsinjTalk 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Following are all probably related (sockpuppets) to the 3RR ban of User:The Psycho here:

--Kickstart70-T-C 23:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

as well as:
152.17.52.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
152.17.139.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
152.17.53.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

They seem to insert and delete nonsense text. The IPs are from Wake Forest University. It could be one guy in the library or a group of them in the dorms. Bucketsofg 12:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Zerida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- This user repeatedly removes a certain category from the subcategory Cat:Egyptian Americans. After several attempts to explain that user shouldn't impose political POVs failed, and since the user has at least one 3RR violation record[13], an admin has protected the category but not in its original state[14] (mistakenly?). User's reason is that the subcategory remained several months until a user added the category, in addition to other comments in the talk page. - Eagletalk 14:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Now on WP:RFAr. In the meantime in another third party wants to take a look at Category talk:Egyptian Americans and help reach a consensus... Petros471 16:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Arbitration was rejected. I've unprotected the category for now, as it has been a while with no discussion. Petros471 10:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)