Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/07

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


IP addresses

  • 70.81.117.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- This user has a history of inserting false information with regard to race/ethnicity in Canada/Canadians, most egregiously in the form of blatantly false statistics and misrepresenting government statistics (speculatively/subjectively interpreting them/doing original research). Most recent vandalism of this kind: [8] They were blocked several times in the past, and have slowed down this activity but it persists. I'm also concerned that they may have falsely added ethnic categories to hundreds of Canadian bio pages and were not reverted. I wasn't sure if I should report it to long term abuse (trying to figure out how exactly this whole system works). User stated on their talk page that they "have an account": [9] - no idea if true or what the user name is. heqs 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've been following 70.81.117.175 for quite a while. It is my belief that their account that they refered to is User:Alm93. Just browsing this users edit history you can see a similarity, but the best proof is that Alm93 created and populated the Scandinavian Canadians category (example edit of populating this category, see their edit history around the same time for tons more edits adding people to the category) and the category got deleted by User:Lankiveil and then User:70.81.117.175 left this message on Lankiveil's user page refering to that category as "MY PAGE". Qutezuce 08:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    20:24, 13 July 2006 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "70.81.117.175 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term vandalism). Archiving. --ZsinjTalk 03:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (multiple ip addresses) I have a free to use forum called Autographs R Us (http://freddie1968.proboards98.com/). It's purpose is to help fellow autograph collectors with all aspects of the hobby and also includes an authentication guide. I figured adding it to the links section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autographs External Links would be a good way of letting people know the forum exists. Since it's creation, the link has been repeatedly vandalised or deleted by different ip addresses. This results in me having to revert the link back. I have even tried rewording on occasion hoping that whoever is doing this would not recognise it immediately but that has not worked. Can someone please help me identify who is doing this and stop it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucylou (talk • contribs) 16:34, July 19, 2006.
    Archived. The multiple IP addresses are justified in removing the links; please note that links should not be added to articles simply to notify visitors of the website. For information on what links are acceptable, please see the style guide on external links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Registered users

  • lostsociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User lostsociety has been posting profane and abusive posts, plus posting promotional language over and over again. Please see this and this as just 2 examples. User also has posted 10 images which had to be removed for false copyrights and continues to post promotional lanugage on the Bambu page. User is related to the Bambu company and therefore is trying to use Wiki to promote his family's product :( He also posts under the IP 24.215.229.224 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
    Warned by Jzg. Petros471 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Further info: Lostsociety AKA Mookie Chookie
    Lostsociety claims they “called Miguel Y Costas” and found out that Abadie papers were discontinued. He says this because he works for Bambu, who has all of their papers made by Miguel Y Costas. However in the USA, Abadie is a trademark of Republic Tobacco (a competitor of Miguel Y Costas), and it is certainly not discontinued. This was only posted so that he could justify removing Abadie from the rolling paper list to make Bambu the top slot.
    • Lostsociety has posted 14 images of Bambu papers and products. Each time he makes incorrect claims such as “image from Bambu website”. However the images are not found on the Bambu website and are very clearly promotional images
    • Lostsociety continually reverts and posts promotional language such as “Bambu papers are the best in the world” type comments (Bambu are the #1 selling rolling paper in the Carribean, Bambu are the #1 selling paper, Bambu is the last independent company, Bambu rules, etc..). He continually adds these comments to various rolling paper pages (Bambu, Rolling Papers, Miguel Y Costas, Juicy Jays and others, and undoes anyone’s changes that removes or alters this promotional language
    • Lostsociety posts slanderous and defamatory text on brands that compete with Bambu.
    • Lostsociety posts under 3 names, all with the same IP address and all have the same tactic of promoting Bambu papers above all others
    When cornered, Lostsociety tries to deflect blame by saying that people who revert or alter his promotional language & image posts work for Bambu competitors (yes, it’s all one big conspiracy against Bambu, this is classic caught-blame-others psychology).
    24.215.229.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User 24.215.229.224 is 'lostsociety'. Now that he has been warned he is just using his IP to continue to add promotional language for his brand, Bambu. Please see above warning against Lostsociety (same person)
    I saw this edit after the warning, however, this user is only using his/her IP address to continue this activity. On Abadie, a content dispute seems to have formed, but WP:RFI is not the place for content disputes. 3RR doesn't look like it's being violated, so I'm archiving. --ZsinjTalk 15:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • User:CmdrClow has repeatedly removed warnings that I have placed on his Talk page, even after I have warned him for removing them. He has edited my comments on article discussion pages, and left unsigned comments. When I advised him, politely, to always remember to sign his comments he proceeded to remove what I said from the article's discussion page. He believes that if he labels my warnings "personal attacks" then he can remove them. I have warned him repeatedly, and I would like someone to investigate this situation and take the most appropriate action. If you could respond to my talk page with the outcome of your investigation and final decision I would appreciate it. Thank you. Bignole 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    Left a message on CmdrClow's talk page. --ZsinjTalk 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • AOL account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This user has been removing vandalism warnings, and leaving this in the edit summary: "Removing old warnings, per WP:AN". The link goes not to an official policy, but to a discussion where this user unilaterally announced that (s)he was removing all "old" vandalism tags associated with AOL accounts, despite no other users or admins concurring in his actions, and despite one other user pointing out that what this user was doing is, in fact, vandalism. We need an admin because there are "well over a 1000" pages that now need to be reverted. --M@rēino 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    I raised similar concerns in the discussion at WP:AN. I noticed at least one example where a block notice was removed while the block was still active and another where it had expired less than an hour before. This looks like it falls foul of the vandalism guidelines to me. I'd like another admin to review, though. Gwernol 19:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    In that case I suggest you try DragonflySixtyseven, or Pathoschild, along with 99% of the RC Patrollers who are by now aware of it, in the mean time, I'm going to continue doing so, because even in the very worst case scenario, it's allowing me to compile the first ever comprehensive list of active AOL users, something that's been lacking for a very long time--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 20:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Besides, these changes are neither radical nor unprecedented, the only thing unorthodox about it is the scale on which it is being done, literally every single tagged AOL user to ever edit Wikipedia, as far as I can tell, all of this great big comprehensive list of AOL users who have edited, ever--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 21:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    The user claims that there have been bans "based on warnings that are anywhere from weeks, to months, and even years old, in some cases blocks are even being issued on IPs that haven't edited in days", but doesn't provide any examples. I wonder why? Andjam 23:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Because that would annoy the people who placed the blocks? Becuase most sysops will eventually admit their error and unblock, and there's no reason to beat a dead horse? Because it happens so often I never thought anyone would bother to dispute it? Because that has nothing to do with an already established policy of removing pointless warnings that are at least several years old? Because I did everything in accordance with existing policy regarding AOL talk pages? because I only reported it to AN/i before hand because I realized it would be flooding recent changes for a few hours and thought people might like to know why this was happening?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 23:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Not to mention, the best thing about using a new account is that I don't have to incur the wrath of every single AOL IP on wikipedia?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 23:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    But you are not just removing warnings that are several years old. In some cases you have removed warnings about blocks that are still active. It appears to be an indicriminate removal of all warnings from all AOL IPs. While some of them may not longer have meaning, its certainly not true that they are all outdated. It is also a violation of the vandalism policy. Gwernol 23:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    No, it's not, when you leave a warning on an AOL talk page you may as well be leaving it in the middle of an article, they hardly even qualify as talk pages, warnings that are only a few days old are no more or less relevant than those that are hours, weeks, or days, they'll never reach the correct person, the same thing goes for a block notification, the correct person will never see it--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 23:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
    Possible Solution? Now that there's a list of active AOL clients, wouldn't it be the best possible solution to have Crypticbot archive old sections regularly? I may not be infallible, but an archiving bot on the other hand.. ..thoughts?--AOL account (205.188.116.200) 01:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Archived. AOL account is not breaking new grounds in doing this, although they are doing so on an unprecedented scale. Various users, myself included, have been pruning messages on AOL talk pages for quite a while as part of the WikiProject on warning layout standardisation. That WikiProject states the following recommendation:
    AOL rapidly rotates IP addresses assigned to its users, so that a message addressed to one user is often received by a different user. AOL users are typically assigned a new talk page at intervals of less than fifteen minutes. The result of this problem is that legitimate users may check their talk page and be confused or aggravated by a large number of warnings that they had nothing to do with. This is the subject of many complaints emailed to the Foundation, and has a noticeably negative effect on the opinions of legitimate users operating from AOL.
    To prevent this, warnings should be removed from AOL talk pages much more regularly than usual. How soon to do so is debated, varying from hours to days. Removal after a week is generally accepted.
    Regardless of whether or not this should be done is irrelevant. AOL account is acting in complete good faith, and as such there are no sanctions whatsoever possible through this page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Skankboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) actually not a case of vandalism per se, but more a request to investigate user for possible misrepresentation. on this user's page are userbox templates which say he is a member of the counter-vandalism unit and is equipped with Vandalproof. however there is nothing in his talkpage history nor on the Vandalproof page that confirms this user was ever approved to use the feature.
    Furthermore these userboxes showed up on his user page after receiving at least ONE warning template regarding rude behavior on Wikipedia. I'd like someone to look into this and see if this guy's being truthful. Drmagic 23:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    I've removed the VandalProof userbox from his talk page since he's not approved for its use. I've also left him a message on his talk page. Anyone can claim to be a member of the CVU, so I'm not taking any action on that. This isn't really something that needs to come here as any editor could have taken these actions - it doesn't require the intervention of an admin. Best, Gwernol 00:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    I wouldn't concern this to be a place where admin intervention is required (thinking WP:AIAV for that purpose). We investigate. --ZsinjTalk 03:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    Thank you for taking action. only reason i put this here is because there's no organization on Wikipedia. but now that i know i will act accordingly. thanks. Drmagic 00:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    Archived. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Neuropean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editing my comments on my talk page and on the Ruth Kelly article talk page [12] - please also see subjects [13] where this user seems to relish his warnings and celebrate his begative behaviour. Several editors have considered this user less than a positive influence on WP. He also has a habit of delting comments by other editors from his talk page despite being told this is bad form. In the past 24 hours he has broken 3RR by reverting my comments on the Ruth Kelly talk page. This is all in addition to previous poor behaviour, Making a POint AfDs, bad faith nominations, etc. Robertsteadman 09:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    3RR rule not broken. See 3RR guidelines. First edit was refactoring. However, in reverting my edits three times, Mr Steadman has in fact broken 3RR. No vandalism of talk pages. Refactoring as per WP:NPA. Neuropean 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    This evening I have discovrered taht Neuropean has posted a spam link and when I removed it he immediately reverted it [14] claiming it was not spam. I have also removed a copyright violation that he started by copying out info from another website [15]. This is the second time I have asked for an RFi on this editor and am increasingly concerned that there is no chance of him becoming a useful and proiductive editor.Robertsteadman 21:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have also repeatedly asked this vandal and stalker to stop calling me Rob - something he is doinjg to deliberately wind me up - and yet he continues - this stalker seems to be out of control. He's made less than 200 edits - and so few of them are useful to the encyclopedia. Robertsteadman 21:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
    Now user: Neuropean has started a "new archive" on his talk page about me. [16]. This is getting ridiculous. Robertsteadman 19:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
    And now he has put this on my talk page and his own talk page. There are several things wrong - I am not some of those other accounts, he has published where I live.... surely this should be blanked? Robertsteadman 06:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    And now he has vandalised Robert Steadman to make a point - [17] - this is getting ridiculous. Robertsteadman 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    And his latst vandalsim was to delete this RFI whioch I have restored. Robertsteadman 05:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    I have asked and asked you not to stalk me but you have reused to stop. You complained that I had mentioned where you live, so I removed it. I thought that I'd remove the reference on your article just to make sure that you couldn't be identified. Now you accuse me of making libellous remarks. Just what have I said that is libellous?Neuropean 21:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    Comment: Oh for goodness sake! Could we have a 'little' perspective here please? How many times are you going to report me?* You complain about me making a copyvio mistake - have you yourself not been warned about copyvio re pictures?
    You do not like me calling you Rob, you asked twice. My next comment on the page did not contain 'Rob'. I don't know why you object anyway, your previous blocked username was Robsteadman wasn't it? You know the one that was permanently blocked by ArbCom for trollish behaviour and sockpuppetry! How you have the cheek to complain about being called Rob when I have asked you dozens of times to stop calling me 'sockpuppet' I don't know. You have even added the text 'vandal' when you give my username.Neuropean 00:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)* We disgree about the spam link and I have asked for the intervention of a neutral third party. What more can I do?
    I suggest that if you dislike my edits so much, you take me off your watchlist and stop following me around from article to article reverting my edits.* How do we decide what a 'productive' editor is? Is it someone who clutters up admin with a stream of RFIs RFCUs? Someone who generally takes up at least 50% of any discussion page/adminpage he edits on with personal attacks and consistently breaks the 'don't shoot the messenger' advice? Hmm. It's a tricky one isn't itNeuropean 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 70.81.117.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- This user has a history of inserting false information with regard to race/ethnicity in Canada/Canadians, most egregiously in the form of blatantly false statistics and misrepresenting government statistics (speculatively/subjectively interpreting them/doing original research). Most recent vandalism of this kind: [18] They were blocked several times in the past, and have slowed down this activity but it persists. I'm also concerned that they may have falsely added ethnic categories to hundreds of Canadian bio pages and were not reverted. I wasn't sure if I should report it to long term abuse (trying to figure out how exactly this whole system works). User stated on their talk page that they "have an account": [19] - no idea if true or what the user name is. heqs 08:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Update: 20:24, 13 July 2006 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "70.81.117.175 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 3 months (Long-term vandalism) heqs 12:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yep, I checked out some of their edits, same type of stuff: misrepresenting census data and mass-adding ethnic categories to bio pages. Category:Scandinavian Canadians was deleted of course, but many instances of the "real" ethnic-Canadian categories mass-added to bio pages by this person will never be verifiable (many of them seem to be idly speculated by looking at the person's name, while others may be technically true, but just because you read somewhere that someone is of a certain ethnic heritage doesn't mean you get to decide what they would declare themselves as on a StatsCan census form, or otherwise identify as, etc). IMO this is a serious problem, ideally I think the user should be blocked and mass reverted. Thoughts? Does a checkuser need to be performed first? heqs 12:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a block and mass revert of this users edits is a good idea. I don't think I've seen a single edit that they have made that actually improved Wikipedia. Many of their edits are questionably representing census data, or just inserting flat out wrong figures, and the rest of their edits, like Heqs said, speculate about enthnicity likely based only on the persons last name. Qutezuce 20:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/07&oldid=1146686531"