Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/11

message: es:usuario:alhen has deleted a lot of images of Cúcuta in commons without reason.
Please help me to get it back.
--Ricardoramirezj 20:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is constantly changing links on Talk:XennoBB which show soe negativity to his software to invalid links (changing parts of IP address for example). This IP address also belongs to User:Osgiliath who is the owned of the XennoBB product. Basically those trying to present a biased (two sides of the story) view of his application and what he has been doing is being covered up by him sneakily editing links in the talk page. Surfichris 02:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Constantly hasn't happened in the last four days.  Prior activity was indeed link vandalism but not all that frequent.  The IP already has a warning on the talk page, so report future activity at WP:AN/I.  In addition, all editors to this page should be mindful of WP:CIVIL. Durova 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|IP 84.232.195.111}}

message: GallifreyanPostman had been blocked by Alphachimp for a period of 48 hours because I happened to notice an article called "October 20, 2006 mass suicide" (the contents of which have been moved here User:Alphachimp/bad because of my request after noticing a pattern) was a hoax article.  I've connected GallifreyanPostman to the two above IPs, which have at some point vandalised Wikipedia (I have evidence on my user page).  I've also requested a checkuser thingamig at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/GallifreyanPostman. -- Sapphire 04:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most recent activity from any of these places is 20 October.  Post again if problems resume. Durova 01:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|62.136.225.100}} and {{IPvandal|84.68.226.151}}

message: An examination of the edit history of this IP address shows subtle, sometimes comical, changes to articles which are not obvious vandalism. It appears this is an individual who wishes to "make a mark" without being obvious. --KeepItClean 02:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Only one edit from this account since 10 October. Durova 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more edit since the last post, but appropriate and constructive. Durova 18:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw a new spate of vandalism, which was blatant.  24 hour block issued. Durova 02:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|205.126.68.2}}

message: User is posting psuedo vandalism-warnings on my talk page, reverting legitimate edits from other contributors on the Designer Whey Protein article - where they have also violated the three revert rule today. This user is improperly using  tags on the Biological Value article, which is fine, however he's been reverting any attempts at fixing these sections using proper templates and the posting "vandalism" and "admin" notices on my talk page about it. The user has also been uncivil and is accusing me of vandalism for attempting to fix these tags on other talk pages. There is also evidence that shows the user is a sockpuppet, editing under another IP address: 63.17.103.250. Finally this user is attempting to draw admin Glen S into this by claiming that Glen knows about him and his sockpuppeteering, and referencing him in his edit summaries. Sorry this is such an unusual request. I'm attempting to keep a cool head, however my patience is limited. Thanks in advance for any help.   Yankees76 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Admins, please note the following edit by the user above on another editors talk page regarding this issue. . Thanks. Yankees76 23:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A further instance of the users beligerant behaviour here on my talk page  and in edit summaries here:. Thanks again. Yankees76 05:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An administrator considered the older version a copyright violation. Durova 19:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've left a message on this editor's talk page.  Go ahead and list the pages you protest at Wikipedia:Requested moves if you haven't already.  this is probably a new editor acting in good faith.  Post again if problems persist. Durova 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPVandal|63.17.106.109}}

message: This user hasn't engage in direct vandalism but at the article Java the user has in the space of 3 minutes created an account, suggested a page move and requested the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves, well beyond the abilities of any other new editor I have come across in the last 12 months. The user has made no other edits since. Gnangarra 15:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obvious sockpuppet, but whose?  Subsequent edits make this look like a programmer who wants to disambiguate Java the island from other uses of Java - a reasonable proposal and presented in a reasonable manner (even if some editors may disagree with it).  On the face of it I don't see anything distinctly objectionable, even though sockpuppetry is bad Wikiquette. Durova 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is this an obvious sockpuppet? —Centrx→talk • 06:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How many new editors understand Wikipedia:Requested moves and the nuances of disambiguation in their first minutes after registration? Durova 13:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone who tries to move over a page that already exists is told to go to the Requested moves page. On the Requested moves page there are specific instructions, with templates. —Centrx→talk • 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe not obvious in that case.  Not very active or problematic either. Durova 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Dreddlox}}

message: I'm not quite sure what to do about this user.  Generally, edits from this IP address have been positive.  However, I have been reverting some edits made repeatly to the Fahrenheit article, which I find misleading and irrelevant.  In a posting on my talk page, 207.194.164.93 states:
:I've done a lot of editing on Wikipedia before, but I usually don't like to have a user name, as I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues.
I do not have sufficient knowledge of Wikipedia politics to know if such behaviour consitutes vandalism, is frowned upon, or is accepted.  In particular, saying "I don't like to get too invested in ongoing issues" seems to be somewhat at odds with the pattern of edits.  I don't want to spend too much time on this, but it seems like something that should be addressed. Michaelbusch 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User has returned, this time with name FahrenheitUser, adding back the same content I had been removing.  At least two other editors have protested the additions (Talk:Fahrenheit), which were made under the pretense of making the article NPOV.  In reality, they make the article Americocentric and thereby violate NPOV, as well as being badly worded and uncited. They have been reverted and re-added twice in the last hour. Michaelbusch 05:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this user is civil and the problem is a content dispute.  Suggest WP:RFC.  If this editor also rejects feedback from uninvolved parties then WP:DE might apply. Durova 14:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{User:FahrenheitUser|FahrenheitUser}}

message: A thorough check of this users contributions reveals that he is particularily involved in editing the the external links section. This users`s first edit to wikipedia was the creation of the article Wiles (since then, the article has turned into a disambg article). That version of the article was, as you can see, about a family living in York, North Yorkshire, UK: "The Wiles Family and Paul Wiles live in York, North Yorkshire, UK. Paul Wiles attended St. Oswald's Primary Sch....". This was on 9 December 2005. He didn`t edit anything until 3 February 2006, when he re-inserted the link to www.transdniestria.com. A whois search for transdniestria.com reveals that the registrant is the webdesing and search optimization firm "York Interweb" located at 15 Wenlock Terrace (the same) York, North Yorkshire YO10 4DU GB. In March, Jonathanpops reinserted the link to www.transdniestria.com ,  and even made some P.R. for the site, arguing how good it actually is  ,  (the sitech was removed due to irrelevance and the poor quality of the content). In August, he voted on the talk page of the Transdniester article against the removal of the site in question, despite the fact that he had not been a participant neither in the editing of the article, or in the discussion regarding the articles content. He simply voted for that link not to be removed. Also in August, he again added to external links to various articles: a link to www.maljonicsdreams.com added here and to www.terrypratchettbooks.org link added here. A look on those links shows that the webdesign was done by the same "York Interweb", and a whois search confirms this: both  and to  had been registered from the same adress in 15 Wenlock Terrace, York, North Yorkshire, by a certain Jonathan  Malory (possibly Joanathanpops himself). Other links added during his very very unfructuous and sterile staying on wikipedia (he is obviously not looking to actually develop this encyclopedia) are the ones to the articles Manned Maneuvering Unit  and Space Suit added here, both to www.planet-surveyor.com. Planet-surveyor.com too is a York Interweb site. As for final prove, check out the project page of the official site of York Interweb. If the results of the whois search weren`t enough, see how all, but absolutelly all the links he added appear there as their work. And that is not all. Besides adding his links, he removes other external links, which might cause competition with his the sites he added (e.g.: on the same article, Dream, he adds his York Interweb link  and removes a competitor link  (this move also made him look good, presenting himself as some kind of spam-fighter...). I think it is clear that this user has no intention in contributing to wikipedia with anything of value, which actually expands and improves the quality of this encyclopedia, but he only seeks to increase the trafic to his sites, in other words that he is a spamer (cases much less grave had ended in IP banning) Greier 17:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't merit action.  The amount of linking is low and the user has addressed questions in a prompt and polite manner. Durova 13:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Jonathanpops}}

message: Continous unnoticed reverts of referenced datas. , , , . Stated clear hatred against me several times also. I guess his sockpuppet or meatpuppet is User:Otu2 also. (Or a friend of his, user:Tankred's.) (Both) has ultra agressive behaivour, and nonsense statements about me or the history. --VinceB 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted his edits because he spaming these articles with stuff that has nothing to do with the subject. Fof example he posted into Novi Sad article stuff that has nothing to do with Novi Sad and he also deleted relevant information for the article. He is also known ultra-nationalistic POV pusher (which other users could confirm) and he posted this here only to hide the nature of his own edits. He was engaged in revert wars with several users trying to impement his POV into several articles. His edits are hence disruptive because he editing only several specific articles where he constantly engage in revert wars with other users. It is not only that he done nothing usefull for Wikipedia but he also forcing other users to revert his disruptive edits and preventing them to do something usefull instead. PANONIAN (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, you can also notice that User:VinceB removed warnings from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVinceB&diff=82385988&oldid=81848492 And not only that, as a kind of "revenge" for these warnings, he also posted similar warning on my talk page as well as on the user:Tankred's talk page with no proper reason. PANONIAN (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This request is ridiculous. If there is someone being disruptive and uncivil, that's VinceB. Panonian is an established editor with whom I disagree sometimes, but certainly not a vandal nor someone who would repeatedly violate policies; the same holds true for Tankred. KissL 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've issued a 48 hour block on User:VinceB for edit warring after a previous block and subsequent warnings.  In light of the cut-and-paste warning to User:PANONIAN's talk page and the complaint here that's probably a lenient block.  Please refocus on productive contributions. Durova 22:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, per WP:IAR I've removed the vandalism warning from User:PANONIAN's talk page.  This was a content dispute, not vandalism, and the template appears to have been posted in retaliation. Durova 21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Follow-up: I issued a second one week block when User:VinceB's problem behavior resumed.  He agreed to enter the mentorship program and file a formal mediation request so I shortened that block to 48 hours. Durova 23:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|PANONIAN}}

message: I have linked User:216.146.109.42 to another account that has been vandalising (requested closure of User:Corey Bryant) - see either user page for details. The vandalism in non-obvious, over months, but I and others have reverted both of these. I must go now, so cannot investigate 216.146.109.42 to revert and warn. Please investigate and block if my suspicion is right. Widefox 04:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|216.146.109.42}} and {{vandal|Corey Bryant}}

message: User has been adding incoherent, seemingly original research text (and a copyvio) to various articles. Warned him, he continues. Because of the way he started off (he was doing the same under an IP before), I think this might be more appropriate reported as vandalism than a content dispute. Correct me if I'm wrong. CRCulver 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: May be trolling; no one could actually be that bad at spelling and no worthwhile contributions. —Centrx→talk • 17:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No new edits in several days.  Report if problems resume. Durova 16:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:J intela]]

message: See the revert war and wikistalking campaign that User:Centrx has launched on a DISCUSSION page -- here.  Is it fair or within policy to remove a valid Discussion thread, for no reason or explanation? 
FURTHERMORE, User:Centrx has removed the very Request for Investigation about himself!  I strongly urge that ANOTHER independent administrator (other than Scobell, Centrx, or Yanksox -- all of whom have participated on the ArbCom Nomination page itself) look at this case.  User:Centrx and User:Scobell302 are ruling by fiat, if they think that deleting a claim against themselves from a COMMUNITY forum is legitimate in any way.  Note, also, that no legitimate reasons have been given for any of these reverts! --72.94.149.164 04:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, calm down and take a few deep breaths. Now, please realize that you cannot nominate a blocked/banned account(s) for ArbCom, or for anything, for the matter. Second, there is no revert war, no wikistalking, and the removal was explained in the edit summary and supported by other established editors. And while removing a RfI is not the best thing Centrx could have done, it is not an offense in itself. --210physicq (c) 04:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Physicq210, for at least stating something that hasn't been stated -- that a blocked account can't run for ArbCom.  This was never stated in the rules for nominations.  It still seems that the purpose of the campaign against me is based on the fear that I might garner some support, being that many respected editors and admins have been puzzled by Jimmy Wales's personal vendetta against MyWikiBiz . . . but if someone would just point out in the rules that blocked accounts may not run, I can live with that exclusion. --72.94.150.236 04:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not stated in the rules because it is common sense: how can an indefblocked account respond to questions in the discussion section or write a candidate statement, let alone do anything on ArbCom? And I am pretty sure that you are not allowed to use IP addresses, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, or the like to self-nominate or otherwise promote oneself in the elections. If I am wrong, please point it out. --210physicq (c) 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and why are you using different IP addresses? --210physicq (c) 04:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly?  Because Brad Patrick has taken a few weeks to respond to a 5-page letter to him, following up on a very civil phone call that we had.  I sincerely feel that Jimmy Wales acted outside of the community's rules in blocking my account -- for reasons outside of the framework of Wikipedia.  He was upset about a web site and concordat that he considered "mutually beneficial" in August, but then thought included "inappropriate trademark use" in October.  The rules have been shifted, revised, and created out of thin air to address some of the considerations I've raised; therefore, ethically, I don't think it's that big of a deal for me to stretch the rules about IP addresses, at least while Brad Patrick adjudicates.  If he ultimately says that I, Gregory Kohs, need to be permanently banned from Wikipedia, I'll take the hint.  I have my career, my wife, my daughter, my friends, my family, my church, and my hobbies to keep me happy until I'm dead in the grave.  It will just be sad that about half of the companies in the Fortune 1500 will still be missing from Wikipedia next year, and perhaps beyond. --72.94.150.236 04:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, this issue you might have to take it up to Jimbo Wales himself through his talkpage or some communicative route. I am unfortunately unable to deal with your concerns regarding this subject, and nor can other administrators, as this is a still-gray area in Wikipedia. I apologize if I cannot be of more help. Perhaps others might be... --210physicq (c) 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, I think users are within their remit to revert edits that are either block evasion by MyWikiBiz or impersonation of MyWikiBiz.  It doesn't matter whether they are on ArbCom election  discussions or RFIs.  Also, disputing the block is insufficient reason to evade it. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uninvolved administrator here: having evaluated the request I conclude that it is groundless.  The account was obviously a sockpuppet and the IP's posts to this talk page constitute an admission.  It is accepted practice to blank the posts of a banned user.  In order to proceed in a perfectly transparent manner I'll leave this up a short time, but the original blanking was appropriate.  Furthermore, the use of sockpuppets and unregistered IPs to evade a block is grounds for block extension in itself, so if the puppetmaster account weren't already banned I would have banned it at the conclusion of this investigation. DurovaCharge! 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Centrx}} and {{vandal|Scobell302}}