Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2007/01

message: * - Constant blanking of lawsuit info and insertion of advertisments by someone who uses multipule IPs also personal attack on User talk page.// Plandahl 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 31 hour block issued on one editor.  Recommend the other involved editors watch the suspected sockpuppet for block evasion.  This is not simple vandalism and deserves a full request.  Please submit a more complete statement with page diffs in the registered user section lower on this noticeboard. DurovaCharge! 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update.  After the last revert I reported it to WP:RPP and the article is now sprotected.  Thanks. Dina 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Semi-protected.  Follow up with a full report and page diffs if necessary. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism continues on Boy Meets World and Lee Norris Also a joke article Hangin' With Mr. Minkus. See also single-edit user , and this edit by . I suspect either sock puppetry or a small group of fans working together, or both. Thanks! Karen | Talk|contribs 05:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And tonight, more of the same on Lee Norris.  blocked for this. See also , who has been busy today, and vandalized the same user page as , but hasn't done anything Boy Meets World-related on that IP. I don't want to compare this pattern of vandalism with a game of Whack-a-mole...no, wait.  Yes, I do, except for the part about hitting something with a hammer. BTW, is this the right place to report this?  If not, please redirect me.  Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right page, wrong section.  Move it down into regular requests and provide full evidence.  If you suspect sockpuppetry that would go to Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets.  One of the joys of administratorship is that we sometimes get to play whack-a-mole with the block button.  I'll dig in this garden for moles. :) DurovaCharge! 03:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I don't want to spoil your "fun", but I think I'd better try the Sock puppet page. The sections below seem to be set up for one user name or IP per request - and the weird thing about this Minkus malarkey is that it comes from two or three user names and at least two IPs. Looking at each one in isolation probably won't give the full picture. So it's off to sock-pulling land for me, I guess. Even if they turn out to be five different people (which seems unlikely), it's all the same puppet show. Regards and thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am no fun. I have semi-protected Lee Norris and deleted the Munkis junk article. The sockpuppets are old and IPs change frequently, so blocking is sometimes not appropriate there. If the IPs listed are not the same addresses used in the accounts, you can file a Wikipedia:Request for checkuser so that the person behind the user accounts can be blocked. In general, though, I don't think this is that serious a problem, and it is adequately prevented by semi-protection. —Centrx→talk • 05:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! I found the sock puppet page a little, um, daunting, and wasn't sure what to do next. Perhaps this Minkus madness is over with, at least for now.  Hope, so, anyway. The only vandalism I saw today on a Boy Meets World-related page didn't seem to have anything to do with these others. In any case it seems to come in intermittent waves of concentrated vandal activity. I'll keep the checkuser avenue in mind for the next wave, if any. (Enough with the metaphors already, Karen!) Karen | Talk | contribs 05:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watchlist Requests 

message: This IP seems to be used only for trolling. As of yet, all of his/her edits must be considered as deceptive vandalism. After a warning on his talk page (and a rev of his 2nd edit), the IP not only repeated the vandalising edit, but also made in the edit summary  a deliberately false statement (rv to last Rev by Shell Kinney) and a defamatory, insulting claim (due to vandalism by antipapist Túrelio), thereby violating WP:NPA. --Túrelio 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IP editor hasn't edited since Jan 12. Perhaps IP address has cycled or they gave up? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|58.160.187.3}}

message: This IP seems to be being used only for trolling.  From day 1 all of the edits seem trollish and I'm seeing textbook trolling activity on my talk page and others.  I'm trying not to feed it (he got me for one round) but I also don't want to leave the comments on my talk page.  The IP was blocked on 21 DEC 2006 but the user talked his way out of it.  The policy doesn't state whether this is a blockable offense but someone reading this will know better than I. -- Mufka (user) (talk) (contribs) 15:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dosn't seem likly that the IP is realy a school (seems like one user). The user apears to be young.  Good news is that the user hasn't edited since the 17th and nothing realy disruptive for a while. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|81.223.23.159}}

message: I am looking for some help in a little edit war that has been going on with an anonymous user on the Cogswell College page. He/She has already reverted 3 times, and there is no page in which to come to a compromise, or speak about how the article can satisfy both parties. 
My own revisions actually have the proof listed--satisfying any point of view additions--which was a description of a complaint, and a link to where the complaint was filed...and who was involved with the complaint.
I am looking for a third party to look into the matter. Joel Lindley 07:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like a content dispute that ended a week ago.  RFI is not the right place for content disputes.  Incidentally, I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no page in which to come to a compromise".  Why not Talk:Cogswell College?  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|69.110.4.144}}

message: Might be a spambot.  are all from this static IP-address, the same thing in other languages ( for example; I just cleaned de-WP where it didn't react when asked to stop). Perhaps someone who knows about this stuff can put the domain on the blacklist? NoCultureIcons 01:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't look like a spambot since it's adding the link in different places in different articles.  (Spambots typically blank entire pages with spam or add spam to the end or beginning of an article or talk page).  I threw a  on their talk page even though s/he hasn't edited in over a week.  Looks pretty benign.  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|216.205.244.5}}

message: This person has repeatedly edited Mei Lan (the panda cub), changing the translation of her name from "Atlanta Beauty" to "Beautiful Orchid".  While the latter name is one transliteration of the Chinese characters, it is not the intended meaning of her name.  I've reverted the change twice (on different days), written notices on the IP's talk page and the article's talk page, and, added an explanation of the transliteration in the article —— all to no effect.  This person must have very strong feelings about the translation, but it is still a PPOV.  I don't know how to get through to them. tess 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|139.76.128.71}}

message: * 
* 
* 
Anon. user at 167.128.59.219 was blocked due to vandalizing Corvallis High School (Oregon) after repeated warnings regarding vandalism of other pages. Since then, that article has been further vandalized by anon. user(s) at the other two IP addresses. --LarryGilbert 22:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All IPs reverse-resolve to hostnames in the corvallis.k12.or.us subdomain. --LarryGilbert 22:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additional vandalism from . --LarryGilbert 00:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple IPs in the 167.128.0.0/16 network

message: Person has been repetitively vandalizing multiple pages that I have been working on improving (In specific, Angel (Lilo & Stitch) and other pages in that catagory) by adding incorrect information and re-adding it after it is removed, and has ignored all my requests for citing his sources or discussing the issue with me on the talk page. There was once much more incorrect information on the pages in specific, but after many weeks my editing persistance has gotten the person to only add one bit of incorrect information per edit. Because the person still re-adds the incorrect information, and sometimes re-adds it seconds after I correct it and several times in a short period, I think the  person is purpously vandalizing the articles to get on my nerves. I believe that the IP is always the same person since he/she always works on the same catagories of pages. Other people have told me that the person is an "obvious vandal" and that I should consider seeking a ban, and he/she has been blocked twice before, once very recently. I posted this ban request earlier on the "obvious" page and was told "It looks like this person stopped", but since then the person has re-vandalized a page I corrected, despite warnings to stop. Please reconsider my request. Miriam The Bat 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is also continually re-inserting incorrect text into Mater and List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch despite multiple warnings, including a final warning. Rhindle The Red 17:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|24.63.203.132}}

message: Vadalism of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service article. This IP keeps sneakily vandalising the Fire Station call signs (because they are written in the phonetic alphabet), and example of this vandalism can be found here . This IP also wrote the phrase 'I am gayboy' on top of two of the headings, an example of this vandalism can be found here . I have left a TEST4 template on their talk page because I thought this was necessary as they vandalised it seven times, although I was considering leaving a VW template. If you do decide to block this IP will you please tell me on my talk page which a link can be found in my signature!
Cheers.......TellyaddictTalk 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We've seen this article being attacked before.  I've semi-protected.  Post again when the need for protection has ended. DurovaCharge! 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected per editor request.  Note to other admins: this is a persistent IP vandal with a shifting address who waits about 1 month between attacks.  Merits blocking on sight for recognizable offenses. DurovaCharge! 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - this has been reprotected recently by Durova.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|82.39.173.184}}

message: Nearly entire edit history is vandalism (e.g. this diff, which has been repeated something like 20 or 30 times in the last six months), and if it isn't clear vandalism, it's pushing a pro-England POV (note placement of English before Scottish in the ancestry). England is a fine country and all, but I'm getting really tired of cleaning up after this guy. He has been warned multiple times on his Talk page not to continue his vandalism, but without admin intervention and a resulting block, it's sort of pointless to warn him as he continues to vandalise.--chris.lawson 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks pretty fishy, but this editor has begun discussing changes on talk pages.  Post again if vandalism resumes.  This is very close to a block. DurovaCharge! 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise it's been a while, but it happened again yesterday.--chris.lawson 22:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Acknowledged.  Keep an eye on this.  A single edit isn't worth reopening this issue but if it resumes with more frequency, I will block pretty quickly.  This is obvious bad faith behavior and not worth risking a disruption of any magnitude.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|86.8.105.64}}

message: As I call the UPN vandal, this IP delibirately adds incorrect information to film-related articles, such as this, this, and this.
He's been known to use sockpuppets; a list of them can be found here. Look at UPN's history for other socks I may have missed. --AAA! (AAAA) 06:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that most of these appear to be shared IP addresses (and the vandal can easily switch to others within those ranges at random).  There's no way to reliably block him/her without potentially affecting many other anonymous users.  This is why I've semi-protected UPN and 2007 in television.  I'm also watching other articles targeted by this individual (and checking for new targets), and I'll consider semi-protecting them if the vandalism doesn't subside.  —David Levy 14:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've blocked all of the accounts indefinitely and speedily deleted/protected the reposted nonsense page.  —David Levy 11:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|4.68.248.134}}

message: This IP was previously blocked as User:Skimall for personal attacks, & entering his entries [advertisements] into the main Telluride article. He continues to constantly add his personal advertisements to the article. skimall is not by any stretch of the imagination a valid local blog, guide to visitors, or source of news. That he considers it such is, if nothing else, proof of his own stretched imagination. I cannot go through regular means of attaching Vandal tags, etc as he is very malicious... Grye 09:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction: neither the registered account nor the IP have been blocked.  The account's user page has been deleted as an advertisement.  This may be a new user who is unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works.  I recommend first giving them a welcome, then if necessary a warning.  Let's hope they become a useful contributor.  Follow up here if things don't improve and the warnings escalate to level 3.  Regards, DurovaCharge! 01:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|4.228.123.193}}

message: Appears to be using a cable modem - IP hops around but the behavior remains the same - inserts a claim that  Danny DeVito is a Scientologist. I can find no reputable source backing this up - and the link provided by the IP doesn't state this. A few forum/blog appear to have picked up the same claim (possibly from here). This is extremely dicey per WP:BLP and despite attempts to question the IP in question (including via the article history) it persists in reinstating the claim. Probable socks of the IP:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
A block would cause massive collateral damage and I'm getting tired of reverting the same thing on a daily basis. Megapixie 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've semi-protected this article. DurovaCharge! 03:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|69.232.228.226}}

message: Really random edits, some good, some bad. Some just pointless.
futurebird 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like your typical shared IP.  This one traces to Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, Western Cape, South Africa (I added a  tag to that effect).  There are several good faith helpful edits from the IP and the activity there is fairly sporadic.  I'd recommend treating it like any other shared IP: assume that no two edits are from the same person.  Revert vandalism, revert questionable unsourced material with an edit summary to that effect, leave good edits alone.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|146.232.75.208}}

message: Riveros11 has been using a program of attempting to intimidate any alternative contributor to his religious group's topic page BKWSU by slapping vandalism tag on me and others in order to block my IP address - using alternative sockpuppet addresses that leaves his main user loking clean.  The latest using the IP; 72.91.169.22, , here . I removed it. Sockpuppetry and personal attack, or just a cynical and dishonest ploy to block other users to gain control over a topic for his group, he has since faked a user page to look like a third contributor he has also intimidated with threatening warnings.
The user page for 72.91.169.22 is faked up to look like; maleabroad,  complete with bad Indian-English spelling
This is an important detail as we will see later. It says; 
" User:72.91.169.22 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
How am I vandalising? I was deelteing anti-Hindu propangda trying to create a wedge between BKs and Hindus co-religionists. No racism will be tolerated! "
If you look at the user contribution for maleabroad, here , you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here 
Revision as of 16:38, 21 November 2006 maleabroad m (deleted anti-Hindu propaganda user trying to create drift between BK brothers and Hindu co-religionists)
However, looking at the archive of maleabroad, Luis Riveros11 slapped a vandalism tag on  maleabroad from the same IP address in Tampa; 72.91.169.22  (72.91.169.22 [ pool-72-91-169-22.tampfl.fios.verizon.net ]),  where Luis or Avyakt7 as he likes to call himself says;
" Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 72.91.169.22 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|72.91.169.22}}, {{IPvandal|71.251.88.110}}, {{IPvandal|71.251.88.110}}

message: When you are checking the above, please check also the poster of the request above and other suspect SPs. See ArbCom case on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F0.2F0.2F1.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Bkwatch either hasn't edited or has had all his edits deleted. ---J.S  (T/C) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all in arbitration now. DurovaCharge! 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|195.82.106.244}}, , {{IPvandal|brahmakumaris.info}}, {{IPvandal|bkwatch}}

message: Has been warned and blocked in the past for personal attacks; impersonates an admin here, and trolls various talk pages (too many to list, see contribs) with racist/anti-Semitic comments.  -- weirdoactor t|c -- 03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I clicked randomly on a dozen contribs and did not find anything egregious. Content disputes are not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that there is a user-conduct RfC pending with regard to this user. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Keltik31. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Vandal|Keltik31}}

message: This anonymous IP is over zealously placing cleanup +tags etc. Headphonos 15:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet there's no block warning so far on this editor's talk page.  See if you can work this out.  Come back if it doesn't succeed. DurovaCharge! 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPVandal|38.100.34.2}}

message: This anon-user, has been vandalizing Colorado Avalanche. Forcing diacritics on the article. GoodDay 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem seems to have subsided.  Post again if it resumes. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|86.198.206.162}}

message: This IP address is being used by a banned user. Daniel575 has been banned, his first 2 sockpuppets have been banned as well, and he is now using this IP to do his edits. I know that he lives in Jerusalem, and the IP address points to NJ, but the IP is used company wide and Daniel works in the Jerusalem office. You can also see that for the most part, this IP is editing the same articles, and in the same way as Daniel575.  Yossiea 22:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you need to go to WP:SSP and file a suspected sockpuppet report. DurovaCharge! 03:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did but nothing has happened. I filed the request days ago, my two original requests are still there as well, even though the user has been banned twice. Yossiea 14:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd like to provide detailed evidence that this editor is a sockpuppet including relevant diffs, I could look at what you've got and possibly act on that. DurovaCharge! 01:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|169.132.18.248}}

message: User appears to be consistently editing articles related to Thomas the Tank Engine, but his or her edits do much more harm than good. Although perhaps not a vandal, a preventative block may be very useful.  Gracenotes T § 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Editor has been blocked. DurovaCharge! 20:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|70.104.139.246}}

message: This individual (who call himself "green" but refuses to get an account), has been engaged in discussions on talk:twin paradox for the last few weeks.  As time has gone on, his input has gotten less and less productive and he now has several editors debating him on material that is irrelevant to the article.  He has recently taken to a style of inserting comments in the middle of other's postings which make the threads hard to follow, and has refused to accept input on this issue.  
I did warn him recently.  See my warning edit.  What I got as a response afterwards was this edit. --EMS | Talk 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Final block warning issued.  48 hour block applied after continued violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. DurovaCharge! 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Block being evaded 23 minutes after implementation, see last part of this diff. Tim Shuba 06:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Block extended to 1 week.  Sock blocked 1 week also.  Semi-protected the article talk page.  Report any new problems. DurovaCharge! 14:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article talk page unprotected per editor request. DurovaCharge! 01:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|12.30.216.138}}

message: This site ACM Forex and this site Advanced Currency Markets refer to the same company.  Both sites are pretty clearly advertisements I believe, and until recently they have been edited by a user User:Acmforex.  After my edits and my appeals to this user to please talk on the discussion pages or to state their point of view, instead of attacking my user page Drewwiki, it looks like all new edits are being done by an ip addres: 195.70.17.226 195.70.17.226  This user has a history of putting random ACM Forex links into other articles.  
These are some examples:
I believe this ip is the same as the user Acmforex and I believe this IP is not being a very productive wiki user
let me know what I can do about this?
Thanks
--DrewWiki 12:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have blocked the IP for 1 month. I am not sure what the situation is with User:Acmforex. —Centrx→talk • 04:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{IPvandal|195.70.17.226}}

message: I arrived at Paternity fraud on a recent changes patrol and reverted content removal, of a well sourced reference to an academic study, by User:Samantha Dean (I also had to do some other formatting clean up) and I put a template on the user's talk page requesting the user not to remove content from the article. The user removed the same content a second time so I issued a vandal warning. The user is now editing the article to introduce POV problems and personal commentary. I don't want to get involved in a potential WP:3RR with this user over this article so it's now someone else's turn to deal with further problems. Random Passer-by 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the proposed deletion for this page, realised that it was probably pointless posting here, and decided to just keep on reverting. Random Passer-by 01:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Samantha Dean}}

message: Sklocke has repeatedly engaged in a series of seemingly random actions. Articles are being moved to nonsensical new locations without any attempt at discussion, frequently accompanied by bizarre edit summaries. Some examples include: Metre to Measurement System in Meters ("Most Americans don't patially know what 'metre' is."); Roundabout to The Mega-Traffic Circle ("This title will be better!") and then to Roundabout (Intersection) ("Someone may block me if I "badly" move something. Thanks for the paps message, dude!"); and Film to Motion-Picture Film ("Title is itty bitty dull"). The editor has made several other page moves against Wikipedia guidelines, as well as a series of "strange" edits to articles and user pages, including BiancaOfHell's user page and talk page. I have been attempting to clean up after him/her, as well as leaving messages at User talk:Sklocke, but have had no response to date. Other editors have also left warning messages, with similar results. It might be worthwhile to have an administrator look over this matter to see if it is a deliberate series of actions, or something else. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Sklocke}}

message: The user is bullying me and harassing for no reason. He uses a English book with "Kannada POV" but objects and removes the cited info by me be it in my native language or English. He is highly elitist and hates anyone editing 'his' articles.
I tried a ceasefire here gave the details of my citations.He told me he has located the book and he is still reverting chalukya and rashtrakuta. Mr.nichalp and mr.utcursch have been approached as well. He himself proclaims that marathi books should not be quoted but wikipedia does allow other languages books also. Now he has two English books which i have quoted he is still going on with his reverts by asking the ID, pub.date etc etc.The book i have is old (1924 AD) and hence it will not have such details. Its plain harassment. The user is accompanied by mr.sarvagnya1,2,
3 and mr.knmSarvabhaum 06:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Dineshkannambadi}}

message: *  User continuously vandalizes pages of musicians he doesn't like and increases sales of artist he does like. He has been doing this for months and makes peoples jobs harder, and he has yet to be perma banned. He was banned in the past and came back with a second account. He needs to be blocked. License2Kill 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Grkbkny69}} 

message: Hi, I have been in a long edit war across many pages with goethean. I would like you look into Goethean's activities, I direct you to his talk page which shows that he is abusive towards fellow editors besides me. I even strongly have reason to believe that he has a meatpuppet Grey under his direction. He has gone to many pages  I have written on and makes a comment out of nowhere after making the original comment. Goethean and me have been investigated by a sys admin Larry V but goethean has been admonished to take the high road and violates this every time with me. He has gotten me blocked for 3RR rule but if you were to look at the Ken Wilber page, I am sure he has been a horrible violator of the 3RR rule. I will admit I have no love lost for goethean, but I think his behavior towards me is systematic of how he acts as an editor. Please help.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs).
Please help, it greatly upsets me when an editor like him makes new editors like me feel most unwelcomed by challenging every edit by reversing every edit. Please like goethean should not get away with such behavior. goethean is living up to Steven Colbert's word wikireality! ForrestLane42 20:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Goethean}}

message: User:WorldJKD is making legal threats on the talk page of the Jeet Kune Do article, and removing comments. User:Bruceleeman and User:Jeetman may be sockpuppets. He left the e-mail address info@leejkd.com, and asked that the editor User:FrankWilliams contact him. He left the following on his talk page: 
MR. WILLIAMS. YOU CANNOT IGNORE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. WE WANT TO SPEAK WITH YOU. YOU DELEATED YOUR WIKIPEDIA EMAIL SO WE CAN NO LONGER ATTEMPT CONTACT OFFLINE LIKE MR. PATRICK REQUESTED OF YOU. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT INFO@LEEJKD.COM OR OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE PATTON LAW OFFICE JON@JONPATTON.COM. --WORLDJKD 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|WORLDJKD}}

message: Vandal keeps removing speedy tag on Sokwhan Huh article, and is also using User:MNuser to try and remove the tag also. Possible sockpuppet accounts. Chrisch 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The user has been warned and blocked before I got around to it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|L46kok}}

message: I have no idea what's going on with the redirect pages DickLick Single and The_Not-So-Great_Krapli but someone smarter than me should probably try to work it out. Random Passer-by 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages have been deleted, user warned and he has not edited since.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|SnakePlane789}}

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Evans
The article has been posted again Sean Evans Headphonos 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I left him a note about that.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|JFBurton}}

message: has been following me around wikipedia editing anything I have written and undermining all my edits, he has become a serial pest. He has made bold personal attacks in the past followed up recently by snide comments in an attempt to provoke some outburst that will never come.   is frequently sarcastic about other editor's good faith editing; for example, referring to "Mikey's little article" when I put a well-referenced article (Ernest Emerson) up for Good Article review  , prior to this he unsuccessfully tried to delete a large well referenced portion calling it "spam,spammity spam" because it contained a single link to the subject's website and his belief that mere mention of any company is advertising, even when the article is about the company in question.
When ,   and   pointed out to him that my edits to Ernest Emerson were not spam and were very well-referenced, he condescendingly replied with, " All very cozy -- and irrelevant".   He has been warned in the past by  (his libelous accusations against me are archived on the WP:PAIN )around 11/18/2006-11/20/2006,   , and  , and myself yet he simply blanks his talk page, removing indications of past behavior without archiving.  
I've offered links to wiki: civil, and have tried working with this caustic individual to no avail.  One of his latest tactics is to call wikilinks to other wikipedia articles I have worked on as spam and advertising.  He has personally posted objections to the length of the Knife entry, yet the only change he has made was to lead people away from an article I have written that is linked from there Walker linerlock.  
There's plenty of other constructive work he could do on wikipedia if he's got too much time on his hands. He's turned this into a vendetta for whatever reason.  Please investigate this stalker-like behavior. I just want it to stop so I can continue to be a positive contributor and not have to check on every last article I've written or contributed to just because of Wereb's  histrionic outbursts and blatant vandalism. 
A  simple comparison of his history against mine will confirm this.
Thank you.
--Mike Searson 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree that in the past this user sarcastic behaviour was counterproductive, and if continued, he should get more seriously warned, can you offer any diffs to the specific posts that you consider offending recently?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Sam Wereb}}

message: I honestly don’t know if this is the right place to put this, however, Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention says this page is the place to report “serial pests”, and SNIyer12 definitely qualifies as that, while I’m not sure if s/he is an “obvious vandal”. When I was a far more active editor, I was frustrated by this user so much that I started an RfC which unfortunately failed to garner much comment either way—including from the user, even though s/he was informed on his/her talkpage. Based on recent additions to the RfC which I noticed in my Watchlist, and on this recent comment on the aforementioned user-talk page (which, as usual, the editor has failed to respond to), I felt it was time to seriously seek admin help in dealing with this problem. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have left that user a note to reply to RfC. If s/he does not, and continues to disruptivly edit those articles, I think a ban may be in order. On the other hand, since that user seems to be doing edits to other articles that seem to mostly constructive, perhaps a WP:MEDIATION may be helpful? Personaly I dislike RfCs as they rarely produce a concluson (your case with the user refusing to reply seems to be an exception, though).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mediation is a socond-step dispute resolution process. At the time I filed the RfC, I was under the impression that mediation requests were being turned down unless a first-step process had been completed. Then, s/he never replied to the RfC( in fact, almost no one did) and I ended up becoming inactive on Wikipedia. I may try to file a mediation request, but I fear that s/he will again ignore it, not even explicitly refusing to participate. Although, I suppose that inaction in and of itself could make the issue eligible for arbitration. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|SNIyer12}}

message: A review of Wellreadone's user contributions indicates a history of subtle vandalization of articles. He removes tags such as "unreferenced" from articles without comment  and replaces information with bogus information not verified by sources (eg  he overwrote the previous biography replacing "Marcello I'm Bored" with "I'm So Bored" and included a large section of writing and directing credits many of which are not included in the person's IMDB listing). He has also deleted his own user talk page to remove negative comments and vandalism warnings by editors (these comments are visible by reviewing the history page). Had the user on my watch list from a couple of months ago as well due to similar behavior that is cropping up again now in January.  Requesting an investigation on the user's contribution history to determine if admin intervention is needed. Dugwiki 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks like not so subtle vandalization. I think you can report it at WP:AIV; I have warned him with  - he has not edited for over a week anyway.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking into it. The day after you posted your warning above (Jan 22) Wellreadone then vandalized a user page, User:Mikkalai, calling him a "nazi" under his picture caption. Dugwiki 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And again, on Jan 24, Wellreadone blanked his talk page to remove the warning notices then proceeded to vandalize User:Will Pittenger's user page, inserting "Self-appointed CENSOR & Serial Copyright Infringer" at the top. Wellreadone definitely needs to be blocked. Dugwiki 18:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Wellreadone}}

message: This editor has edits all contents relating to Periyar and Vaikom Satyagraha.He also edits all contents relating to Brahmin and deletes contents like in  Justice Party (India) or adds hate comments like in Periyar University all uncited  .He is will not allow an alternate view with anything relating to Brahmanism even if well cited 
He also uses Ramananrv123  and ip address and deletes content which he does not like .He added blog as citation in Periyar.Tametiger 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide specific diffs. Sockpuppet accusations should be taken before WP:RFCU. Blog citations are sometimes acceptable, see WP:RS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{vandal|Ramananpi }} 

message: Because of copyvio. He ignores all attempts to contact him or do anything against the copyvio in Kim Mehmenti-article. Now he also uses his user talk for the copyvio. Also works as IP and not only here but also in the other wikis. In the German wiki known as Benutzer:Semimk, in the Albanian one he uses the same as here. In the German wiki we wrote an article to stop him and now we only have to remove the pictures now and then. As far as I've seen the Bulgarian wiki has done the same. I'm not sure if the Macedonian one knows about the problem, but the French has deleted the article, and the Albanian one has decided to ignore the copyvio. -- CecilK 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyvios should be reported on WP:CP. Sockpuppet accusations at WP:RFCU.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{vandal|Starmk}} 

message: This user has continually removed negative content from their talk page. I have warned the user, and waded through the history of edits (going back about a month) to return what content I can. However, the user has reverted my edits and removed the warning about this I gave the user. 88.107.102.255 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not this time he hasnt. I thought users were allowed to delete content from their user pages, SqueakBox 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only things I have deleted from MY own talkpage that were left by you or your sockpuppets in what I perceived as bad faith  or are issues have been sorted out - plus I will delete any edits made from unregistered sockpuppets--Vintagekits 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you have removed warning messages from other users from your talk page such that other users cannot see you have already been warned about certain things - such as personal attacks. This means users continue to give you just warnings, unaware that you should fully understand what you are doing is wrong, given the pervious warnings. Thus, you can continue to get away with what you are doing - principally being uncivil. Logoistic 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: NB My sockpuppets are legitimate. Logoistic 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only admitted they were sockpuppets AFTER I left the sockpuppet tag on your page. I removed your edits on my talk page as I considered them to be left in bad faith. I consider that your (and your various sockpuppets) treatment of me is coming close to harrassment and I am trying to stay away from you and not get drawn into edit wars or arguements with you but you are making it very difficult.--Vintagekits 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this elsewhere, and it is not relevent here. The matter at hand is removal of negative content. Logoistic 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The user is now removing a tag that highlights he has confirmed illegitimate sockpuppets. Logoistic 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have NO "illegitimate sockpuppets" - if someonelse wants to raise the subject with me then I will be happy to discuss with them - but not you as  Iconsider that you act in bad faith towards me--Vintagekits 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits Logoistic 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, that is not an "illegitimate sockpuppet"--Vintagekits 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it is, it's now been banned by an admin. End of story. I just want the admin to look at the removal of negative content. Logoistic 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Vintagekits}}

message: This user is a persistant abuser of wrestling related articles and is a constant nuisance. He was reported for vandalism but the reporter was told it was a content dispute. As is visible from both his talk page, and the WP:PW talk page he has been asked many times to stop and read the WP:PW guidelines, then told, then warned. Yet he continues to ignore everything and persist with his disruptive edits; any help would be useful. DavyJonesLocker 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support any punishment offered as a result of this, The Damaja's disruptive edits and lack of communication have become tiresome and, to put it crudely, a persistant pain in the arse. SteveLamacq43 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|The Damaja}}

message: ========
This is a very different request, this user has created over 50 "bio stubs" - looks like he's going through some Armenian "who's who" list and creating 1 or 2 line stubs, non-referenced, non-sourced.  I did put a kind "heads up" on his user page, and am tagging all of these as {db-xxx}.  Perchance an admin could watch/explain the WP:BIO and other categories before this becomes a nasty situation.  Not 100% sure if this is vandalism, leave that call to the experts.SkierRMH 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warrants further monitoring. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment: Soccerguy1039 has been blocked for 48 hours by Friday. I will take the other issues to WP:SSP. AuburnPilottalk 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User appears to be harassing another user. Otherwise confrontational behavior. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 72 hour block for vandalism. DurovaCharge! 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: User is really bad at editing and makes ridiculous spelling errors and changes dates and numbers without citing any sources. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User is still editing in a broken fashion. It's hard to tell if his additions are in good-faith, but they are questionable and without sources unverifiable, and they are full of spelling and grammatical errors, etc. I have advised him about this on his talk page. Even if this user is acting in good faith, he may be doing more harm than good. —Centrx→talk • 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Under investigation

message: This is a very different request, this user has created over 50 "bio stubs" - looks like he's going through some Armenian "who's who" list and creating 1 or 2 line stubs, non-referenced, non-sourced.  I did put a kind "heads up" on his user page, and am tagging all of these as {db-xxx}.  Perchance an admin could watch/explain the WP:BIO and other categories before this becomes a nasty situation.  Not 100% sure if this is vandalism, leave that call to the experts.SkierRMH 21:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Warrants further monitoring. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Nareklm}}

message: Looking at this user's block log, he was previously blocked by Friday on the 9th of Dec. 2006 for problem editing. I initially contacted Friday, but have not received a response. Soccerguy1039 is continuing his disruptive edits, refusing to sign comments, then removing the  templates that other users place next to his comments         . Several users have asked him to stop, yet he continues. I believe he is also operating a sockpuppet by the name . Their contribs are identical, including the removal of unsigned templates on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII   . Soccerguy1039 and Emokid200618 have also made identical edits on Template:Kingdom Hearts series (Soccer = ; Emokid =  ). Emokid has also vandalized George W. Bush, though it was a minor nuisance. ( ) Apologies if this is the incorrect place to report this, but it doesn't seem to fit WP:AN, it isn't obvious vandalism (WP:AIV) and isn't only about sockpuppets. AuburnPilottalk 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: Soccerguy1039 has been blocked for 48 hours by Friday. I will take the other issues to WP:SSP. AuburnPilottalk 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User appears to be harassing another user. Otherwise confrontational behavior. —Centrx→talk • 02:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Soccerguy1039}}

message: This user is either a really bad editor or a really good vandal. Often changes information to incorrect info, probably on purpose, along with intentionally bad grammar. Whether or not he is intentionally distructive his edits are still harmful.--CyberGhostface 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 72 hour block for vandalism. DurovaCharge! 15:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: User is really bad at editing and makes ridiculous spelling errors and changes dates and numbers without citing any sources. —Centrx→talk • 03:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: User is still editing in a broken fashion. It's hard to tell if his additions are in good-faith, but they are questionable and without sources unverifiable, and they are full of spelling and grammatical errors, etc. I have advised him about this on his talk page. Even if this user is acting in good faith, he may be doing more harm than good. —Centrx→talk • 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Steve44}}

message: Keeps adding the same image to Black People. Could be sock puppet? I don't know how to tell. This is getting silly. Please help.futurebird 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <strike>{{vandal|Chifumbe}} or {{vandal|Ezeu}}</strike>

message: Obvious vandalism to [Barbara Bush] and [John Locke] FranksValli 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been warned and hasn't contribute since, I think we can archive this RFI.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Professor69}}

message: Zserango (account created yesterday) posted some blatantly incorrect information to at least the articles Helsinki (see diff 1 and diff 2), Lake Ladoga (see diff) and Guns 'N Roses (see diff) and as a result was blocked for 18 hours (expired now). Zserango has also added some personal analysis/commentary in articles such as George Best (see diff) and unsourced negative information to Nemanja Vidić (see diff). The user has so far made about 30-40 other edits, most (but not all) of which have been reverted. --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Zserango}}

message: I would suggest a warning be issued to User:Love is all we need as the user is using multiple user accounts, claiming to follow wikipedia policies. The user uses his/her accounts in different discussions so that the reader gets the impression that it is several users commenting an article. MoRsE 20:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please go to WP:SSP and follow the suspected sockpuppet report directions there.  We do other types of investigations at this board. DurovaCharge! 03:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the instructions led me to believe so, but well. MoRsE 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe that should be worded more clearly: what's obvious to an involved editor may not be obvious from a distance. DurovaCharge! 03:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Love is all we need}}

message: Please see this nonsense edit of Back to the Future by  from 12/11, followed by the same edit by  on 12/14. First user name got a Test4, and I gave the second a blatantvandal warning last night. Checking the second name's contribs brought me to the spurious articles Fisherman's Choice and Bailey's Creek Fisherman's Challenge. I tagged them as hoaxes, and 68.39.174.238 tagged them for speedy, which apparently went through today. Lord Tortiville II has already recreated the Bailey article. Neither account has many edits. The first one made some to automotive articles, which I didn't look at; the other has basically only touched Back to the Future and the two nonsense articles. I'm thinking there are probably older accounts I don't know about. I'm not sure what is to be done, except to mention the situation here.  Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The warnings are appropriate.  One account has only a single edit and the other hasn't been active since 11 December.  This may wither from benign neglect.  In case it doesn't, post again with new diffs and I'll follow up on your warnings with a block. DurovaCharge! 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there were more edits on the newer name, but they appear to have been rolled back or something. (There were two edits each to create the now-deleted articles, if I recall correctly, and one more today to recreate one of them.) The recreated article has been salted, and the other one has not made a return appearance. I'll let you know if anything else happens.  Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 04:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Vandal|Bluechevylover}} and {{Vandal|Lord Tortiville II}}

message: Candyonashell has consistently vandalized the Satish Mohan page.  This has continued after I requested that he/she stop on his/her talk page.  This is the only page that the user has "edited."  Vandalisms ahve included potentially libelous unverifiable information, and loaded terminology.  --Cjs56 03:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Vandal|Candyonashell}}

message: This user is vandalizing pages related to homosexuality, including the homosexuality article itself and the Family Pride article, injecting POV comments and pejorative insults, user is degrading article quality by weasel wording and referencing extremist groups, referring to them as "conservative".
--Izanbardprince 01:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Vandal|Imgi12}}

message: This user has been reported here  but I'm not sure if this may be a better place to do it. This user has been nothing but a nuisance since coming onboard. 
The user continues to personally attack other editors because he does not agree with them. The warnings have been low key and subtle in hopes to assist him become a better contributor. I really feel this user needs to be heavily scrutinized. He is not contributing but is in fact creating issues on Wikipedia violating disrupting wikipedia to make your point. His adoptive editor recently un-adpoted him (Dispute page), because nothing was changing. He has been blocked twice for various things. I feel that he needs some stronger guidance in order to help him become a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Several editors have mentioned that it is highly likely, though not conclusively proven by checkuser, to be the users last account, . If you follow the trail, you will note that this user has not been a positive contributor. He has consistently attacked editors and he's turned his personal talk page into something to talk about editors he doesn't agree with. He has consistently misquoted and misrepresented what other editors have said (see  and  for examples)
Polite suggestions and invitations to learn the policies, ask questions, warnings, etc., have all failed. Instead user tries to turn around policies to fit his agenda and attack disagreeing editors. If you take a look at his user page and talk page you will see this.
:To point out some other discussions about E.Shubee see:
*The_Hybrid/Dispute
*. 
*User_talk:The_Hybrid
*MyNameIsNotBob
*Ansell
*Notice Board
*Durova
* Fermion see re: Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and Question sections
*User_talk:PaulTaylor7
Thanks for your attention to this as we are all tired of the the issues being caused by him. --Maniwar (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to update, there have been more complains see here and here. I'm not sure what else to do besides bringing this to your attention. --Maniwar (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1 month block issued. DurovaCharge! 00:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To add my input, this user has shown absolutely no sign of relenting.  Even while blocked, he continues to make accusations and attacks against not only the editors who registered repeated complaints, but also the editor who tried to adopt him, and now the administrator who imposed the block.  Every attempt to deal reasonably with this individual has resulted in utter failure, as he tends to compulsively blame and demean others who disagree with him, often resorting to misrepresenting them on numerous Wikipedia pages in attempts to prove his position.  Hours and days have been wasted in dealing with his individual's numerous disruptive contributions, and his presence has become a significant drain on both the human and electronic resources of this community.  Thank you for your time.  Zahakiel 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thread at his talk page has grown rather long.  As I stated in the block notice, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is recommended reading and this editor is risking a community siteban. DurovaCharge! 04:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Vandal|E.Shubee}} 

message: There is currently a Vote about some +categories and as the vote is occurring Fresheneesz moved the articles to the main category.  Would you please advise him to revert all of his changes.  Thank you Headphonos 00:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's usually something editors take care of themselves.  If there's a deeper problem at work please post details with diffs. DurovaCharge! 03:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Fresheneesz}}

message: For evidence of what I discuss below, please direct your attention to essentially all of this user's edits on the page in question, specifically the diffs I provide below.  The user's talk page will demonstrate multiple warnings.  This user continually, relentlessly makes disruptive edits to Laguna Beach: The Real Orange County.  User continues to insert biased, patently unverifiable, unencyclopedic information despite being told exactly what is wrong with what he / she is doing multiple times by myself and User:Dina.  Specifically, he / she (I'm just going to go with she from now on) seems to be enamored with the character named Breanna, hence the username.  She inserts glorious, flowing, totally unsourced and unverifiable prose into Breanna's section of the article whenever I turn my back, ignores my warnings against doing so, and blanks the paragraph or otherwise vandalizes the section devoted to Breanna's "rival" on the program, Tessa Keller.  Beyond a content dispute, now a constant edit war, and her blind eye to all warnings makes it vandalism.
Examples:
Her edits regarding Breanna; this diff shows two of her edits, both made after about six warnings: .  
Her edits to Tessa Keller section: .
--Tractorkingsfan 01:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Genuine vandalism here, but no activity in nearly a week.  I would have blocked if I had read this sooner.  Report again if problems resume. DurovaCharge! 04:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Vandal|Breannarox}} 

message: Also: 
*User:SoulSuit
*User:Walbert4
*User:Newmoontube
Multiple linkspam on many articles relating to British geography by likely sockpuppets, involving the inappropriate insertion of links to a mirror of Google Maps located at www.blackcomb.co.uk (which appears to be a commercial website). All appear to be single-purpose accounts.           
E.g.:
*User:ChildOfA303
*User:Walbert4
*User:SoulSuit
*User:Newmoontube
DWaterson 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#blackcomb.co.uk Femto 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe should be brought to WP:RFCU. —Centrx→talk • 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|ChildOfA303}}

message: User has been reinserting linkspam and information that was previously deleted and discussed at length on the talk page for Emiliano Zapata, all editors except User:Posmodern2000 agree the information is speculation and unverifiable (Posmodern2000, not surprisingly, claims what he wants to add are all "facts" that have been mysteriously suppressed by authorities and that he's being censored). After all the discussion and attempts at resolution, this is devolving into mere vandalism. Tubezone 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Post diffs, please. DurovaCharge! 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No subsequent activity on this account. DurovaCharge! 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{vandal|Posmodern2000}}=

message: I would like to warn anyone who was lucky enough to not have had any disputes with user:Piotrus, and therefore having not been a victim of his intimidation, to take his complaints with a huge grain of salt. 
The essence of all these conflicts is never civility but the long-lasting content disagreements over many articles tendentiously edited by Piotrus to suite his Poland-centered world-view (I would have gone one step further and called this even Polish nationalist world view but Piotrus' nationalism is admittedly, less extreme than that of some others). Piotrus' persisting with pushing the Polish nationalist POV into various articles brought about conflicts with valuable editors from all countries that happen to be the neighbors of Poland and have lots of shared history, primarily Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans. This by itself would not have been abnormal if not Piotrus' reprehensible tactics he is persistently using by trying to win such content disputes through expulsion of his opponents through blocks or forcing them quit. In the past he used false 3RR reports, cherry-picking of admins to bring his complaints to, WP:AN, WP:ANI. Most recently he used several times the WP:PAIN which is now thankfully shut-down specifically because of the Piotrus'-like abuse of it. Now he found a new venue to push for expulsion of his opponents, this board.
He has succeeded in achieving one of his goals already. User:Ghirlandajo, the jewel contributor, left the Wikipedia and does not seem returning. Now it is Dr. Dan's turn. Who will be next I wonder?
To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk, RfC's, etc. Attempts to present this as civility issues or policy violations are misleading and aimed at achieving another content "victory" by expuslsion of another opponent. When such tricks were tried against Piotrus' friend Halibutt, I
was
equally critical then.
Anyway, I've seen enough to initiate the administrative recall of Piotrus for the unethical behavior unbecoming for an admin. I refused to do that earlier despite many calls I received in private from the Russian, Lithuanian and German editors in the past year. I was mistaken then and it's time to correct this now. --Irpen 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I never expected you, Irpen, to scoop so low and to present so many misinterpretations (to say the least). I have just four comments. 1) No diffs in the above post should give everyone a pause. Fiction, of course, is hard to back up with diffs. 2). Similar accusations were raised by Ghirla and M.K at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus. M.K's rant was not supported by anyone except Dr. Dan (suprise...), and Ghirla ended up in ArbCom  and Mediation, where he agreed to put himself under a civility parole (requested for, among other things, to stop a flow of similar unfounded accusations). I'd thus advice, Irpen, that you don't repeat his mistakes. 3) In any case, according to the message at User:Ghirlandajo, I had nothing to do with his wikibreak (and Irpen tryong to insinuate anything else is just another example of fallacies of his arguments). That said, you are free to try DR or initiate my voluntary recall, the last attempt to do so proved quite fruitfull, I think. 4) As for my 'persistent pushing of Polish nationalist POV' - I invite anybody to read comments by our Featured Articles Director on my RfC. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus, you won't impress or scare me by showing what happened to your other opponents. So, please no "advises not to repeat" stuff. As for diffs, I could dig them if memories fail you somehow. I thought you remember you false 3RR report against Ghirla, that was dismissed false. Also, you may recall your inciting Elonka to post a complaint on him to WP:ANI. You may also recall your inciting someone who I never met to submit a report on myself during our dispute  over Taras Fedorovych. You may also recall your asking William M. Connolley to block Fisenko over a content dispute he had with you. Should I dig the diffs or you remember those cases? --Irpen 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are trying to catch up with the party you missed - i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, where those issues were brought up and dismissed. I am sorry to disappoint you, but WP:RFI report against another user is not a good place to try to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus 2, and if you think you can try to turn this from discussing Dr. Dan to discussing Piotrus, I am afraid you'll not succeed. Per my last post, I am waiting for an apology for claims dismissed by my RfC as well as other accusations ('persistent nationalist POV pushing' and similar).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have evidence to back up such a claim of POV pushing, I would be very interested in seeing it.  Can you please provide diffs?  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WD, you have not been around where everyone who edited with Piotrus have been lately. At the same time you just love to get involved in all sorts of personal conflicts with your uninformed opinions. I suggest simply that you study every matter before opining. The disputes here are deep. They run for years and your last attempt to get involved was extremely unhelpful. I would rather prefer that this is dealt by Durova or anyone else more or less familiar with the context, if you would please allow this. --Irpen 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Durova is actively working in a mediation which involves Piotrus, so I do not think she would be the best person to look into the matter.  I can myself, or another user may, but in either event you should provide diffs to support your claim.  If you can indeed support such a claim I would support a recal of Piotrus, but if you cannot I would ask you to withdraw this damaging accusation.  I realise my efforts earlier with Ghirla did not go as well as could have been hoped, and I have taken that as a learning experience.  In my defense a series of other users that seemed to have some agenda "supported" me, and in the end were altogether unhelpful in the matter.  I can of course leave the issue be if you so wish, however, as I said, you should prove this claim or withdraw it, as it's a fairly damaging thing to accuse someone of.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: WD, I just want to say I have always appreciated yours (and Durova) attempts to uphold WP:CIV and other policies here. I think that your actions have always upheld high standards.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, WD, I would prefer that you leave the issue alone. I consider you by your attitude unfit to get involved in interpersonal conflict resolution and this was best demonstrated at PAIN. That said, I can't prevent you from further involvement into such issues as this is what seems you want to do. But since you asked me about this particular issue, then yes. Please stay out of it if you can. --Irpen 07:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *One mistake is hardly something to hold a grudge on someone for, nor does it ever speak fully for one person's abilities or attitudes.  In any event, I would appreciate diffs (or other evidence of that nature)  or a retraction of your comment, please.  Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And WD, please consider my request to stay in; I always found your comments helfpul and well-meaning. PS. I second WD request for a diffs (proving that point) or an apology.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any attempt at a sort of mediation or informal dispute resolution only works if all parties to it agree to the matter, and Irpen clearly does not, so I will not further investigate or look into the matter, though I reserve the right to get involved at a later time should I feel compelled to do so.  I will however, clarify a few things.  First of all, Irpen - I left Ghirla a large apology on his talk page.  He is an extremely valued contributor, and someone I regard with a tremendous deal of respect.  I never intended to slight him in any way.  Secondly, I stand by my request for Irpen to provide diffs, or at least give some reassurances that he is having this looked at by a third party.  I don't feel comfortable leaving an issue with what, if unproven and unbacked, amounts to a personal attack unresolved.  So, Irpen, I beseech you, please provide some diffs, or some evidence this matter is being looked into.  All I ask if I am to be uninvolved is to have assurance that someone is looking into it.  ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piotrus and Durova would know exactly what I mean and I gave above some hints to refresh Piotrus' memories. Now, you can rest assured that Durova is a very thorough person and she will get to the bottom of this if she chooses to stay in. I trust her judgment a lot. Thank you. --Irpen 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WD, to fill you in - those issues where discussed in December at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus filled against me by Ghirla. As his accusations were supported by 5 out of 40+ people who commented there, and criticized by many more, the case ended up at ArbCom and User:Durova/Mediation, where Ghirla withdrew most of them, apologized and agreed to be put under civility parole, I really wonder what's Irpen's angle here with trying to revive this - but as I said above WP:RFI is not WP:RFC and this entire section is only distracting us from discussing Dr. Dan abuses.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There were raised questions about pushing POV, interesting example , and I am sure if not intervention form the side particular article would mislead till now. Interesting stance Piotrus demonstrated then one contributor started to mocking one nations language again  contributors made clear about such behavior , but Piotrus "explanations"  were no good, especially then some time ago same situation arise and was noted that there was no "mistakes" in such case . Does explanations needed for   accusations of various organizations, which Dr. Dan presented? M.K. 11:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Take this with a huge grain of salt

message: :I wish to begin my belated response by giving you all my overview of Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia, and I believe it is a superb venue to acquire and exchange information. I am proud to be a member of the project. P.P.'s "Statistics Appendix Box", is interesting in itself because it truly does not reflect my participation in WP. 90% of my involvement in Wikipedia is reading it, and getting knowledge from it, about the many, many subjects that I have never had any familiarity with like the fig wasp, Bohuslav Martinů, or Indian Standard Time, and believe me, I play a mean game of Jeopardy!. You see, P.P., how a person contributes to Wikipedia is their business. It can be copyediting or going to the discussion pages and correcting or questioning or shaping an article. It takes quite a big ego to think, Hrmph!, I created articles like Żydokomuna, while Dr. Dan merely goes to its talk page and has the temerity to question it and give me a hard time over it. This argument of yours is truly a strawman argument because you had the same problems you are complaining about me with user:Ghirlandajo, one of the most prolific contributors to Wikipedia. Allow me to digress and say, Ghirla, if you are listening, please come back. I salute you, and the great Russian people, and the many fine contributions to Wikipedia that have come out of there.
:I would also like to take a moment to thank the many people who took the time to support me and question the validity of this investigation and my block. I was also surprised by the many E-mails of support that I received from contributors who preferred to "remain off the record". It was comforting. I am especially grateful for the input of user:Musical Linguist, as I consider her to be not only extremely fair-minded and an impartial editor, but one who was not even remotely involved with the "personalities" of this issue. Durova, I must respectfully say that I am dissapointed that in your rush to judgement, I was not able to make my points of defense before the block occured. It had a quality of censorship that does not concur with your professed hesitancy to not shoot first and ask questions later. I should hope that in the future if the concept of the RFI should be successful "one should not be sentenced before the trial", hanged before (actually during) Eid ul-Adha, or before all the evidence and testimony are fully presented. I hope I can get a chuckle out of you, or at least a smile when I tell you IMHO, that this particular charge of yours was more of a Lord Cardigan, rather than a Nadezhda Durova. As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did, but if you, Durova, do not see the other side's equal guilt, maybe you should at least consider some of the protests to your decision and what motivated them. As a small example, I ask Durova to read Talk:Laurynas Gucevicius (archive 3) to get a small sense of what I mean. Rather than being uncivil, I'm probably more guilty of being sarcastic or what you have referred to as "sniping" or P.P. has referred to as "snipping". Would you agree, Durova, that a good example of this type of sarcasm would be, "You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours...Due to you busy schedule this is unlikely to interfere very much with your participation at Wikipedia." Actually this statement caused me to smile and actually laugh a little. You know kind of like touché. In any case, it wouldn't cause me to tear open my żupan or my caftan. Sorry.
:Now to the heart of the matter. These remarks are for everyone's benefit especially fair-minded and objective people. Like most of you, until now I was unfamiliar with the organization, Vilnija. On January 13, 2007, the participarts of Wikipedia were treated to a new article by the esoteric entity that P.P. called We, I suppose this We (I asked him and he never did say what he meant) meaning he and his friends. It's title Vilnija. It has since been toned down quite a bit since then, but it began with a rather unusually hostile opening statement containing no less that seven (yes, seven) citations, followed by lots of other goodies, and ending with an edit summary, "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one." (sic) The following six entries were made by P.P., Halibutt, and Lysy (three of the most vociferous non-Lithuanian contributors to Lithuanian subjects), who seem to be having a hard time understanding why their input is challenged. I don't think it's unfair to say that the Vilnija article is a pretty good example of what starts the "ball rolling" in these frequent disputes. So much for attaining the elusive "modus vivendi" that P.P. has frequently asked for. And I've said over and over we all have to walk the walk, not just talk, the talk. Then the "article" moved to the discussion pages where a particularly onerous accusation was made against me by P.P. that "I was a supporter" of this organization. Or was it someone else? Falsehood #1. As I tried to get more information about this "extremist" organization, I ran across an edit entered in Wikipedia on November 8, 2005, in the "oeuvre" that the prokonsul created, Żydokomuna, in which P.P. stated that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona were extremist and anti-Semitic. This declarative statement he made seems to the best of my investigating to be untrue. Falsehood #2. Evidently P.P. did not remember his edit, because he demanded to know the basis of my claim. In fact, I believe more than anything this so angered him (the straw that broke the camel's back), that this was the true reason he instigated this investigation. Yet he made the declarative statement about these organizations, without explanation, sources, or citations. Upon being shown where he made the statement, his explanation was that he "translated" the statement from Polish Wikipedia. He was further angered by the fact that after I read the Polish text, I informed him that his statement was not a translation, but at best an extrapolation from an unreferenced source. He denied that and continued to claim his sentence was a translation. Falsehood #3. Btw, I can imagine the outcry from the "club," if I had authored this article.
:In this RFI, P.P., shows us that I have been warned to change my attitude many times, and gives us 8 examples from my talk starting January 29, 2006, ending January 12, 2007. Let me go to two of them (the first and the last) to save time. In the first example, he invokes the user:Molobo, a role model of civil and constructive contributions. An editor with quite a interesting history of editing to say the least. But one who P.P., never blocked (but unblocked numerous times), never even chided , and of course did not bring about an RFI or an analysis of his contributions to anyone's attention. In the second example, as things began to "heat up" a little lately, P.P. made a Request to me on my talk page (01.12.07). It seemed sincere and I told him that in essence I agreed. Peace at last? A roadmap for some type of consensus? One day later we get the Vilnija article  (with "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one"). In this RFI, P.P. states that certain editors remarks caused Halibutt to withdraw from Wikipedia for Months Long Withdrwal (sic) Falsehood #4 (more like a couple of days). In fact I myself did withdraw from the project for a month last November, because I found the escalation of bad will very tedious. I also suggested at the time to mutually lay off "controversial" topics for a while. Regarding Halibutt's months long withdrwal, it's announcement is there for all to read in user:Halibutt/News (you have to go to the history)on December 23, 2006. In a very bizarre edit Halibutt tells us he is being blackmailed. By whom? Falsehood #1, That Ghirlandajo made death threats against him. Falsehood #2, That administrator Renata and her Lithuanian pals made anti-Semitic comments toward him. Falsehood #3, and that Dr. Dan offended his parents (never did) Falsehood #4.
:There may have been a time when all of these type of "contributions" went unchallenged. Slowly this began to change as more and more people began to question the fairness and veracity of some of the information that we were reading. A particularly thorny issue was the use of sources out of Communist Poland that were often a magazine or newspaper article. And please understand me on this point, I wouldn't claim that one should use Der Sturmer as a reference either. Maybe something good will come out of this RFI, because I will definitely work on becoming more civil. As for civility, and the lack of it, I still contend there is plenty of blame to share by all of the participants in this matter. It would be a good idea for each and everyone to keep this in mind. With that, I wish all Happy Editing! Dr. Dan 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Dan. Nobody suggested that you should be blocked from reading Wikipedia; in fact nobody ever has been or will be blocked from using our project (at least, not by us). There is a difference between using and contributing to Wikipdia, and while certainly how you use it is your business (with respect to GFDL), how you contribute may become a business of others. Your occasional copyediting is welcomed; however as parts of the discussion above (not hijacked by Irpen to discuss grieviances against other editors) show, quite a few users have problems with your comments in discussions, which were found to be unconstructive and offensive. I will not, forgive me, go off topic and discuss other's actions (feel free to start such discussions at apprpriate sections). You admit above youself that As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did and I will definitely work on becoming more civil. I appreciate such honest admissions. I hope to see many more of your helpful copyedits, and your comments on talk will have no 'snipping' quality. I hope that this and previous discussion, and the block you received, will convince you to follow my and other advices and there will be no need for discussing your actions again in the future in context of WP:CIV violations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dr. Dan's reply