→New requests: archive Vaquero100 |
→New requests: relevant links |
||
Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list) --> |
<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list) --> |
||
*[[User:Neuropean]] - PART 2 - has been placing wikilinks such as this '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Frank%27s_cats&diff=prev&oldid=61428937]''' and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Frank%27s_cats&diff=prev&oldid=61426501]in various places. Due to his edit history and his behaviour more than one editor consider this account to be a sockpuppet. [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
*[[User:Neuropean]] - PART 2 - has been placing wikilinks such as this '''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Frank%27s_cats&diff=prev&oldid=61428937]''' and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Frank%27s_cats&diff=prev&oldid=61426501]in various places. Due to his edit history and his behaviour more than one editor consider this account to be a sockpuppet. [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Robsteadman|Only one sockpuppet here]] |
|||
*[[User:Neuropean]] - clearly not a new user, almos certainly a sockpuppet ([[user:Syrthiss]] agrees - their 2nd edit was an AfD, they seem out to make a [[WP:POINT]] and seem to be, targetting, inparticular, articles with which I am associated. Many of their contributions, to date, are AfDs and there appears little constructive in their purpose (though they have tried to cover this up with a few random edits). [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
*[[User:Neuropean]] - clearly not a new user, almos certainly a sockpuppet ([[user:Syrthiss]] agrees - their 2nd edit was an AfD, they seem out to make a [[WP:POINT]] and seem to be, targetting, inparticular, articles with which I am associated. Many of their contributions, to date, are AfDs and there appears little constructive in their purpose (though they have tried to cover this up with a few random edits). [[User:Robertsteadman|Robertsteadman]] 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
[[User:Robsteadman|Only one sockpuppet here]] |
|||
**'''Comment:''' I am not going to waste time here defending myself. This user has accused me of being a sock of everybody who has argued against him (whether those involved in Hockey, or those involved with Ruth Kelly). I have made no personal attacks, I have attempted to assume good faith and I have committed no acts of vandalism. It is true that I have edited on some articles and talk pages that he has been involved in, but the opposite is true. Yes it is true that Syrthiss has accused me of being a sock puppet, but this assumption of bad faith was not strong enough for him to file a RFCU. What this user fails to understand is that I am NOT a new user. However, there is nothing at all wrong with '''ANY''' user deciding that he would like to create a new user name (after all the editor concerned has done the same thing himself). I have done nothing wrong. I would be interested in receiving some support from those editors who have recently been on the receiving end of this user's assumption of bad faith in anyone who does not actively agree with him. [[User:Neuropean|Neuropean]] 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
**'''Comment:''' I am not going to waste time here defending myself. This user has accused me of being a sock of everybody who has argued against him (whether those involved in Hockey, or those involved with Ruth Kelly). I have made no personal attacks, I have attempted to assume good faith and I have committed no acts of vandalism. It is true that I have edited on some articles and talk pages that he has been involved in, but the opposite is true. Yes it is true that Syrthiss has accused me of being a sock puppet, but this assumption of bad faith was not strong enough for him to file a RFCU. What this user fails to understand is that I am NOT a new user. However, there is nothing at all wrong with '''ANY''' user deciding that he would like to create a new user name (after all the editor concerned has done the same thing himself). I have done nothing wrong. I would be interested in receiving some support from those editors who have recently been on the receiving end of this user's assumption of bad faith in anyone who does not actively agree with him. [[User:Neuropean|Neuropean]] 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
||
**What's your old account name? --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS]]</sup> 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
**What's your old account name? --[[User:Deskana|Lord Deskana]] <sup>[[User_Talk:Deskana|Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS]]</sup> 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:42, 1 July 2006
This page is intended to request administrator investigation of certain types of abuse only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For obvious vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism. Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice. |
To update this page, archives.
. For alerts that have already been addressed, see theWatchlist
- Report here:
- Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
- Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.
- Do not report here:
- Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
- Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
- Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.
- Use the following format:
* {{article|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~
or* {{vandal|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~
or* {{IPvandal|Ip_Address}} - brief explanation //~~~~
- Reports will be removed from the list and watched by users in #vandalism-en-wp.
Watchlist requests
- example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Example user blanked several articles, but stopped after being warned. Petros471 19:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
IP addresses
Do not report obvious vandalism here; see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Only report IP addresses that are engaged in complicated, deceptive vandalism that will require more than a few moments for an administrator to analyse. Please read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting. |
Requests
Please use this format at the top of this section:
* {{IPvandal|IP Address}} -- Brief Description // ~~~~
Registered users
Read the policies, guidelines, and procedures before reporting. Do not report content or user disputes here, unless you can provide links demonstrating a strong attempt at dispute resolution. Please use this format at the top of this section:
* {{vandal|User_name}} -- Brief Description // ~~~~
Usernames are case sensitive and please note that spaces in usernames need to be replaced by underscores (as shown in the example above).
New requests
- User:Neuropean - PART 2 - has been placing wikilinks such as this [1] and [2]in various places. Due to his edit history and his behaviour more than one editor consider this account to be a sockpuppet. Robertsteadman 06:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- User:Neuropean - clearly not a new user, almos certainly a sockpuppet (user:Syrthiss agrees - their 2nd edit was an AfD, they seem out to make a WP:POINT and seem to be, targetting, inparticular, articles with which I am associated. Many of their contributions, to date, are AfDs and there appears little constructive in their purpose (though they have tried to cover this up with a few random edits). Robertsteadman 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I am not going to waste time here defending myself. This user has accused me of being a sock of everybody who has argued against him (whether those involved in Hockey, or those involved with Ruth Kelly). I have made no personal attacks, I have attempted to assume good faith and I have committed no acts of vandalism. It is true that I have edited on some articles and talk pages that he has been involved in, but the opposite is true. Yes it is true that Syrthiss has accused me of being a sock puppet, but this assumption of bad faith was not strong enough for him to file a RFCU. What this user fails to understand is that I am NOT a new user. However, there is nothing at all wrong with ANY user deciding that he would like to create a new user name (after all the editor concerned has done the same thing himself). I have done nothing wrong. I would be interested in receiving some support from those editors who have recently been on the receiving end of this user's assumption of bad faith in anyone who does not actively agree with him. Neuropean 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- What's your old account name? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- What does it matter? As long as I only use one account, is it important? Policy allows editors to close one account and open another - policy does not permit this if it is with the intention of disrupting wikipedia or harassing others. I'm pretty sure that apart from a spate of cat based WP:POINT violations I'm free of that. (And before anyone mentions a block for this, I have no intention of creating or deleting any MORE famous cat articles so there is no point in blocking me for that - policy is not about punishing past edits but ensuring that future edits are productive or, if this is unlikely, preventing future disruption).Neuropean 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- To be honest, I didn't want to see your answer to the question, but your reaction to the question. You got quite defensive. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- God, no! Please note that I wasn't just answering your question, but forestalling further questions that at least one editor is bound to put to me now that you have asked that question. I have, apparently, more socks than a cold centipede.Neuropean 22:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- What does it matter? As long as I only use one account, is it important? Policy allows editors to close one account and open another - policy does not permit this if it is with the intention of disrupting wikipedia or harassing others. I'm pretty sure that apart from a spate of cat based WP:POINT violations I'm free of that. (And before anyone mentions a block for this, I have no intention of creating or deleting any MORE famous cat articles so there is no point in blocking me for that - policy is not about punishing past edits but ensuring that future edits are productive or, if this is unlikely, preventing future disruption).Neuropean 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment While I cannot state for certain the reasoning behind Neuropean's AfD, I do support his argument that RobertSteadman is acting in bad faith with his own accusations of bad faith. RobertSteadman seems to have involved himself in two separate battles, hockey and Ruth Kelly, and to this point, his only defense has been to violate the same policies that he is nominating Neuropean for. Specifically WP:POINT: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] Also of note, a specific comment: " I am already in discussion over this with a number of people - THunder Bay Northern Hawks days are limited" ([11]). That comment was made following two failed AfD's, indicating that RobertSteadman is acting as a result of a personal vendetta. While it appears at a cursory glance that this specific RfI stems from the Ruth Kelly debate, I cannot possibly consider this a good faith nomination based on RobertSteadman's signficant history, regardless of any reason for Neuropean's actions. Resolute 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Yeah, Rob is not exactly a genuine person. By the way, I am interested by Rob's interest in the term "Cock Puppet"... is he sensitive to the fact that his current account is a Cock Puppet? Right or Wrong, with User:Robsteadman/User:Robertsteadman's history... and his love for harrassment and wikistalking... I'm still wondering why he is allowed to edit on Wikipedia. DMighton 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- lostsociety (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User lostsociety has been posting profane and abusive posts, plus posting promotional language over and over again. Please see this and this as just 2 examples. User also has posted 10 images which had to be removed for false copyrights and continues to post promotional lanugage on the Bambu page. User is related to the Bambu company and therefore is trying to use Wiki to promote his family's product :( He also posts under the IP 24.215.229.224 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
- Warned by Jzg. Petros471 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Further info; Lostsociety AKA Mookie Chookie 1) Lostsociety claims they “called Miguel Y Costas” and found out that Abadie papers were discontinued. He says this because he works for Bambu, who has all of their papers made by Miguel Y Costas. However in the USA, Abadie is a trademark of Republic Tobacco (a competitor of Miguel Y Costas), and it is certainly not discontinued. This was only posted so that he could justify removing Abadie from the rolling paper list to make Bambu the top slot. 2) Lostsociety has posted 14 images of Bambu papers and products. Each time he makes incorrect claims such as “image from Bambu website”. However the images are not found on the Bambu website and are very clearly promotional images 3) Lostsociety continually reverts and posts promotional language such as “Bambu papers are the best in the world” type comments (Bambu are the #1 selling rolling paper in the Carribean, Bambu are the #1 selling paper, Bambu is the last independent company, Bambu rules, etc..). He continually adds these comments to various rolling paper pages (Bambu, Rolling Papers, Miguel Y Costas, Juicy Jays and others, and undoes anyone’s changes that removes or alters this promotional language 4) Lostsociety posts slanderous and defamatory text on brands that compete with Bambu. 5) Lostsociety posts under 3 names, all with the same IP address and all have the same tactic of promoting Bambu papers above all others 6) When cornered, Lostsociety tries to deflect blame by saying that people who revert or alter his promotional language & image posts work for Bambu competitors (yes, it’s all one big conspiracy against Bambu, this is classic caught-blame-others psychology).
- User:CmdrClow has repeatedly removed warnings that I have placed on his Talk page, even after I have warned him for removing them. He has edited my comments on article discussion pages, and left unsigned comments. When I advised him, politely, to always remember to sign his comments he proceeded to remove what I said from the article's discussion page. He believes that if he labels my warnings "personal attacks" then he can remove them. I have warned him repeatedly, and I would like someone to investigate this situation and take the most appropriate action. If you could respond to my talk page with the outcome of your investigation and final decision I would appreciate it. Thank you. Bignole 04:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- CoolKatt_number_99999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has, on various Wiki articles, contributed what could be considered unsubstaniated information on articles related to television stations. In this article, for example, he/she added unverified information about what the call letters of television stations mean; the information was later verified and proven to be factually incorrect. In the instance of KMYL-LP, there is no way the call letters could mean what he/she lists them as, because My Network TV didn't exist when the station was founded. In other cases, he/she speculates that the letter W in call letters means "We're" (see WSTM) - when, in may cases, that's not correct. I don't think this user is doing it in bad faith, but at the same time, it is a persistent problem. I'm hesitant to bring this up with the user because he/she is involved in several edit disputes / personal conflicts with other users. Amnewsboy 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- The user in question also has six kajillion user subpages related to a fictional history of TV stations, which may or may not be related to the current situation. I mention it here for informational purposes only, as an uninvolved observer. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up User has - again - re-added his interpretation of the AETN letters, even though they are factually incorrect. (I can provide documentation if needed.) Amnewsboy 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like being called a vandal. The callsigns on AETN have to mean something, even if there is no source. And the KMYL calls were adopted after its parent station, KASY-TV, was announced as a MNT affliate. CoolKatt number 99999 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize if the latter was an error on my part. However, AETN insists the call letters -- officially -- mean nothing. I'm simply asking that you verify any call letter changes you make with the station in question before making them. Amnewsboy 05:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Another idea: Use {{fact}}. CoolKatt number 99999 05:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I apologize if the latter was an error on my part. However, AETN insists the call letters -- officially -- mean nothing. I'm simply asking that you verify any call letter changes you make with the station in question before making them. Amnewsboy 05:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- I don't like being called a vandal. The callsigns on AETN have to mean something, even if there is no source. And the KMYL calls were adopted after its parent station, KASY-TV, was announced as a MNT affliate. CoolKatt number 99999 04:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Follow-up User has - again - re-added his interpretation of the AETN letters, even though they are factually incorrect. (I can provide documentation if needed.) Amnewsboy 04:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The user in question also has six kajillion user subpages related to a fictional history of TV stations, which may or may not be related to the current situation. I mention it here for informational purposes only, as an uninvolved observer. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
- 24.215.229.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) User 24.215.229.224 is 'lostsociety'. Now that he has been warned he is just using his IP to continue to add promotional language for his brand, Bambu. Please see above warning against Lostsociety (same person)
Under investigation
- Amykocot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I've come across a sophisticated spammer who has done the full range of spamming - images, blatantly advertisement articles for (minor) companies, link-spamming and even promotional categories! They are obviously quite aware of all kinds of wikitricks, including making a null edit to their user page so they show up as a blue link (grrr) and getting rid of speedy deletion notices. Unfortunately I was the first one to apply the "spam" warning template to their talk page so it may be quite some time before they end up stopping or being banned. TheGrappler 06:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Articles up for deletion, editor seems to have stopped. Petros471 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Be careful though - this user operates in bursts with gaps between, and demonstrates this pattern of editing from between June 2 and June 20. Another burst is likely soon - somebody needs to keep an eye on this user's contributions. TheGrappler 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Returned as predicted, but it looks like an eye is being kept out for them. TheGrappler 22:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Be careful though - this user operates in bursts with gaps between, and demonstrates this pattern of editing from between June 2 and June 20. Another burst is likely soon - somebody needs to keep an eye on this user's contributions. TheGrappler 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Articles up for deletion, editor seems to have stopped. Petros471 17:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Dfrg.msc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Continuing abuse of the Tomorrow series and its talk page, as well as my own talk page. Erratic use of his own talk page suggest malicious intent despite (or beecause of) warning, and I suspect he is a sock puppet of Carbine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), with his most recent sock puppet being F 22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Scottie theNerd 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- Might need a checkuser and/or another admin who knows more about Carbine to confirm this to be sure. Petros471 17:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- While obviously an offline friend of Carbine (both by his own admission and his similarities in interest), I don't believe that this user is the same person. His interest in positive contributions, as I've gathered from my frequent interactions with him, has been minimal — most of his edits are sloppy additions to the Tomorrow series, adding nonsense to his talk page, uploading images which end up deleted, or appeals that he isn't a Carbine sock. I wouldn't spend much time investigating or doing a checkuser, but all the same, he's on thin ice in my book. Like Carbine, he seems to regard the 'pedia as a playground rather than a serious project — he just hasn't gone to the length of creating a merry band of dwarves. Yet. Tijuana Brass¡Épa! 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- it is ovious that you have no evidence to support your claims! So they have made simular contributions. so what? That is not very strong evidence to go blocking people with. I would like to see more evidence then that. It wouldnt hold up in any court. PS i am not a sockpuppet or master or anything so leave me alone!!!!!!!!!!.
F 22 10:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have no evidence? Shall we disregard all the edits made to my Talk page that I have arbitarily removed because they were obvious vandalism? I didn't accuse you of being a sock puppet; I was merely stating the reason for your block as cited through the Wiki template. I don't care if you're the same person, but I am concerned that you are being a major inconvenience to other editors. If you want others to leave you alone, it would behove you to leave us alone and let us make proper, constructive edits without some random guy playing with our hard work. Let the admins decide what to make of this situation, and stay away from my Talk page. --Scottie theNerd 23:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- WIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - For months this user has been posting long diatribes to the Talk page Indo-Aryan migration, treating the page as if it is a discussion forum to decide the truth of the theory. He constantly claims the theory is wrong with links to amateur websites to back him up, terrible English, and an unwillingness to listen to anyone. When told that the Talk page is to be used for creating consensus on scholarly opinion sourced from reputable places outside Wikipedia, and not a place to settle controversial theories, he has just ignored these warnings. I've starting reverted his additions outright as vandalism, with support from other users, but I just can't keep up with this guy. Please, look at his edit history for this Talk page, he's never made a productive edit, just endless rants. Make it stop. CRCulver 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Warned for disruption. Petros471 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
- 578 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- User, with whom I have a dispute over a number of pages (a RfM is filed), has posted a bad faith Blatant Vandal warning on my talk page [12], and is otherwise harassing. The user was inactibe for over a year, until a dispute with other users over some AfD's started. His third edit after his return was the addition of an article I had AfD'ed on my user page (not my talk page), in the list of my main contributions. [13] He has been uncivil in his comments to other users [14], [15] and [16], including accusing them of sockpuppetry [17]. The only edits (since his return) not involving talk pages or user pages are a vandalizing of Game tester (and labeling his change as rvv!) [18], and one change of which I can't judge the validity [19]. Fram 12:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Addition: user now says rather unicivil that RfI or RfM won't make a difference, as he will then change his IP... [20] Fram 19:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
See also
- /Archives
- Wikipedia:Long term abuse
- Wikipedia:Vandalism contains information about vandalism, antivandalism methods and tools, and links to other relevant pages.
- Meta:Finding network abuse contacts