Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:55, 21 November 2006 edit72.91.169.22 (talk) →{{IPvandal\|195.82.106.244}}← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 15:19, 22 August 2023 edit undoGraham87 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Importers291,433 editsm much more common like this
(1,000 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Historical Wikimedia project page}}
	{{process header
			{{historical\|WP:RFI\|WP:VIP}}
	\| title = Requests for investigation
	\| section =
	\| previous = ←]
	\| next = ] (])→
	\| shortcut = WP:RFI
	\| notes = This page allows users to request administrator investigation of '''certain''' types of abuse only. Do not use this page until you read the ]. For obvious vandalism, see ]. '''Alerts that do not belong on this page may be removed without action or notice.'''

			:''This page has been '''shut down''' after ].''

			:Please use ] as an alternate venue for cases of simple vandalism that require an immediate block and ] for cases that require further investigation.
	{{editabuselinks}}
	}}
	==Instructions==
	Choose one of three sections to make a report: ], ], or ]. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the ''New requests'' subsection or the top of the watchlist. Inappropriate presentation could delay investigation.

			==Old instructions for this page==
	Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages. Investigators may request more information or recommend additional action such as ]. In some cases investigators might determine that little or no administrative action is warranted by the first report, but would issue user blocks and other measures as new circumstances arise. The responsibility rests with the involved editors to follow up as requested; failure to do so indicates lack of desire for further investigation.
			<small>
			Choose one of three sections to make a report: ], ], or ]. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the ''New requests'' subsection or the top of the watchlist. Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages.
			</small>

			==History==
	A request for investigation is not part of the ] process although it can sometimes be a useful supplement if substantial editor misconduct is suspected. Investigation concerns applicable site policies and guidelines rather than article content. Various involved users will be subject to study so sometimes the editor who requests an investigation gets blocked. Administrative actions that may be taken by an investigator such as page protections and user blocks do not necessarily relate to the merits of a content dispute. Please do not ask an investigator to act as a partisan ally because that may prompt the investigator to ] himself or herself and there might be no other available investigator.

			The first page used for tracking vandalism was a user subpage, ], some time before 4 November 2001. The vandalism in progress page was established as VANDALISM IN PROGRESS - the title was upper-case to make it easily distinguishable on ]). Around the same time, the Misplaced Pages Militia (since renamed to the ]) was formed to coordinate responses to press releases about Misplaced Pages. The "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS" page was moved to the Misplaced Pages namespace in August 2002 and was renamed to the current title in 2006. Its archives since 2003 may be found in ] and the talk archives since august 2002 can be found in the history of ] and in text form as subpages of ]. Old subpages can also be found through ]. the ] page also grew out of "vandalism in progress". A section on the "vandalism in progress" page for persistent vandalism was added in ], later ], and then re-created as ] in September 2004; in December 2004 it was ] to ], titled ].
	==Watchlist==
	* Report in this section:
	# Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that 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 ] instead.
	# Users needing investigation - see one of the sections below.

	*Use the following format:
	: <code><nowiki>* {{article\|article name}} - brief explanation // ~~~~</nowiki></code> '''or '''
	: <code><nowiki>* {{vandal\|username}} - brief explanation // ~~~~</nowiki></code> '''or '''
	: <code><nowiki>* {{IPvandal\|Ip_Address}} - brief explanation //~~~~</nowiki></code>

	*Reports will be removed from the list and watched by users in .

	===Watchlist requests===
	<!-- Report new alerts below this line -->

	*] - Vandalized frequently
	:Rarely vandalized. Follow up if problems increase. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	<!-- (Copied from Bottom) I apologize if this is not the correct place or way of reporting this. I didn't put vandal notices on the IP pages because they are using multiple IPs in the same block and it appeared pointless. I'm also not familiar with admin procedures - just a user trying to keep this page from being vandalized. Thanks for your help.-->

	* ] - Vandalized daily.
	** {{IPvandal\|69.129.201.181}}, {{IPvandal\|24.215.138.239}}, {{IPvandal\|199.197.126.240}}, {{IPvandal\|69.162.165.25}}, and {{IPvandal\|76.210.73.54}} have all vandalizes this page in the last three days.
	:::Semi-protected. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	*] - vandalized daily.
	<!-- I apologize, but do not have the technical expertise to cull the list of most recent vandals, please see the history page -->
	:::Semi-protected. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	*] - vandalized frequently.
	::Semi-protected. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	<!-- I apologize if this is not the correct place or way of reporting this. I didn't put vandal notices on the IP pages because they are using multiple IPs in the same block and it appeared pointless. I'm also not familiar with admin procedures - just a user trying to keep this page from being vandalized. Thanks for your help.-->
	{{IPvandal\|206.186.111.13*}} - repeated vandalism from this IP block ] 21:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	*] - vandalized frequently.
	<!-- (Copy and pasting my reason for putting this hear from above) I didn't put vandal notices on the IP pages because they are using multiple IPs and I don't have time to warn an ip that is only going to be used a few times. I'm also not familiar with admin procedures - just a user trying to keep this page from being vandalized. Thanks for your help. -->
	:Semi-protected. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	==IP addresses==
	{\| style="background-color:#F9F9F9; border:1px solid #A00; padding:5px;"
	\| ]
	\| '''Do not report obvious vandalism here;''' see ]. 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 ]''' before reporting.
	\|}


	Please use this format at the top of this section:

	<code><nowiki>===={{IPvandal\|IP Address}}====</nowiki></code>

	<code><nowiki>Brief Description. ~~~~</nowiki></code>
	<!-- DO NOT REPORT SIMPLE VANDALISM HERE, SEE WP:AIV INSTEAD -->
	<!-- Report new alerts below this line (to the top of the list)-->
	===New requests===
	===={{IPvandal\|195.82.106.244}}====
	user 195.82.106.244 has used a "forest fire" using his suspected sockpuppet account brahmakumaris.info (under investigation )
	Repeated allegations and blanking his talk page to avoid prosecution:
	Disparaging comments about editors :He has threatened me to contact my employers about using Misplaced Pages. He has published my personal information as well.
	Direct insults to persons.
	Finally, user 195.82.106.244 was recently blocked (within a week) and still he has modified article and blanked his talk page: and
	Please attend this unfortunate matter asap. Thank you. ] 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7
	:We need page diffs, not links. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 14:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: Here you are. Thanks! Differentials:





	(note that both users in question do not delete each others work but rather complement it)

	(User Brahmakumaris.info took away the sprotect tag placed by admin. In this way user 195.82.106.244 could post)

	(brhmakumais.info moved pages to a new page, however here: Note November 15th changes and here user 195.82.106.244 activity on the same day.)
	link to versions:
	] 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7

	===={{IPvandal\|70.59.246.27}}====
	Abuse of AfD tag on numerous articles. ] --] 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	:All activity appears to be ] related, but there has been no attempt to warn or guide this editor on the IP talk page. Please ] and give some friendly advice before requesting investigation. Follow up if necessary. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	::What should be done about the AfD tags with no corresponding AfD pages? --] 04:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'll post a notice about them to ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 14:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thanks. --] 16:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|66.174.93.105}}====
	This user has violated the three-revert rule by
	reverting edits to the article on ], including a copyrighted, invalid image. ] 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Although violating the 3RR rule, the IP did so in response to sockpuppetry by the user above and Knightrider1984, both indeffed now. Just a heads up - <strong>]]]</strong> 19:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Confirm sockpuppetry accusation with evidence from a Checkuser (if the allegation meets their guidelines) or move to ]. Page diffs all around if this remains here. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)





	===Under investigation===

	==== {{IPvandal\|69.138.245.111}} ====
	aka ] had been editing article about self, ]. It's now been alleged that the user has created a sockpuppet ]. This is apparently misuse of the name of Kathleen Seidel, webmaster of neurodiversity.com, who has been working on exposing the activities of Mark Geier. ] 18:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:This isn't the board to investigate allegations of sockpuppetry. If you have a proven sockpuppet we could investigate here. Please provide diffs and evidence. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 00:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	::No activity on the IP since August. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 18:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|65.35.59.58}}====
	This user (also identified with IP 199.72.34.125) is using deceptive linking strategies to insert the website URL of his/her own moving company (Movex) over the URL of several competitors. He/she has changed the URL (but not the link text, so as to deceive the user) on the following moving-related pages: ] (has since been corrected), ], ] and several others. Can you investigate and determine how many pages this user has defiled? And can you block this user from Misplaced Pages? --] 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Page diffs, please. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::No activity on the account since 1 November. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	==== {{IPvandal\|213.60.172.36}} ====
	The user seems to be modifying information on music articles, adding or removing a digit on records for sales/peak chart positions, falsely changing song ratings given by external sources, and removing the majority of some articles. — ] 08:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Diffs, please. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::*
	::*
	::*
	::*
	::*
	::— ] 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Legitimate vandalism but no edits from this IP within the last 5 days. Post again with new diffs if the problem resumes. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::He/she's doing it again:
	::::*
	::::*
	::::I don't know where to find them so I can't verify, but I'd guess that the sales figures that he/she has added to several ] albums are false as well. — ] 08:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
	Blocked 24 hours. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


	===={{IPvandal\|71.219.150.102}}====
	In trying to disprove the notability of ], this user has been systematically removing sources that would prove his notability. He or she has also been putting the words "not notable" throughout the text of the article. --] 22:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	::96 hour block for vandalism and disruption. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 02:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	==== {{IPvandal\|64.248.89.110}} ====

	has been for days making the same edit in page ], adding obvious POV unreferenced statements and also using weasel words. I reverted him several times leaving a note in the description box of my edits . Later I left a message in his talk page (]) and in the discussion page of the article (]) mentioning that was he was doing was against wikipedia's policies and warning him about possible violation of 3RR as well as violation of other policies. He replied explaining with gusto what he was doing -justifying it by saying that he knows better because he was an employee (which leads me to think he is not objective and perhaps just bitter because he lost his job). He decided to ignore my warnings and revert again. Now, I cannot bait him into an obvious violation of 3RR because to do so, I would have to violate 3 RR myself first (I have to wait for a couple of hours before doing so -besides, I can only check the pages so many times in a day, so I may not be fast enough to bait him into 3RR). Anyway, I think his use of continuous unreferenced POV statements warrants at the very least semiprotection of the page -hopefully this would prompt him to register. ] 00:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Left a block warning. This appears to be a new editor who doesn't understand what we do here. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 00:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|69.111.57.183}}====

	keeps deleting the same section of entry day after day and replacing it with text that contains original research with no cited sources. Has ignored all attempts to communicate. ] 18:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Article semi-protected, IP 24 hour blocked. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Removed semi-protection. Add new reports if problem resumes. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|12.218.128.125}}====
	http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:12.218.128.125#Stop_adding_unsourced_claims constantly inserting unsourced OR to historic articles. ] and ] for example ] 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::No activity since 2 November. Post if problems resume. ''']''' 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|70.136.172.130}}====
	edits in ] and ]] 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Blocked 1 month for continued vandalism after final warning. ''']''' 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|67.140.86.158}}====
	{{IPvandal\|67.140.86.158}}
	{{IPvandal\|67.140.88.100}}
	{{IPvandal\|67.140.82.78}}
	{{IPvandal\|67.140.91.179}}
	{{IPvandal\|67.140.92.106}}
	{{IPvandal\|68.41.133.63}}
	{{IPvandal\|162.40.19.208}}
	{{IPvandal\|162.40.57.185}}
	{{IPvandal\|172.167.144.134}}
	{{IPvandal\|205.139.10.130}}
	{{IPvandal\|205.188.116.200}}
	:All above IPs involved in deceptive edits, continue to revert templates for article dispute, have removed requests for dispute negotiation and revert templates for article context and NPOV dispute. Have removed references in favor of promotional links to interviews on self. Believed to be one or two persons using several IPs. None will discuss on ]. Multiple warnings posted. All reverts point back to a deceptive history and self-promotion/propaganda. ] 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
	::I've semi-protected the page. ''']''' 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|222.225.117.108}}====

	Not really sure about this one. IP address has been making a large number of minor changes to Formula One race result tables over the last few weeks. The changes do not match the official results at .

	I've been reverting them, albeit perhaps not as fast as they are being done and have left several messages on the IP talk page asking for contact or explanation of the changes. I only hesitate on the vandalism front because the changes are so minor ('Collision' > 'Accident' seems to be favourite) and because I am aware that the 'official' results also contain errors.

	However, there are so many changes and the editor seems to be ignoring all requests to explain them (some changes I have reverted several times now) that I think this must be a subtle attempt at vandalism. Changes in an identical style are being made by ].

	Grateful for advice! ] 17:15 20 October 2006
	:It looks like you've handled this in a polite and appropriate manner. This IP's talk page has repeated warnings and queries over the past week, but no replies or citations. I'll leave a caution on this user's page. The IP hasn't edited since you posted this notice, but you're welcome to follow up if this happens again. I don't think I'd block over the wording ''collision'' v. ''accident'', but unsubstantiated changes to finish times and other factual matters would merit blocking. Regards, ''']''' 15:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
	::Having left a note at the IP's talk page, there's one thing I noticed worth mentioning: this address originates in Japan. Since the edits are technical changes to tables and the editor hasn't posted anywhere, there's a chance they don't understand English. ''']''' 16:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

	:::Thanks. See what you mean. I'll keep changing things back and perhaps they'll gather that something's not right - it seems to happen in bursts every few days, so I'll keep an eye on it. 'Collision' vs 'Accident' is worth changing back (more precise - accident could be almost anything!), but I agree not a blocking matter. A much smaller percentage of the changes are more serious: Changes along the lines of 'Collision' to 'Gear box' (i.e. gearbox failure) are not uncommon and as far as I can see factually inaccurate. On a couple of occasions finishing positions or qualifying positions have been changed. I'd suggest those probably would be blocking type offences, although I'd want to be quite sure that they were wrong before asking that you do so - as I said, the official results also contain errors in a small number of cases.
	:::Know anyone who can write in Japanese? :) --] 06:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

	Further reversions of my reversions from the alternate address of 220.221.17.213 in the last few hours. --] 12:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

	:Sigh. Hello again. While clearing up after further edits, made in this case by 220.221.17.213 this morning (see ) I found a clear cut case of what I would call more malicious vandalism. In the ] article the finishing positions of Paolo Barilla and Bertrand Gachot have been swapped. This does not match the results given at www.formula1.com. In this case I am 100% certain that the edited result is wrong - if you go and read the ] article you will see why - the edited result states that Gachot got a Coloni car into the race and you can see that Coloni didn't qualify a car all year. I can probably locate more concrete proof of that if you want.
	:My belief is that the user is just vandalising the F1 results - albeit subtly - several articles have now gone back and forth several times and I'm having trouble believing that there are innocent changes - the editor must have realised that something is wrong by now if they are making the changes in good faith.
	:This is creating a lot of work in reversing the changes - because I have to check all the changes against the official results before I change them back. I have not yet found one that seems to be justified. Any chance of blocking the two IP addresses that have been doing this? Alternatively, any other ideas for stopping it? Cheers. --] 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

	::I would also point out that if you look at the recent changes made at ], that although the changes made on the 14 and 22 October are of the same type, they are not actually the same changes. Presumably if the editor believes that the changes are correct, they would be the same each time he makes them. Cheers. --] 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::This IP hasn't edited since 19 October. If new problems emerge then post an alert here, but please don't post old news. ''']''' 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

	I should perhaps have been clearer - the alternative IP address identified in my original post (]) has made similar - in many cases identical - edits to 222.225.117.108 over the same time period. The most most recent edits were on the 22. I reported it here because I have assumed that it is the same editor. This is new news, rather than old news. :) I can report the second IP address as a seperate incident if you prefer. --] 23 October 09:07
	::If it happens again, then post here and I'll issue a block. ''']''' 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::One more so far this morning from 222.225.117.108 - another reversal of an already reverted change. --] 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
	::::And a shed load more. --] 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Blocked 24 hours. If this continues future blocks will be longer. ''']''' 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
	::::::More edits ongoing from the address now. --] 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::48 hour block. I wish this person would discuss this with us, but maybe they can't. ''']''' 19:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
	::::::::Makes it difficult, doesn't it? This may take a while to get their attention - they only edit every few days anyway and from two different IPs, so if they can't read what is on their talk page they may not notice they're being blocked for a while! --] 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
	:::::::::Well, I've posted requests at Esperanza and WikiProject Japan. If the problem continues on its present trajectory then my third block will be for one week. This seems like the fairest way to go about things. Thanks again for your patience. ''']''' 21:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

	As soon as he/she/it returned from their block,they were back doing exactly the same thing-changing Collision to Accident,altering results without reason.If they could provide some sort of evidence or sources to justify their change it would be a start.I left a warning on their talk page-I see ] has now blocked them again--many thanks. ] 00:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Yup, let's hope this editor gets the message this time. My appeals for a Japanese bilingual editor haven't garnered any help and as this continues I really suspect this is someone who doesn't have conversational skills in English. But considering the amount of trouble this causes for productive editors I'm left with no choice other than to treat it as straight vandalism. Post again if the problem resumes next week - and unless something changes the course of this trajectory my next block will be considerably longer. ''']''' 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
	====={{IPvandal\|220.221.17.213}}=====

	The user seems to be the same as 222.225.117.108 - see below - who has been blocked a few times for identical edits. Another set of unexplained and apparently incorrect edits today from this user, who does not tend to respond to requests for interaction at their talk page. ] 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:(moved from new reports to an addendum to the existing report) Blocked both IPs 1 month. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|68.210.198.125}}, ] is editing WP article about himself====

	68.210.198.125 published permission to use autobiographical information, and signed it Joshua P Warren. 68.210.198.125 continues to edit ] along with 70.144.94.164, removing users contributions without discussion, and providing biased material. ] 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I've semi-protected the article and removed the unverifiable claim with the e-mail address from the talk page. Having read the history and talk threads, it appears that most of the edits have been from single purpose IP addresses. I suggest you follow up on the possibility that some claims to notability are exaggerated or falsified. The previous nomination for article deletion was a fairly close call. If evidence surfaced that some claims were fraudulent then the discussion might swing the other way. ''']''' 00:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
	::As it is, the article is a contentious mess of dubious facts, counter claims, and defenses. My attempt to bring it to NPOV by creating a criticism section has failed. Since Mr. Warren has some legitimacy as a mainstream-published author, I propose a revert to a simpler, NPOV version (edited 03:55, 31 October 2006 LuckyLouie) in which all vanity material and inflated/unverified data has been removed. This would provide a foundation for other editors who may wish to expand it at some future date. ] 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::] also applies. ''']''' 21:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::I've left block warnings on both IP talk pages. Post as needed with follow-ups. The page protection shouldn't remain in place long term, but I'll block in the future for obvious vanity/puffery. ''']''' 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|208.65.190.194}} El Jique====
	An anon-user 'El Jique' (perhaps unknowingly), continues to clog up the discussion pages of the articles ], ] & ] with information/personal views that (I believe) best belong in Wiki-Blogs. ] 19:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
	:This IP hasn't edited since 29 October. Please write to the editor's talk page to express your concerns before coming here. This may be someone who edits in good faith and doesn't quite understand site standards. ''']''' 04:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
	::El Jique, has no talk page, there's no way to contact him. His IP address isn't shown. ] 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::His IP address shows in the edit histories. Here's his talk page: ]. Best wishes, ''']''' 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
	A new IP address ], has assumed the anon-user name ''El Jigue''. Despite my advice on the 'talk page' of ] (which got no response), the new IP El Jigue continues to use Cuba related articles eg. ], with discussions that best belong on blogs. ] 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
	*El Jigue, tends to use the title ''Fidel Castro death watch'' in the related ''talk pages''. ] 23:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
	:El Jigue has been a prolific editor on Cuban related articles for 2-3 years, he refuses to sign in and has had a number of different IP addresses during that time. About a year ago he was blocked for disruption, and now only adds posts to talk pages. Again his output is prolific. He's a rather complicated case I'm afraid - being a Cuban exile of some standing with an excellent knowledge of the subject matter, some of it personal as he actually contributed to the Cuban revolution on 1959. He now spends his time investigating Cuban history, also writing papers and giving speeches on wikipedia's biases against his view of Cuban history! Many calls have been made by myself and others to get him to contribute productively - occasionally he'll make positive comments on historical details but won't edit any pages himself. Unfortunately he is as likely to engage in sarcastic banter and low-level personal attacks. His other contributions include updating readers as to the latest gossip in Cuba, which is very informative - but not quite the right idea for an article talk page. I think most regular editors of these articles have a soft spot for EJ and would not like to see him punished in any way. However I understand that his activities can be problematic.--] 23:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Based on the evidence I've been shown I've left a block warning on both IP talk pages. If this has been going on for so long and the editor in question has previously been blocked (or do you mean banned?) then please provide the appropriate diffs. Post again if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 02:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::After a post from El Jigue to my user talk I've left a second block warning. Editors who wish to support El Jigue are advised to encourage him to redirect his commentary to a more appropriate website. ] doesn't allow discretionary room for the quality of a commentary - and I think he'd be a very successful blogger - but if he continues his current habits I will definitely issue a block. I'll hate to do it, but I ''will'' do it. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	I've semi-protected the relevant article pages. Post any alternate IPs that this editor uses. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked 2 weeks. Unprotecting the talk pages. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Editor evaded block on ]. Blocked sock IP for 2 weeks and reset other IPs. Report any future block evasions here. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{IPvandal\|85.210.223.6}}====
	Above is the lastest of this vandals IP

	I been working on an investigation myself in order to revert the actions of this user for about a month see:] finding more and more of his uncaught pass vandalism yet I'm sure I'm missing many as it's a dynamic IP, so by looking at the history and searching for IP 85.210 I found more and more ip's with the same MO, I realize now I need help by someone with better expertise, hopefully you can help, I find this the worst kind of vandalism because someone that blank pages or say f*CK etc can be spotted easily, although does engage in blatant and user page vandalism as well, other then warning messages I hadn't engaged with this vandal, I've told 4 sysop's about this, I not a WWE fan and don't care to police them, my watchlist is growing too big.

	The vandal's Modus operandi mainly is to add unsourced fake middle names to professional Wrestlers and Football Players, and will engage in Blatant Vandalism as well. I will list the other 29 IP's found so far if you like. Thank you ▪◦▪]</span></span> 09:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Excellent sleuthing, kudos to you! Figure out the details on this IP range and I'll apply soft blocks. Follow up here as appropriate and consider adding a report to ] (it's rare that I actually recommend cross-posting). Keep up the good work. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	==Registered users==

	'''Read the ]''' before reporting. Do not report content or user disputes here, unless you can provide links demonstrating a strong attempt at ] Please use this format at the top of this section:

	<code><nowiki>===={{vandal\|User_name}}====</nowiki></code>

	<code><nowiki>Brief Description. ~~~~</nowiki></code>

	Usernames are case sensitive.

	===New requests===
	<!-- Report new alerts below this line (at the top of the list) -->


	===={{Vandal\|L0b0t}}====

	Removing portions of the article ] specifically portions that refer to payed product placement used in the series. Such as the prominent display of the HP logo, the featuring of a Staples brand shredder in an episode, numerous references and appearances of the Chili's restaurant chain and Hooters restaurant chain, etc etc etc.

	::Anon editor feels his or her edits should not be subject to editorial scrutiny so instaed of discussing they brought an RFI and an RFA against me. I would like to apologize profusely to any admins that have to waste their time looking into this silly, bad faith report. Cheers. ] 20:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{Vandal\|Wateva100}}====
	Further Vandalism of the article ]. This user added unnecessary Information in to the article, this was thankfully deleted by the user: 'centrx' (thank you to to him!) for a Screenshot of this vandalism:
	http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tyne_and_Wear_Fire_and_Rescue_Service&diff=88488950&oldid=88449288
	The Vandalism by this user is written on the right hand side of the Page, In red. Thanks
	] 16:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Only 2 edits total from this account and no prior warnings. Leave a level 2 template on the editor's talk page and follow up if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|MeltedSugaar}}====
	'''Possibly a sockpuppet of ]'''

	Has vandalized my User page and Talk page with insults in Spanish and English and what seem to be threats.

	In the Talk page he added the following message :

	::''==TE CHINGAMOS CON MUCHISIMO GUSTO==''

	::''Tienes enemigos bien asentados, y te ven desde lo alto. Te hemos chingado pendejo!''

	That reads: "We fuck you with great pleasure. You have well estabilished foes and they watch you from the high. We have fucked you ''pendejo''!" (not sure what "pendejo" means as it is a Latin American insult, not used where I live. ''Chingar'' is also a Latin American verb, though in this case I know it's meaning).

	In my user page he added:

	::''You have enemies in high places. Remember Machismo.''

	] article was affected by editorial dispute between Marsiliano and myself that ended with repeated insults in Caribbean Spanish against me and, later in vandalism of my user page, what got him blocked. That's why I think MeltedSugaar is likely to be a sockpuppet of Marsiliano, as it is the same M.O.

	In that case admins involved were Durova and Centrx, I mention because they may remeber the details and make the connections. ] 03:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I've indef blocked this account as an impersonation account and because it was only used to attack and harass another editor. Leaving here in case Durova or Centrx want to review and see if this has ties to the prior case. ] <sup>]</sup> 03:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Thanks, Shell. --] 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

	I think this is just a big excuse for sugaar to get more attention, <dele> and I think block-angry. He's fabricating attacks so he can then go and say he was the victim of an evil wiki conspiracy, when in reality he only has own hardheadedness to blame for getting blocked, he should have listened to Shell who's been more than infinitely patient with him, and quite gracious I might say, considering the snide remarks Sugaar has directed at her, no easy task I can imagine. Sugaar is <dele>, my suggestion is that he should be left alone <dele>, he's harmless–except possibly to himself. {{unsigned\|Marciliano}}

	::I don't know if that was Marsiliano, only that looked like him (you?). On the rest: I don't understand half of it. --] 05:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Banned the new sock. Report any others that slip out of the drawer. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, Durova. I must say I feel sort of pity for this guy, he wrote some apparently good articles before becoming troublesome, he could have been a good editor would not have been for his total disrespect of everything. I wonder if a temporary block of months would not have better solution when the first case happened (in the hope that he would meditate and retake his work from a better perspective). Maybe I'm just too bevenevolent, who knows? --] 19:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Actually I thought I was earning my softie reputation when I didn't indef block him for forging my signature. The long and obscene post that followed sealed the deal but by then another admin had beaten me to it. I'm not offended so much as amused: as a war veteran who's done everything from handling live rattlesnakes to surviving being struck by lightning, I'm probably more macho than this fellow by every definition except the Y chromosome. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::LOL --] 18:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	I am not sure if I have to initiate a new request or not, by the moment I am posting in this one as it seems related:
	*] attempted to do something in my user page but reverted it him/herself . Yet this same user did attack ] talk page with contents that seem to attack me . Wooble was not involved in the ] case but he has been involved in the more than nasty content dispute in ], what makes me think if all these attacks are indeed linked to Marsiliano or to some other people.
	*In the same line, ] has vandalized my talk page with a "call" to "sabotage" Misplaced Pages articles allegedly related to ] in the name of the "White Mantis", a simmilar term to the "White Manta" used by ZugaarZucks in the vandalism of Wobble's talk page.
	I am pretty sure that Marsiliano had a single static IP (and probably that's the same one of Marciliano) but all these others that seem to plagiarize Marsiliano's style (as well as ]) are starting to look like related to the dispute of ] rather than to Marsiliano.
	I must say that I was aware of the "return of Marciliano" from some days ago and he has not attacked me as such but "only" seems to have gone around the ban by creating a new user identity. I strongly suspect now that all these three "users" (sockpuppets?) are rather related to the White people article dispute than to Marsiliano.
	I think this alternative possibility should be investigated too. They could well be one or several "stormfronters" venting their anger and trying to "scare" me and other users involved in that dispute from an anti-racist POV. --] 18:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	I have just realized that ] has also vandalized Wooble's talk page with the same "request" as he did in mine. Aditionally he has made nonsense vandalism in the White people article's talk page and even Shell Kinney's talk page. No need to post diffs because it's all in user contributions short list. --] 18:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	==== {{IPvandal\|Blicious}} ====
	The user is modifying information on ], a Congressman and politician, with information falsely claiming accomplishments for investigations that were discredited by a Boston Globe award winning investigation Even if this information were true, it would belong on the page for the ] conducting the investigations, not the individual on the Committee.
	:Legitimate vandalism, but most recent edit is 3 days ago. <s>Semi-protecting the article.<s> <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
	::On second thought, edits aren't recent enough to justify semi-protection and no other IP has bothered the page recently. Post again if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|Wateva100}}====
	Vandalism of the article: Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service. Putting my first name and school on the article, I created the whole article and have now removed the Vandalism and the Section what was Vandalised which was the Young FireFighters Association section of the Tyne and Wear Fire and Rescue Service Article. And adding information which is not relevant to the article in any way. for a link of the Vandalism it is on the History Section of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Tyne_and_Wear_Fire_and_Rescue_Service&action=history
	] 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Actually what we need to see here is the page difference from the particular problem posts. Go to the appropriate lines on that page history, click the "last" link, and copy/paste the URLs into your report here. Respectfully, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 01:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|ChildOfA303}}====
	Also:
	*]
	*]
	*]
	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.:
	*
	*
	*
	*
	] 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
	:See also ] ] 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Maybe should be brought to ]. —]→] • 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|Posmodern2000}}====
	User has been reinserting linkspam and information that was previously deleted and discussed at length on the talk page for ], all editors except ] 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. ] 01:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Post diffs, please. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	===Under investigation===

	====Sugaar, etc.====
	====={{vandal\|Getxo}}=====

	A very simple case: this "user" (sockpuppet maybe, maybe one of those international "friends" of Thulean that are appearing more and more frequently these strange days) has copied my user page in his/hers with some mockery modifications. Can't provide diffs because it's a newly created page.

	He also added racist remarks to my talk page: .

	And a lot of nonsense topic Basque phrases to his user talk.

	I request cleanup of his user page after adminstrators have taken due notice. Notwithstanding whatever disciplinary measures are appropiate. --] 20:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Recusing myself. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Blocked indefinitely as disruptive sockpuppet. —]→] • 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	====={{vandal\|LSLM}}=====

	First of all this user seems to be: 72.144.247.96



	Second of all I reported him because of personal attacks here:


	And finally, he seems to be doing the same thing with Euskata and Sugaar. Namely, deleting cited material and restoring stuff with no citation. He's doing this without any explanation besides "reverting vandalism". He ignores discussion in talk pages here:



	He calls Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:No original research "Rv vandalism by Dark Tichondrias' nordicist attempts to define white."

	His edit difs:




	Also, he may be associated with: 65.11.58.154


	And they use similar excuses: Nordic-Anglo-Saxon bias


	Of course we werent explained of where Nordicist or Anglo-Saxon is.

	] 15:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	NOTE: This user might also be: 72.153.229.218
	dif:
	history:

	And 72.153.229.218 has been warned for Vandalism twice: 1 by me, 1 by an admin:


	] 16:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	*I forgot to add my edit history .
	LSLM deleted all this simply by saying nothing. ] 16:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	Recusing myself. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 05:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	*LSLM, aka Veritas and Severitas, is doing the right thing. There's no vandalism in his actions, just active NPOV protection, at the expense of his own energies and despite ] harassing tactics by Thulean. --] 14:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	Recusing myself. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


	*This user seems to be 65.11.70.82 .
	And there are loads of 60 something users here which jumped to edit wars . So first all this user might have violated 3RR and any decision should consider his puppets. ] 20:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	::This absolutely ridiculous. As I just pointed out in the discusion of the affected page: there's a "wikipedia alert" at stormfront.org exactly the same day that massive anon. and suspect puppet vandalism happened .
	::If anything is clear is that LSLM doesn't sympathize with Stormfront in any way.
	::But anyhow, he's also a serious user with a good historial (as far as I know). He has credibility too. --] 23:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	====={{vandal\|Euskata }}=====

	This user vandalized my page:

	And I warned him:

	Then he removed what I wrote in discussion page:

	In ] page, I had removed unsupported material and added cited ones, with bunch of edit explanations and comments in discussion pages. Sugaar reverted it couple of times. And then somebody reverted it back. And Euskata reverted again. In Caucasoid page, he reverted my reversion.

	Dif 1:

	Dif 2:
	] 00:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Maybe he doesn't agree with you either.
	:Reverting is part of anti-vandal protection. --] 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	Now he deleted my text in an admin's talk page and changed it with gibberish. ] 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	That's vandalism. I hate to agree with you but it is. --] 00:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	*Quoting meditator of white people page:

	"Also, this Euskata has been editing almost, if not, excusively on pages involved with the White people article. His account was created November 9, and I suspect he is a sockpuppet. Where should I report that? \| AndonicO Talk 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)" ] 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Thank you for moving this from ]. Another admin from some other board is already on top of it. The content dispute is in mediation. Post again if they drop the ball. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 05:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't know who's this Euskata (he seems Basque, as I am, because he's made vague comments in mixed Basque and Spanish slang, the very name "Euskata" looks Basque-Spanish slang, something like "Baskey", but there's too bad Basque in his speech and the very term Euskata looks like a right-wing despective name for Basque or Basque nationalist) but I don't feel he's anybody's sockpuppet but a new user with no idea of how things are done here and very poor English.
	:Definitively he's not my sockpuppet (I don't do such things: I'm just too straightforward for that) nor anyone I amy know in or outside Misplaced Pages.
	:Another possibility that I considered is that he's a Spanish ally of Thulean, timely introduced to cause confusion. Even if he's honest and good willed, he's of no help but to Thulean's position. --] 11:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	*Euskata vandalized the RFI on Thulean by deleting his comment (and decontextualizing my reply): . I request he's blocked, as this is intolerable. --] 11:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	I'm not ] puppet, I take full responsibility for my actions which were write in removing discriminatory comments by racist nordicist vandalist ], I only dare to did what Sugaar and Veritas wouldn't do but thought, but they are not responsible for my deletes only me. Agur!--]

	::Note: This user violated 3RR
	and did lots of vandalism despite being warned
	but both cases has been looked by same admin and he refused to block him. ] 12:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	*I forgot to add my edit history . Euskata deleted all this simply by saying "Revert vandalism by Thuluean". ] 16:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	*Euskata is probably 4.245.236.229. ] 21:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	Recusing myself. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Blocked indefinitely as disruptive sockpuppet. —]→] • 21:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

	====={{vandal\|Sugaar}}=====

	This user thinks quoting Oxford English Dictionary as POV pushing. In my edits, I had removed uncited meterial and added cited ones, with bunch of edit explanations and comments in discussion pages. He reverted my edits 4 times now (2 times each article) and did this without any discussion or explanation besides "rv vandalism", not to mention he named his huge edits as minor. I reverted his first set of edits with long explanations but he reverted back.

	dif 1:

	dif 2:


	My warnings to him: , ] 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


	Oh it seems he had deleted my warnings. Here are diffs: ] 23:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I deleted your mock warnings becuase it's part of your harassing strategy. I have not a single time gone to your page and pressed you in any way: I kept all the discussion in the discussion page. You came to my "home" repeatedly, pushing me into saying what I think of you (only to use it as "evidence" of suppossed "name-calling"), posted bogus warnings, continuous "legalist" threats that are nothing but threats of the lowest kind. Whatever you have to say to me, say it in the investigation. Do not spam my user page.
	:Furthermore: you have been asked by an administrator not to do it. But you insist.
	--] 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


	*I forgot to add my edit history . Sugaar deleted all this simply by saying "rv POV pushing". ] 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Yes that's one of my main denounces on your complex vandalism behaviour: you have been using Misplaced Pages's defense mechanism to POV-push your viewpoints against consensus by creating multiple "legal" complains against the veteran and serious users that, like myself, were trying to stop your unilateralism and keep a reasonable NPOV consensus.
	:While we are here you are editing the page at will, imposing yur individual POV against multiple protests.
	:I'll keep reverting as much as possible your unilateral ideological edits unless my computer breaks or I am ordered not to do so. If you knew what consensus-making could mean, we would not be in this pathetic situation. (For instance, we could have created a subsection on Whiteness acording to white nationalism, a linked enry on white nationalism or whatever other solution).
	:But you just want to impose your will. --] 18:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
	Recusing myself. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 05:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	:User was blocked for 6 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Don't pay attention to his recusal nonsense, he says that about every administrator who rightfully gets on his case. —]→] • 21:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
	:: Recusal simply means I've stepped aside and welcome other admins to step forward. Recusal has no bearing on the merits of the case. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|CSArebel}}====

	This newly registered user has vandalized the article ] by adding this to the article:

	a href="http://www.gods-kingdom.org/SecondComing/money

	He also added an internal link to the article for "]" and another for "]," and why, I don't understand.

	I have reverted the article; please check the history, however, as he seems to have removed the a href="http://www.gods-kingdom.org/SecondComing/money that he left earlier.

	(Because I am unsure what CSArebel did to the site, or why, please also make sure I have not mistakenly confused CSArebel's actions as vandalism when they might not be vandalism. I see that an anonymous vandal struck right before CSArebel altered the site, and CSArebel seems to have removed that other vandal's vandalism before making his own inexplication changes to the article. This is confusing!)

	Sincerely,

	--] 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Those external links pull up 404 errors when I check them. I'd call that mild vandalism or possibly an experiment: level 1 or 2 template for that. What concerns me more are the song titles this editor added. If those are the actual titles of the tracks then they belong in the article with no additional caution. If they're exaggerations then a level 4 warning template is warranted. Given the artist in question they might plausibly be true - in which case per ] the edit is relevant and should stand. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 06:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::I checked the song titles, and they are valid, offensive though they are. --] 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::By the way, I see that CSArebel also made some inexplicable edits to the article ], adding internal links to unimportant words in the article, seemingly at random . . . which another Wikipedian reverted as vandalism. So, should I warn CSArebel, or is this something an administrator should do? I am unsure, so please advise.--] 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::No activity since 12 November so probably not a great source of worry. A level 1 or 2 warning is appropriate. Post again if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Activity resumed. Queried the editor re: removal of ] from ]. Posted the query as a conditional block warning. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 05:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|Prisonbreak4}}====
	This user has been putting intentionally false, unverified information in many of the '']'' articles, notably ]. (T-Bag is the only one on my watchlist, but I have seen him vandalize other articles)

	I've warned him before but he hasn't stopped or justified his actions.--] 01:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Note: As soon as I wrote this, he vandalized T-Bag's article yet again.--] 01:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Diffs, please. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 13:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::: All his edits are vandalism in some degree, these are just the tip of the iceberg.--] 22:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::Not quite all the edits are vandalism. I sampled the history and noticed a spelling correction that was accurate. One week block. Post again if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles}}====

	Serial pest. Revolted against WP's mechanisms and consensus building process. Disrupted AfD and RfA discussions, either with this account or with his multiple socks (], ], ], ]). Keeps removing comments left on his talk page. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 02:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I've left a comment on the registered account's user talk page with a block warning. Follow up if problems continue. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Your comment on his talk page was reverted in 8 minutes.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Hello. I'm not sure what's going on, but it is NOT my intention to vandalise anything. Regarding the talk page, after an anonymous removed comments that I read and which advice I've since followed, I tried to consolidate my overall response while keeping the suggested links on the page as a reference. User Kavadi carrier said that "if the user sees these are excessive, s/he can remove them himself." I agree that the posts are excessive and am following Kavadi carrier's instructions. After receiving the virtual attack from multiple users regarding the AfDs, I've adjusted how I contribute accordingly. Also, I really do use multiple computers in multiple places, so even though I'm sure there's occasions in which I forget to log on immediately, not every anonymous edit to my talk page is mine. There really is no problem here and there is no reason to keep repeating a point that has already been taken. You'll notice that I've made efforts to focus my concerns with the AfD process on the Village pump as suggested by another user and have made any new remarks on AfDs more article specific. You're making it sound as if I'm outright ignoring others, when this is just not true. If anything, this is looking more and more like a personal attack . . . Take care, --] 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::::'''Note''' This comment was placed on the user's talk page and moved to this discussion by him.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 14:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	::::The reaction by several users to your disruptive edits in the past hours are not personal attacks. It is not our intention to bash you and even less to make you feel unwelcome. But you made rather Napoleonic interventions recently and your misknowledge of Misplaced Pages's normal functioning couldn't have led elsewhere. I recommend that you start it all over. Consider reading our ]. Have other users as example for everything you do on Misplaced Pages. Follow their advice. Avoid attacking them when you disagree. Avoid embarking on revert wars. Avoid a lot of things. We want you to integrate and become a partner in this project. But you will first need to get accustomed to how things work here. Regards.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 04:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Although my edits were not disruptive and if you knew me, you'd know that "Napoleonic" is a compliment :), I'm naturally willing to work with others and make the most of this site. Au revoir, --] 04:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	The user is removing all warnings from his talk page within minutes of when they're posted. The shifting back and forth between registered username and unregistered IPs, the plunging into policy pages such as AFD and RFA after very few edits in article space and very little time registered, and the deliberate obtuseness in response to every concern and bit of constructive criticism raised is classic trolling behavior. Why shouldn't he be blocked outright for disruption? ] 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	:I am doing no such thing. These personal attacks have to stop already. I have moved some comments and my replies to more relevant areas and everything else has been archived. Please do not exaggerate. Thanks, --] 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	:See ] for another puzzle piece of this user's troll sock history. (The link between these two is Le Roi's user page reference to the ] article and the claim on my RfA that I know him.) ] 12:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	::Sorry, but you're reading into things too much. There is no problem happening and some of you are making something out of nothing. Give it a rest. --] 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	'''Administrator blows referee whistle''' - here's how I call this game:
	*] has been disruptive. I left an administrator block warning for disruption so it really isn't appropriate (or wise) for this user to come to this noticeboard a few hours later and claim not to be.
	*It's highly unlikely that an anonymous IP, unknown to a particular editor, would come to Misplaced Pages for the specific purpose of blanking warnings from one registered user's talk page.
	*I don't like to see editors use ''the t-word''. If someone really is one, the behavior speaks for itself.
	*Editors have considerable leeway about what happens in their own user space. There's an open discussion about whether blanking warnings should be allowed. At this point the consensus leans toward imposing restrictions but there hasn't been firm agreement about what sort of restrictions to impose. So I don't issue blocks for blanking warnings.
	*Likewise, administrators have considerable leeway about determining the duration of a block. One of the factors I consider is whether an editor has been responsive to feedback. When an editor removes a warning I regard that as proof that the editor has seen the warning, and also as evidence of uncooperative behavior. Removal of administrator warnings is somewhat more serious than removal of non-administrator warnings (not that administrators are better, but because administrators generally know what they're talking about). So here's an editor who not only blanked my warning, but came to the noticeboard and denied the basis for the warning, and continues to insist that complaints from various editors are groundless. Le Grand Roi, you are not being accused of vandalism but of disruption. If there is any mitigating factor you would like me to consider, I recommend you post evidence now.
	*This final point speaks to a future that is probably not far off: evasion of a user block results in the resetting of the block.
	Post again with page diffs as appropriate. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	:Whatever, but please be sure not to lump the AOL IPs into this. I make an edit to something that this user (who is on break or something according to his/her talk page anyway?) must have also edited and I get accused of being this user. If you look at edits by AOL IPs, you'll see that they include many, many edits and if by chance an AOL user, out of the God knows how many of us there are, happens to edit the same page edited by this registered user as well, I just want to remind people that even if this guy/gal uses AOL, which I don't even know, it doesn't mean that any edit made by an AOLer is that person. Look at a list of the AOL IP edits and Le Grand's and you'll notice they don't parallel each other and so striking, reverting, or deleting all AOL IP edits to articles edited by this person is not fair to the rest of us and that the AOL IPs are getting lumped into this anyway, just speaks to the likely possibility that all of this is probably blown out of proportion anyway. So, bye, --] 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	'''Evidence of Duplicate Voting:''' As requested by Durova, here are the relevant Diffs. is ostensibly by an unconnected anon user taking Le Grand Roi's side. In response to of this anon user, Le Grand Roi himself , which argues that he had been the anon all along. The anon's also support such a hypothesis, as the IP edited Le Grand Roi's Talk page in a manner identical to that in which Le Grand Roi did.<p>
	Additionally, I have strong suspicions that was also done by a logged-out Le Grand Roi, based on a similar , although the evidence is not as strong as the above case. Another anon there, and ] seems to have noticed it before I did.<p>
	A check of Le Grand Roi's other AfD contributions doesn't throw up any other instances of AfD-monkeying, although most of his other AfD contributions were in discussions which didn't attract lots of interest - he only posted his famous pro-forma keep rationale ("X is important and Misplaced Pages has been delete-happy of late") and occasionally advocated for a speedy keep where one was patently not going to happen, which is hardly a hanging offence. may contain some funny business, but I doubt it. is also probably worth a closer look, as there are an awful lot of anons around it, although being a pop-culture topic that might be par for the course.<p>
	Of perhaps greater concern, however, are the contributions of , who appears to be linked to Le Grand Roi and who appeared in two RfAs opposing the promotion of users who I believe had argued against him (Le Grand Roi) in AfD debates.<p>
	Hopefully most of this makes sense, I was up late last night my time tracking some of this, so if I'm talking gibberish I can try to clarify it. ] - ] 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Hello! As I indicate on my user and talk pages, I'm taking a month or so off from editing after today. I've read the various suggestions on how to participate on AfD debates and all, so there's really nothing you need to worry about and as far as votes for new administrators, I'm just going to sit any of those ones out in the future anyway unless if I really like a user and want to vote for him. I like to be positive, which I was I supported so many articles to be kept. Anyway, the point is that you needn't waste any more time on this, as I'm planning on being much more cautious should I edit again in the future and I am unilaterally going to hold off on making new edits for at least a month anyway. Although I really do think things were blown out of proportion and that the same points were said in overkill, I'll still go with the sort of self-imposed exile anyway. As I've said before, because I do frequently use public computers, I do not want other users getting unjustifiably zinged by having multiple-users' IPs blocked or anything on my account! That's neither right, nor fair for I don't know how many others, and it is not something I want to be any part of. So, again, I'm not planning on making any edits whether logged in or not for at least a month from tonight and IF I do return, I'll make a stronger effort to ensure that my future posts are not repetitive and constructive. I hope y'all have a Happy Thanksgiving and for my part, I will push any bad feelings I have aside! Au revoir, for now, and best wishes on future, more productive endeavors! Sincerely, --] 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	::Note that the above comments strongly imply that Le Grand Roi ''has'' in fact contributed to RfAs with votes, something he was to at the pages themselves. It's nice to know that he intends to take a break (although I'd be keeping an eye on the IP numbers associated with him if I were anyone with power), but there's still no convincing explanation for what went on - or any kind of acceptance that he stepped outside the guidelines if in fact he did. ] - ] 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
	6 week block for attempted vote fixing and gross violations of ]. Post reports here of attempts at evading the block through the variable AOL IP and other ISPs. I will apply soft rangeblocks as appropriate and extend the userblock. Le Roi, I strongly recommend you respect this block because you are rather close to a siteban. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|StevenCrum}}====

	User seems to believe that modern science is bunk, and is posting his views on his user page, essentially using his Misplaced Pages account as a web provider. His reaction to anyone who questions his views is to call them liars and hypocrites. He mounted a campaign to have the GA status removed from ]. (See and .) Overall, the best indicators of what this editor are about are ] and ]. Note that the user page has gone through several replacement cycles, but the current one is adequate IMO to see why the comments on the talk page are there. --] \| ] 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Blocked 1 week. ] applies here. The two article reviews already establish uninvolved editors' consensus that this editor is disruptive. Follow up if problems resume. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	===={{vandal\|HanzoHattori}}====

	User keeps removing a great deal of content of article ], including references, and adding other without discussing it first despite warning (]). See for example . ] 07:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Hasn't edited the page since November 1. Post again if the problem resumes. ''']''' 18:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

	Ok. Thanks. ] 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

	He's at it again: . ] 05:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Left a block warning. Most of this user's edits seem to be productive. I've encouraged the editor to discuss concerns on the talk page and seek alternative approaches. Post again if the problem continues. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

	::I appreciate that. But now he's doing it in the ] article. See for example the removal of the reference to Haji Omar below the "Ceasefire takes hold in South Waziristan – June 2006" section: . ] 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
	:::Blocked 48 hours. This isn't the kind of block I like to make because the editor does appear to be making honest efforts to improve Misplaced Pages articles. However, the sarcastic response to my previous warning can't be ignored - I hope this editor adjusts to the way we do things here. <font face="Verdana">]]<sup>]</sup></font> 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

	Me too. ] 04:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

	Sadly, HanzoHattori has once again vandalized the ] article, again claiming to be reverting vandalism. I request action be taken on this matter. ] 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Another administrator issued a block before I got to this. Post again if the problem resumes. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

	He's done it again, accusing '''me''' of vandalism once more: . ] 01:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:That was a comment on the action, not on the editor. Since you promptly reverted it and removed the sources the other editor added, it's vandalism on both sides. I've protected the page and recommended dispute resolution. Either side is welcome to follow up here for blatant policy violations such as if one editor tells the other ''You are an idiot.'' I hope you find a compromise you can both live with. An article content ] might be the best way to go. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

	It's not easy to keep adding the constructive edits from other users (including HanzoHattori's) to the previous version, you know. So I quit adding his, due to his stubbornness. What would you have done? ] 15:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
	:I would have retained the cited additions in that editor's version and restored the older cited material. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

	He's reverted the ] article to his last version, removing the same content again: Please take the necessary meassures, I am getting tired of fixing these articles. ] 08:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
	:Here's the dilemma: this other editor's edit summaries are uncivil personal attacks. I'd block if your previous revert hadn't vandalized the page by removing that editor's citation to '']''. So by muddying the waters you've created a situation where either both of you get blocked or neither gets blocked. As it is, since you chose not to follow the advice you asked for, I'm not taking any action at all. Maybe another administrator would judge differently, but I really recommend you take this to ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

	==See also==
	* ]
	* ]
	* ] contains information about vandalism, antivandalism methods and tools, and links to other relevant pages.
	*]

	]

	]
	]
	<!--] -->
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]
	]

Latest revision as of 15:19, 22 August 2023

Historical Wikimedia project page

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Shortcuts

This page has been shut down after this debate.

Please use Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism as an alternate venue for cases of simple vandalism that require an immediate block and Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents for cases that require further investigation.

Old instructions for this page

Choose one of three sections to make a report: Watchlist, IP addresses, or Registered users. Follow the recommended format for each section including the heading markup. Place the request at the top of the New requests subsection or the top of the watchlist. Provide page diffs from edit histories if appropriate and links to specific problem pages.

History

The first page used for tracking vandalism was a user subpage, ManningBartlett/Naughty people, some time before 4 November 2001. The vandalism in progress page was established as VANDALISM IN PROGRESS on 1 December 2001 - the title was upper-case to make it easily distinguishable on recent changes). Around the same time, the Misplaced Pages Militia (since renamed to the Volunteer Fire Department) was formed to coordinate responses to press releases about Misplaced Pages. The "VANDALISM IN PROGRESS" page was moved to the Misplaced Pages namespace in August 2002 and was renamed to the current title in 2006. Its archives since 2003 may be found in Misplaced Pages:Requests for investigation/Archives and the talk archives since august 2002 can be found in the history of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for investigation/Archive 4 and in text form as subpages of Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for investigation. Old subpages can also be found through special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. the long-term abuse page also grew out of "vandalism in progress". A section on the "vandalism in progress" page for persistent vandalism was added in February 2004, later abandoned, and then re-created as "Ongoing alerts" in September 2004; in December 2004 it was split off to its own page, titled Misplaced Pages:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts.

Category:

Inactive project pages