Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:44, 10 November 2006

Instructions

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. Inappropriate presentation could delay investigation.

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 checkuser. 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.

A request for investigation is not part of the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution 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 recuse himself or herself and there might be no other available investigator.

Watchlist

• Report in this section:

1. Articles being hit with a very high level of vandalism or that are repeatedly vandalised with an extended time before reverts.
2. Registered users or IPs that have carried out clear vandalism but have currently stopped.

• Do not report here:

1. Articles featured on the front page, or very high profile articles - these will already be watched
2. Vandals needing to be blocked - see WP:AIV instead.
3. 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

IP addresses

Do not report obvious vandalism here; see Misplaced Pages: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.

Please use this format at the top of this section:

===={{IPvandal|IP Address}}====

Brief Description. ~~~~

New requests

69.111.57.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

User 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. Labyrinth13 18:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Article semi-protected, IP 24 hour blocked. Durova 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Under investigation

12.218.128.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:12.218.128.125#Stop_adding_unsourced_claims constantly inserting unsourced OR to historic articles. Arminius and Hannibal Barca for example Wandalstouring 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No activity since 2 November. Post if problems resume. Durova 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

70.136.172.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

edits in Military history of ancient Rome and Second Punic WarWandalstouring 20:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month for continued vandalism after final warning. Durova 23:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

67.140.86.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

67.140.86.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.88.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.82.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.91.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.140.92.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 68.41.133.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 162.40.19.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 162.40.57.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 172.167.144.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 205.139.10.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 205.188.116.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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 talk page. Multiple warnings posted. All reverts point back to a deceptive history and self-promotion/propaganda. Oroboros 1 03:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. Durova 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

222.225.117.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

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 www.formula1.com.

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 220.221.17.213.

Grateful for advice! 4u1e 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, Durova 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. Durova 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? :) --4u1e 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. --4u1e 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 F1 recent changes) I found a clear cut case of what I would call more malicious vandalism. In the 1990 Brazilian Grand Prix 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 Enzo Coloni Racing Car Systems 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. --4u1e 15:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that if you look at the recent changes made at 1990 Spanish Grand Prix, 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. --4u1e 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. Durova 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I should perhaps have been clearer - the alternative IP address identified in my original post (220.221.17.213) 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. --4u1e 23 October 09:07

If it happens again, then post here and I'll issue a block. Durova 15:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One more so far this morning from 222.225.117.108 - another reversal of an already reverted change. --4u1e 06:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And a shed load more. --4u1e 12:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. If this continues future blocks will be longer. Durova 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

More edits ongoing from the address now. --4u1e 08:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

48 hour block. I wish this person would discuss this with us, but maybe they can't. Durova 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! --4u1e 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. Durova 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 User:Durova has now blocked them again--many thanks. Lemon martini 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. Durova 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

68.210.198.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), Joshua P. Warren 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 Joshua P. Warren along with 70.144.94.164, removing users contributions without discussion, and providing biased material. LuckyLouie 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. Durova 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. LuckyLouie 19:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:VANITY also applies. Durova 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. Durova 21:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

208.65.190.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) El Jique

An anon-user 'El Jique' (perhaps unknowingly), continues to clog up the discussion pages of the articles Cuba, Fidel Castro & Raul Castro with information/personal views that (I believe) best belong in Wiki-Blogs. GoodDay 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. Durova 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. GoodDay 23:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

His IP address shows in the edit histories. Here's his talk page: User talk:208.65.190.194. Best wishes, Durova 04:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

A new IP address User talk: 208.65.188.149, has assumed the anon-user name El Jigue. Despite my advice on the 'talk page' of User talk: 208.65.190.194 (which got no response), the new IP El Jigue continues to use Cuba related articles eg. Fidel Castro, with discussions that best belong on blogs. GoodDay 23:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• El Jigue, tends to use the title Fidel Castro death watch in the related talk pages. GoodDay 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.--Zleitzen 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. Durova 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. WP:NOT 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. Durova 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the relevant article pages. Post any alternate IPs that this editor uses. Durova 06:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 2 weeks. Unprotecting the talk pages. Durova 14:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

New requests

Sugaar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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: , Thulean 23:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh it seems he had deleted my warnings. Here are diffs: Thulean 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. --Sugaar 00:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Case: complex vandalism, plus provoking, plus harassing plus POV-pushing plus manipulating Misplaced Pages mechanisms for defense against personal attacks. Relevant article (mainly): White people: a whole history of edits against consensus in less than a week. Other relevant pages: User talk:Sugaar, User talk:LSLM, both reported by him as supposed personal attackers, Talk:White people/Mediation. This case is not about diffs. It surely requires the dedication of an administrator for a good while to study the case. But it definitively requires heavy handed intervention for multiple and sophisticated abuse. He is a new user that has decided to take over his favorite subjects, White people and related ones as Caucasoid race, no matter what and by any means necessary. I'll ask other affected editors to post here. But must say that at this point we are all quite burnt and even scared of the bad-faith and machiavellism of this individual. 23:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

He might be the same as IP:4.245.200.253 per this diff

The time for discussion has passed: you have got me warned (though with two Admins saying the opposite) and therefore I'm not discussing with you because I know whatever I say you'll manipulate itto your interest. I'm honest, as well as the other wikipedians you are trying to push against the ropes, and you are terribly twisted.

It's not a matter of content. That could have been solved in the discussion page or the mediation if you had the slightest good faith. It is a matter of harassing, ignoring consensus/supermajority, manipulating Misplaced Pages in the lowest possible manner.

While this issue is not fully settled, I (and hopefully others) will try to prevent your POV-pushing by reverting to more consensual versions.

Would you follow the "disengage for a while" guideline, I'd do the same. --Sugaar 00:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thulean extremist white nationalist POV pushing is not acceptable. I request his investigation. Veritas et Severitas 00:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Under investigation

Nickvasilyev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has received a bias warning previously, and recently blanked the entire Nazi Punk article,
replacing each heading with "FUCK NAZI SYMPATHY", as seen here.
This was done over a series of six edits within two minutes. I attempted to post a warning on the user's talk page,
but someone did so before I could finish, but with the same warning I was using (last warning - blatant vandalism),
reinforcing my belief that this user is deserving of an investigation.
--linuxmatt 05:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block. Durova 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunzerug (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Obvious sock of Pflanzgarten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Sleeper account created Oct 30, made first edit Nov 6 to evade block and article semi-protection
• Please investigate Hunzerug for possible indef block as sock/impersonator
• Single purpose account to edit Jim Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in pattern similar to previously blocked socks/impersonator
• See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Pflanzgarten (5th).
• Dispute resolution attempted at Talk:Jim Clark and User talk:Pflanzgarten. The sad thing is, the disruptive editor (and the single purpose accounts) seems to be just as much a motor racing fan as the other editors.
• Is there a way to use the checkuser tools to detect other sleepers? Article waits several hours before sock activity is reverted, as it is not on enough watchlists. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sock indef blocked, sockmaster indef blocked. At this point you can report future Pflanzgarten activity to WP:AN/I: post diffs of a Pflanzgarten edit and a new sock's edit to prove they're the same person. Kudos to you and the other page editors for a classy response to an ordeal that should have ended months ago. I'll keep the page semi-protected to slow down the attacks. Durova 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 (172.145.125.13, 152.163.101.8, 172.148.28.36, 172.128.209.177). Keeps removing comments left on his talk page. Húsönd 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. Durova 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on his talk page was reverted in 8 minutes.--Húsönd 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note This comment was placed on the user's talk page and moved to this discussion by him.--Húsönd 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 policies. 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.--Húsönd 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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? Postdlf 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

See User talk:Femto/Archive1#You might wanna put a stop to this 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 Parma, Ohio article and the claim on my RfA that I know him.) Femto 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. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator blows referee whistle - here's how I call this game:

• Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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. Durova 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, --152.163.100.198 21:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of Duplicate Voting: As requested by Durova, here are the relevant Diffs. this edit is ostensibly by an unconnected anon user taking Le Grand Roi's side. In response to my question of this anon user, Le Grand Roi himself answered, which argues that he had been the anon all along. The anon's contribs 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.

Additionally, I have strong suspicions that this advocation of a keep was also done by a logged-out Le Grand Roi, based on a similar contribs list, although the evidence is not as strong as the above case. Another anon has also been involved there, and User:Postdlf seems to have noticed it before I did.

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. This AfD may contain some funny business, but I doubt it. This one 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.

Of perhaps greater concern, however, are the contributions of this anon, 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.

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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 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, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 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 very quick to deny 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. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

6 week block for attempted vote fixing and gross violations of WP:POINT. 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. Durova 01:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

StevenCrum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 special relativity. (See and .) Overall, the best indicators of what this editor are about are his user page and his user page. 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. --EMS | Talk 15:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week. Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing applies here. The two article reviews already establish uninvolved editors' consensus that this editor is disruptive. Follow up if problems resume. Durova 02:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

HanzoHattori (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User keeps removing a great deal of content of article 2001-present War in Afghanistan, including references, and adding other without discussing it first despite warning (User_talk:HanzoHattori#2001_war_in_Afghanistan). See for example . Warrior on Terrorism 07:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't edited the page since November 1. Post again if the problem resumes. Durova 18:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Warrior on Terrorism 04:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

He's at it again: . Warrior on Terrorism 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. Durova 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that. But now he's doing it in the 2004-2006 Waziristan conflict article. See for example the removal of the reference to Haji Omar below the "Ceasefire takes hold in South Waziristan – June 2006" section: . Warrior on Terrorism 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. Durova 01:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. Warrior on Terrorism 04:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

DannyBoi969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user occasionally contributes mildly useful edits, but many are disruptive or outright vandalism. (See, for example, , , , ) I suspect it's mostly due to immaturity; he sometimes appears to be trying to makes useful edits and not succeeding, and sometimes just fooling around. I'm not really sure what to do, but I probably don't have the tact to talk to him usefully. Argyriou (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've assumed good faith and left a friendly-ish block warning with a link to Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-User. Frankly, although I see the junior high edit, my misgivings are serious enough to state here. Take a good look at the username and visit the Urban Dictionary: either this editor is very young and naive or you've spotted the species that lives beneath bridges and eats billy goats. Durova 01:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

If the user is indeed a middle-school kid, the username doesn't bother me much - it patterns with some of the juvenility he's displayed elsewhere. If the user is old enough to know better, then I'd be concerned. Argyriou (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean. Durova 03:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Myspace13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been vandalising the population figures for articles about Arizona and Arizonan cities. Examples include Tucson, Arizona, Scottsdale, Arizona, Arizona, and Phoenix, Arizona. --ABQCat 06:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's vandalism, but only 4 edits total from the account and no activity after receiving a talk page warning. Post again if the problem resumes. Durova 16:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tannim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps on pushing for 3RR on several articles inserting biased and non-neutral comments, he claims that comments have been made on Reuters, Fox television etc., however can never provide a functioning link for verification, has not made a single positive contribution to Misplaced Pages. On his user page there is a suggestion that he is a sock puppet of User:MagicKirin and he does not even deny that and he is using his AOL IPs at random as well. KittenKlub 19:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• See also block log. At the very least, it is very low-quality editing that is not wanted. —Centrx→talk • 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• It continues; blocked for 1 week. To be banned if user continues. —Centrx→talk • 17:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mathewignash continues to add copyrighted text to Transformers articles, despite being warned multiple times not to do so. Examples include:

You can see several warnings on his talk page about this ranging the year. Interrobamf 12:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Warrants further monitoring. User has repeatedly added copyrighted text to articles. The Transformers articles he created may be completely tainted. —Centrx→talk • 18:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a random sampling of recent edits and didn't notice obvious vandalism, but this editor's talk page presents a disturbing pattern. Please post any diffs of new copyright violations and, if confirmed, I will issue blocks. Durova 16:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

See also

• /Archives
• Misplaced Pages:Long term abuse
• Misplaced Pages:Vandalism contains information about vandalism, antivandalism methods and tools, and links to other relevant pages.
• Meta:Finding network abuse contacts

• Misplaced Pages requests for investigation