Misplaced Pages

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

Really random edits, some good, some bad. Some just pointless. futurebird 18:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC) Examples

valdalism

questionable? I don't know if these changes are correct or not, but they seem ... wierd.

...and many more. futurebird 21:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Under investigation

72.91.169.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.251.88.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Riveros11 has been using a program of attempting to intimidate any alternative contributor to his religious group's topic page BKWSU by slapping vandalism tag on me and others in order to block my IP address - using alternative sockpuppet addresses that leaves his main user loking clean. The latest using the IP; 72.91.169.22, , here . I removed it. Sockpuppetry and personal attack, or just a cynical and dishonest ploy to block other users to gain control over a topic for his group, he has since faked a user page to look like a third contributor he has also intimidated with threatening warnings.

The user page for 72.91.169.22 is faked up to look like; maleabroad, complete with bad Indian-English spelling

This is an important detail as we will see later. It says;

" User:72.91.169.22

How am I vandalising? I was deelteing anti-Hindu propangda trying to create a wedge between BKs and Hindus co-religionists. No racism will be tolerated! "

If you look at the user contribution for maleabroad, here , you will see the same anti-hindu proganda stuff used on the BKWSU page, here

Revision as of 16:38, 21 November 2006 maleabroad m (deleted anti-Hindu propaganda user trying to create drift between BK brothers and Hindu co-religionists)

However, looking at the archive of maleabroad, Luis Riveros11 slapped a vandalism tag on maleabroad from the same IP address in Tampa; 72.91.169.22 (72.91.169.22 ), where Luis or Avyakt7 as he likes to call himself says;

" Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. 72.91.169.22 03:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7 "

Luis is of course a teacher and recruiter for the BKWSU Raja Yoga center in Tampa. See documentation of his talks, here , etc.

• At 02:42 am 30 November 2006 as Riveros11 he made his usual revision/accusation (rv: vandalism - User 195.82.106.244 changed article without previous discussion as stated in Talk page without obeying policies in talk page - vandalism - version from user Appledell) .
• At 02:49, 30 November 2006 he made a Administrator intervention against vandalism, here . *ipvandal 195.82.106.244 Reported user this morning. Keeps reverting page without discussion and blanks all warnings from talk page.
• At 02:54, 30 November 2006 .
• At 02.57 am on 30 November 2006 he then used this sockpupet IP address on my talk page .

If we look at the user contribution for 72.91.169.22 we see that he has used it soley to attack me ... and once for maleabroad.

If we look at his own user page for ... we see that despite making all the edits to BKWSU he has not once used it to make an IP vandalism report and only once a personal attack report.

If we look at the other IP address is uses 72.91.4.91 also Tampa Verizon and used for making vandalism attacks on Maleabroad

If we look at user contributions for Tampa Verizon 72.91.4.91; here, , we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU, maleabroad and myself.

If we look at user contributions for 71.251.88.110 = is also Tampa Verizon; here, , we see they are again solely focused on the BKWSU and myself.

From 25/26 October 2006 when he first engaged in editing as Riveros11 , he has been a one track record Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism, Vandalism and whole load of admin tricks to block others ... no wonder he has been to busy to actually engage in the atempted discussion, mediation or arbitration . Except on others pages where he seeks advice and attempt to discredit me and similarly hitting other first contributors, e.g. .

I have no doubt that this is not exhaustive but it is exhausting ... I hope that we can resolve matters.

I would like to point out that the same team are also at work on Google Answers having critical or even independent pieces about the BKWSU removed, e.g. which is now http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=206345, Yahoo and elsewhere. Yes, Misplaced Pages Foundation will be targetted next if they has not already done so. Scratch me and I will bleed citations.

• One final incident, just wanted to add for the sake of completeness a Request for checkuser that Luis did under the 72.91.4.91 user where he refers to himself in the third party, "He also reported user Riveros11 ... Personal attack on Riveros11 ..." etc. . It is worth noting JUST for the amount of effort he puts into this.

• • Uh-oh ... And 72.91.28.223

195.82.106.244 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

195.82.106.244 07:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

195.82.106.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), , brahmakumaris.info (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), bkwatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

When you are checking the above, please check also the poster of the request above and other suspect SPs. See ArbCom case on Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrators.27_opinion_on_hearing_this_matter_.280.2F0.2F0.2F1.29 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Bkwatch either hasn't edited or has had all his edits deleted. ---J.S 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is all in arbitration now. Durova 03:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Repeated content removal directed to one site without adequate description or reasoning at urban exploration. A sock puppet of 141.149.186.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who has done similar actions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Post page diffs. Durova 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

13:50, 26 November 2006, 23:04, 25 November 2006, 22:02, 20 November 2006, 21:05, 18 November 2006 Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is a sockpuppet. Please WP:AGF and invite this editor to explain his or her reasoning for the deletion on the article talk page. Looks like the response to this has been unusually aggressive. Perhaps this is really someone new who could become a productive editor. Follow up if problems continue. Durova 00:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was judging this based on the WHOIS for both: and . Is there a way to do a WHOIS on regular users for the record? Thanks for the reply, I'll just keep it status quo on the page and see what else happens. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable. Still, nothing beyond a level 2 warning on either IP. I'd like to see some good faith outreach. Ask this person to participate at the article talk page. Durova 02:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I was under the assumption that they were both sockpuppets, so each warning was a cumulation off of both IPs. Upon the next removal, I'll ask that it be taken to the Discussion page as there is a system for link additions/removals (installed by me due to the high degree of link removals/additions for this article). Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand that similar matters have been longstanding problems at this page. Nonetheless, the right thing to do is to welcome each newcomer who might become productive and encourage them to contribute in accordance with site policies before issuing warnings. Some types of activity don't require that welcome - but this isn't someone who's posting obscenities to a page. They might have a genuine disagreement about that link's suitability and not understand consensus editing. Talk first and come back if they don't cooperate. Durova 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 151.204.242.114, the same user with the same DNS range is continuing to remove links. I posted a lengthy note on his talk page (didn't get around to it the first time but left a note in the edit summary at Urban exploration. This is getting old. This is verifiable with a simple IP query and WHOIS on the domains.

"Regarding edits to urban exploration. Your edits are similar to that of 151.204.243.217 and 141.149.186.183. The DNS for all three IPs are from the same DNS range: , and . Please cease the removal of information and use the appropriate channels; more specifically, see the Discussion page for criteria on link additions/removals. See WP:EL and WP:VANDAL for more information." Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Urban exploration. —Centrx→talk • 04:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully this will resolve the link issues until it settles down. Unsure why this cropped up though... Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Keltik31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Has been warned and blocked in the past for personal attacks; impersonates an admin here, and trolls various talk pages (too many to list, see contribs) with racist/anti-Semitic comments. -- weirdoactor -- 03:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I clicked randomly on a dozen contribs and did not find anything egregious. Content disputes are not vandalism. —Centrx→talk • 04:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that there is a user-conduct RfC pending with regard to this user. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Keltik31. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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. 72.91.4.91 14:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC) Avyakt7

We need page diffs, not links. Durova 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: 72.91.169.22 20:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7

Here are more differentials submitted by another user to me:
Disparaging and provocative POV presented as fact in discussion (trolling)...

Bogus personal attack report and deletion of comment...
He also reported riveros11 on a personal attack intervention board with a very attacking diatribe... Someone answered. 244 obviously didn't like the comment so he deleted it!

Personal attack on Riveros11...
Bad faith edit comments....

Personal information and false allegation of sockpuppet...

Intimidation...

Taunting...

Removing NPOV...

Removing page protection (probably to be able to post again as 244, evidence of sock puppet)...

Changing others' discussion and offensive edit comment....

Shifting of burden of proof onto those questioning the article...

Forest fire...

Thank you, 72.91.169.22 13:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

That's a lot of evidence over quite a few months. Thank you for searching and summarizing all of those diffs. Some of these actions aren't necessarily objectionable. For instance, Misplaced Pages doesn't take a stand against editors blanking warnings from their own talk pages. Nor is it necessarily wrong to remove an NPOV tag, particularly when it's a single action rather than a revert war. The bulk of the history looks like a heartfelt content dispute. While cult is a hot button word, this editor doesn't use it frivolously but rather supports it with links and detailed discussion - although the allegation itself is necessarily provocative, it seems to have been raised in a suitably dignified manner. So what we're left with is the sockpuppet allegation and some background history. This looks like it presents an editor who was involved in a long term content dispute and then began using socks to WP:OWN the article. Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets is the best place to handle that (and I'm glad it's already been reported there) because between that page possibly WP:DR your bases should be covered without needing to come here. A few of the other posts cross the line enough that I'd issue a warning or a short block if these were new events, but those actions took place months ago. Durova 04:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Durova, and how about this one just a day ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=cur&oldid=90603114 Please note that his links offered as support to his statements does not meet wikipedia standards for an article. Those are note reliable sources. This user however, wishes to use those sources even though admins already have told him that those are not valid. I just wish someone would take action specially after offering such a lenghty proof (user .244 does not even get a warning!!)rather than sending me to post in other places. Best 72.91.169.22 16:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) avyakt7

I semi-protected Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen guys, this is a bit of a joke because 72.91.169.22 is Riveros11 and User:72.91.28.223 whom both refer to himself in this and other complaints as if Riveros11 is a third party. Please see detailed documentation above. Riveros11 has been using 72.91.169.22 and other IPs to build up a bogus case against me and others in order to block me out from editing the article.

The background to this case is that Luis ] is a teacher and recruiter for this millenarianist group the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University and they have an IT team working on this article to ensure that nothing that contradicts its PR can exist there. Not even links for ex-victims as per The Family, Moonies and Scientology. Ditto, that no materials can be references from their "scriptures" or publications as per other religions. What this is all about is blocking any questions being raise. Ditto, The Family, Moonies and Scientology etc all have critical or opposition sections and links which he has removed from this one.

The history goes back to when he was suspended from a public discussion forum for making personal attacks on others which he has continued to lay blame on me for. I was the victim of those attacks. See,

With references to consistent claim that I accepted to use the sources he provided and have requested discussion of reliable sources, policy is clear;

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about the author(s)

* it is relevant to their notability;

* it is not contentious;

* it is not unduly self-serving;

* it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;

* there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it.

I put in for RfC, mediation and arbitration and the guy refused to participate whilst all the time using these alternative IPs to try block me out. I am glad I found all this to understand what is going on. 195.82.106.244 12:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This matter is now in arbitration. Durova 04:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Allen Greenfield - I have definite information that the person calling for deletion of this article has a long history of writing crank letters about this specific subject for entirely personal, rather than critical or cited, reasons. Some claims made by this person, a V. Cybert of Alabama, are apparently defamatory as well as misrepresented. This hardly seems a legitimate reason to call for a vote on deletion of an article, especially when said motive is masked. //Allen Greenfield

Talk:Spider-Man 3 (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (Moved from Admin Noticeboard to AN/I, and now to RFI, hopefully finding the right place for action) Can an admin please help regarding events on this page which happened saturday, yesterday, and today. Saturday night, both 222.152.186.32 and Boggydark got into a revert war here. Bignole, Erik, Ace Class Shadow, User:Wiki-newbie, Veracious Rey, and myself have all counseled both editors on things like civility, citation, the difference between being bold and a vandal, and more for weeks now. Neither makes an effort to change, both call us all names , for working hard on the page and not wanting POV edits added, and it's time for it to stop. ThuranX 13:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC) (Additional information: One of the posters, the IP user, has also begun to take his issues to another site, IMDb, as seen here. ThuranX 01:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)) Since posting and moving this, the IP user has continued to be hostile, insulting the other editor mentioned on topics, as well as continuing to provoke the regular, Good Faith editors with comments like this . He's clearly gone over to trolling for a fight, to judge by tonight's insulting edits. Many of the editors here are really about to leap out of their skins and get truly incivil back to him. We need Admin help. // ThuranX 03:34, 26 December 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

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

Tokyo Watcher falsified ratings of the {{Template:Wikiproject Japan}} template at Talk:Tsuki no Misaki, denied any discussion, and finally removed the template.

• first falsification
• second falsification with some comment but not understandable
• third falsification without any comment
• first template removal without any comment
• second template removal with groundless accusation

--Excavator 16:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

User User:Unseeingeyes is apparently attempting to build a walled guarden around Anthony Galima:

• Anthony Galima
• The Language Of Domains
• Business anthropology
• Edits to Anthropology
• Edits to List of anthropologists
• Edits to Anthropology

Also suspect sockpuppetry of anon ISP from parallel edits to said articles: ISP: 24.47.79.127

This appears to be his second attempt at this, see User talk:Unseeingeyes. Warnings on all of the created articles have been placed on the user talk page. SkierRMH 09:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Grkbkny69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Grkbkny69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User continuously vandalizes pages of musicians he doesn't like and increases sales of artist he does like. He has been doing this for months and makes peoples jobs harder, and he has yet to be perma banned. He was banned in the past and came back with a second account. He needs to be blocked. License2Kill 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  This looks like a content dispute. You might want to try WP:DR. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Chifumbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Ezeu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps adding the same image to Black People. Could be sock puppet? I don't know how to tell. This is getting silly. Please help.futurebird 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I overreacted. Trying to sort this out. futurebird 12:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi, I have been in a long edit war across many pages with goethean. I would like you look into Goethean's activities, I direct you to his talk page which shows that he is abusive towards fellow editors besides me. I even strongly have reason to believe that he has a meatpuppet Grey under his direction. He has gone to many pages I have written on and makes a comment out of nowhere after making the original comment. Goethean and me have been investigated by a sys admin Larry V but goethean has been admonished to take the high road and violates this every time with me. He has gotten me blocked for 3RR rule but if you were to look at the Ken Wilber page, I am sure he has been a horrible violator of the 3RR rule. I will admit I have no love lost for goethean, but I think his behavior towards me is systematic of how he acts as an editor. Please help.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestLane42 (talk • contribs).

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

User:WorldJKD is making legal threats on the talk page of the Jeet Kune Do article, and removing comments. User:Bruceleeman and User:Jeetman may be sockpuppets. He left the e-mail address info@leejkd.com, and asked that the editor User:FrankWilliams contact him. He left the following on his talk page: MR. WILLIAMS. YOU CANNOT IGNORE WHAT YOU HAVE DONE. WE WANT TO SPEAK WITH YOU. YOU DELEATED YOUR WIKIPEDIA EMAIL SO WE CAN NO LONGER ATTEMPT CONTACT OFFLINE LIKE MR. PATRICK REQUESTED OF YOU. YOU CAN EMAIL US AT INFO@LEEJKD.COM OR OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE PATTON LAW OFFICE JON@JONPATTON.COM. --WORLDJKD 20:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC) I reverted the talk page for the Jeet Kune Do article back to its original form. User:Brad Patrick wrote that the Wikimedia Foundation has been contacted about the legal threats, but User:WorldJKD doesn't seem to be stopping their vandalism and repeated legal demands the talk page. There has also been quite an edit war on the article itself, if you look at the history. Asarelah 21:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours, seems to have stopped editing. Oh and it's "WORLDJKD" not "WorldJKD" ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Investigative info included in the following links: , ,, I can almost Guarentee you that this will be vandalized in some way. Report: Upon becoming aware of User:LUCPOL, a user blocked 4 times before, and constantly reminded to stop vandalizing articles, in 2006 i started to grow quite suspicious of his activities, and one day editing an article and removing a seemingly unnessecary image of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, which i later accepted, and that reversion was soon edited to say "Silesia City" first, which is not the formal name for the region and is only used locally.Upon seeing this i suspect User:LUCPOL became angered and he then moved Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union to Silesia City, without anyone elses consensus(2-3 times.) Over this period i soon found out that LUCPOL was monitoring and watching my every reversion, even requests into his identity, in which he would soon respond and make himself apparent in personal conversations. I was later blocked unjustly as was he had used this cyber-stalking technique and pulled me into his block sentence. I started also adding an image of Frankfurt am Main, which was strangely removed a few times. The insuing events took place, in which i learned that User:LUCPOL had a personal agenda to promote an apparent RADICAL Pan-Polish/Pan-Slavic agenda (NOTE:LUCPOL has very little knowledge of the English language, leading to many unencyclopedic reversions previously.)He has also added warning templates to other users talk pages, which are almost always unsigned.

• LUCPOL (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• 83.18.242.234 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))(Upon noticing occaisional cooperative editing of articles by this anon IP and User:LUCPOL, i had a hunch of sockpuppetism, and looking at the user contributions confirmed it.)
• 91.120.107.93 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 168.213.1.132 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 207.245.84.70 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 131.104.218.46 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 216.171.96.18 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

Example incident:

I know now through intense research that his opininated editing has led him to create articles in other language wikipedias that say eiether the non-formal "metropolis katowice" or "silesia city." I also now know that his seeming radical agenda has led him to create tens of other accounts across the wikipedia domain(NOTE:The following is a list of user pages, both created, and not yet existant with text. Consequently, some of the different WikipediaUserPage editions listed might not feature any true editing by User:LUCPOL):

139. [http://ms.wikipedia.org/Laman_Utama

More recently User:LUCPOL has vandalized these other following pages:

1. Upper Silesian Industry Area No apparent reason to revert other than personal bias against myself.
2. Talk:Kottonmouth Kings
3. Template:Infobox City Poland (Vandalized reversions by the templates creator.).(Vandalised again today by user)

• Template:User Silesia (Added Silesia as a 'Nation' when it is not a nation at all.).(Vandalised again today by user)

1. Template:User European Union (Added EU as being a 'Nation'.)
2. Silesian; (quote from User:LUCPOL("Polish Silesia"? - this is hoax)(Silesia actually is divided into 2 regions by an expert on the subject, Polish Silesia, and Czech Silesia, but apparently this is a hoax.)
3. Silesia; (total vandalism by adding a category called "state" which lists Poland and the Czech Republic, when they are 100% classified as Nations.)

I found out an anonymous IP today attempted to request the protection of the "upper silesia metropolitan union" article mentioning the constant 2 month reversion-vandalism campaign by User:LUCPOL, but when User:LUCPOL saw this, he changed select words to his personal benefit, and later even completely removed the request without permission and added his own version of it(before an action had been taken), stating it was ("unneeded") (apparently this has gone unnoticed so far).I looked into this anonymous IPs talk history for any past incidents and suspicious behavior and instead i found this.-- Hrödberäht 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Friday, Janurary 19, 2007

• Blocked content of the article Katowice by placing large panorama image in an inappropriate location at the top.

• User adds Music video link on Cypress Hill, link is removed due to its irrelevance, but adds link back again and disobeys authority:

• found out that USER:LUCPOL has created almost every different language article on Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, or using the fake title of Metropolis Katowice, or Silesia Cityand lieing about their validity.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

• Added the fake "Silesia City" to Metropolis in place of the real Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union.
• Reverted Template:User European Union back to saying it was a nation, when its is not.
• Reverted Template:User Silesia back to saying it was a nation, when its is not.
• Notcied that he reverted Edits to Upper Silesian Industry Area and added his concept of 'Silesia City' back to it again.
• Did some research into past blocks of User:LUCPOL:
• 1 14:09, May 9, 2006 C12H22O11 blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 1 month (WP:3RR at Rapcore, talk page blanking & legal threats at User talk:Ulayiti)
  • 15:26, May 9, 2006 Prodego decreased block to 24hrs for 3RR,"user says he'll stop"
• 2 16:54, August 4, 2006 Alai blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 1 hour (revert-warring on Rapcore)
• 3 07:41, September 6, 2006 Alphachimp blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Rapcore)
• 4 05:20, December 29, 2006 William M. Connolley blocked LUCPOL with an expiry time of 24 hours (WP:3RR violation on Metropolis)

Sunday, January 21, 2007

• A user other than myself requested that Category:Villages in Silesia be deleted, click here to see that request. After posting his own thoughts on how he thought the category was 'ok' an administrator deleted the category.

I am translating LUCPOL's statement per reuqest, I don't endorse it - I am just a translator.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Answer:
  

My English is poor, indeed, I had much difficulty understanding R9tgokunks. So:

1. Case: Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union - Name Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union (polish: Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny) it's an old, now unused name retired by the new government (after elections of November 2006 ). "Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny" was replaced by "Silesia". Examples: in : , , in , , , (etc...) and pl.Wikinews. Polish Misplaced Pages for long months had article pl:Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny, and were politicians changed the name to "Silesia" than Polish wiki gained a new article pl:Silesia (miasto) (english: "Silesia city"). They both described the same thing after some discussions I created a redirect , but we delayed renaming "Silesia (miasto)" as it is a current process and we want to see what happens. But Polish wiki article states: "Silesia (dawniej Górnośląski Związek Metropolitalny)" - english: Silesia city (long ago Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union") . So you see: R9tgokunks inserted wrong info into the article and engaged in revert wars , without any knowledge of the "Silesia (miasto)" issue - and he accusses me of vandalism. Further, he removed the name "Silesia" from article which seems to me to be clear vandalism: .
2. Case Frankfurt am Main - Simply, I never edited that article and have no idea why I am accused of editing it.I never even accused you of editing this article.... R9tgokunks 20:52, 20 January 2007
3. Other accounts. I am an experienced Wikipedian - Ihave 15 000 edits on pl.wikipedia , 2000 on en.wikipedia , and I decided to have an account on other Wikis for interwiki additions, so they appear under my account and not anon's IP. I don't understand what's wrong with that.
4. IP (ex: 91.120.107.93, 168.213.1.132, 207.245.84.70, 131.104.218.46, 216.171.96.18) are not mine and checkuser will verify this.Yes, sorry, I mistakenly added these based on other vandals on wikipedia that i was wishing to check on. R9tgokunks 20:52, 20 January 2007
5. Case Template:Infobox City Poland - As for my revert it's easy to explain: User:Fujicolor changes completly revamped the infobox, and I think it damaged the layout on en.wiki. I disagree with this change, thus I revert it. As simple as that.
6. Case Silesian - There is no such entity as "Polish Silesia", there is just Silesia region on the territory of 3 countries. Thus I reverted R9tgokunks' edit .
7. Case Silesia - Old version of the article had "Nation" and my dictionary tells me it translates to Polish "naród" (people); I think "State" is more correct.In america and the rest of Europe, they call Poland and the Czech republic countries(Nations),so obviously it doesnt matter what you think when it goes up against ]. User:Olessi change to "Country" is fine with me and I consider the matter closed.
8. Case Katowice - I reverted R9tgokunks' edit as it damaged the layout of article (see for yourselves). Panoramas should go at the top, I think it's a common policy.

I did not execute no vandalism. LUCPOL 16:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Case Template:Infobox City Poland - Reverted a template that wasnt even created by himself...and it was reverted back by the user that created it..
2. Case: Silesia - Ok then...If you yourself KNOW that Silesia exists in 3 different countries...then WHY did you revert my edit???It doesnt make any sense....
   
3. Case: Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union - User LUCPOL lied about the validity of the names 'Metropolis Katowice' and 'Silesia City', he said they were true, but recently i found out they are fake and arent even used in Poland. Subsequent trans-language articles of wikipedia have all been created by USER:LUCPOL under the fake name of 'Metropolis Katowice', and almost all have been changed to (this case, in English) 'Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union', with MANY users telling him 'Metropolis Katowice', and 'silesia city' dont even exist, and that its the wrong name, but STILL he choses to disobey authority and switch it back because his your ignorace in thinking.
   
4. Case Katowice - Wrong, its not 'common policy', view the Frankfurt and Warsaw articles... which are some of the best articles on wikipedia.-- Hrödberäht 20:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad.1 Without comment. LUCPOL 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad.2 Finished matter. LUCPOL 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad.3 Now official name this "Silesia (miasto)" - english "silesia city". This is fact. Proofs are above. Do you understand? LUCPOL 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad.4 Without comment. LUCPOL 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Per my comments on user talk pages, I strongly suggest mediation: both users seem to be good faithed editors who have content dispute, compounded by LUCPOL's poor command of English.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am translating new reply by LUCPOL. R9tgokunks, please don't remove LUCPOL Polish comments - he has asked others for translation and it is acceptable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To: R9tgokunks. I want to reach a compromise with you. Let's leave aside the issues of Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, Upper Silesian Industry Area and Silesian for now. Please reply to those questions of mine:

1. The issue of Frankfurt am Main does not concern me - can we discard it?
2. IP 91.120.107.93, 168.213.1.132, 207.245.84.70, 131.104.218.46, 216.171.96.18 - this is not me. Can we discard it?
3. Template:Infobox City Poland - I explained that I disagreed with infobox new look; I have reached a compromise with the user who did the change and the matter is closed. Can we discard it?
4. Other Wikipedias - I know of no rule that prohibits me having those other accounts. Can we discard it?
5. Katowice - your edit damagaged the layout (). It was a single revert and I see no reason we should discuss it further. Can we discard it?
6. Silesia - I am happy with Olessi's "country". Can we discard it?

Please reply to the points in order. Let's try to finish some issues so we can discuss others. If you agree we can discard a point please strike it out. I hope we can raech an understanding as soon as possible. LUCPOL 19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Concerning Upper Silesian Metropolitan Union, I'm afraid that the present dispute is somehow pointless (no offence, see what follows). I think the article should be virtually blanked and rebuild from scratch (on the pl.wiki article basis, say), the reason being that it does not describe correctly its subject. Observe that the article does not mention any sources - pl.wiki version does (in external links section). One could be surprised how different the subjects are... Actually, en.wiki text corresponds roughly to the old pl.wiki version which has been deleted (and replaced) on grounds of h-word rationale; disclaimer: at the beginning I was involved there. I put a version of this post in the relevant talk page, I'm willing to do what is necessary. To make it clear: I suggest not discussing it further here but moving to the relevant talk page instead. --Beaumont (@) 11:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

L46kok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Vandal keeps removing speedy tag on Sokwhan Huh article, and is also using User:MNuser to try and remove the tag also. Possible sockpuppet accounts. Chrisch 02:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The user has been warned and blocked before I got around to it.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SnakePlane789 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have no idea what's going on with the redirect pages DickLick Single and The_Not-So-Great_Krapli but someone smarter than me should probably try to work it out. Random Passer-by 00:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Pages have been deleted, user warned and he has not edited since.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After months of interaction with this user, I am afraid I have lost hope that he can contribute positivly to our project. While he occasionaly does useful copyediting, a very significant portion of that user's edits (see statistics appendix below) seem to unconstructive remarks on various talk pages. Of course a fondness of discussions is nothing serious (Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, but we have more important things to deal with) - however his remarks are almost always off topic to the issue discussed and are further highly sarcastic, usually ad hominem, bordering on personal attacks and way too often leading to flaming, wasting times of other editors and stressing them out. The user has been warned to change his attitude many times - examples from his talk page: 29 January 2006, 26 June 2006, 29 June 2006, 4 July 2006, and particulary see 30 July 2006, 11 December 2006, 12 December 2006 and 12 January 2007. Unfortunatly I see no change in his behaviour - other then he is getting increasingly bold with hostile, provocative comments (this is the newest one which prompted me to file this report). Recently some editors have tried to contain the flame wars that habitually erupt after his remarks by removing or achiving his posts before they get too many replies (once, twice , thrice, not that it seems to have any effect on him. His constant snipping remarks contributed, among other things, to months long withdrawal from our project of one of the most active contributors - User:Halibutt, the the 168 most active editor (see also his accusation of that user being 'a very warped, and lying propagandist at his absolute worst'). Or just see this gem, where he reffers to Halibutt's contributions as 'flaming and anti-Lithuanian propaganda' and 'a weird, hateful history of editing'. As obviously warnings are ineffective, I'd like to ask the community to consider other actions before this user manages to offend and chase of other editors from our project.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) PS. In a recent post, Dr. Dan calls me a 'self proclaimed wellspring of knowledge regarding Poland on English Misplaced Pages'. Here he accusses me of 'falsehood'...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• If it helps at all i highly support investigative actions.-- Hrödberäht 05:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• For Dr. Dan's reply, see below.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to address these remarks and ask for 48 hours or less, to do so. As a very active member of various organizations opposing the Iraq War, and recent attempts to escalate it, I am unable to give these serious, but untrue, characterizations the time needed to address them appropriately. I'm also on call this weekend, and as a physician, I take that very seriously. So between work and my contributions of time to the anti-War effort, I need a little time to respond to these remarks before any decisions are taken. Thanks Dr. Dan 18:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

So granted: 24 hour block. Your analysis appears to be topical and substantive, but the persistent sniping violates WP:CIVIL. When the block expires please continue the content discussions without personalizing the disputes. Respectfully, Durova 21:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very surprised by this move. Particular contributor Dr. Dan directly asked for time to respond to this matter, the time was not given. There is WP:AGF? Dr. Dan is the best copy editor and he deserved the right to present his view and point the problems. Also does the policy which states: Please remember that reporters may not be entirely ‘innocent’ themselves, so be sure to check their edits and treat all sides fairly. Also was carried out? Because looking in presented “evidence” contributor Piotrus did not mentioned some issues which should be mentioned in this case. Also does this case should not be placed in under investigation case? So I convinced that the ban should revoke and let contributors present their cases without any rush. M.K. 22:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm also very surprised. First of all, although I don't know Dr. Dan well, I have come across him on pages where he was arguing with a friend of mine, and found that his behaviour with people on a different side was fine. I've looked at these "offences", and they don't seem to have anything like the level of disruption to justify a block. Remember, blocks are not meant to be punitive. From experience, I think that if this had been taken to WP:ANI, people would have been told to get a thicker skin or to have a nice cup of tea. Finally, Dr. Dan specifically asked for time to respond to the matter. I think it's precisely because of concerns about it turning into a forum for "Please, teacher. Johnny said something naughty" that WP:PAIN was recently abolished. This block should be undone. Musical Linguist 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If Dr. Dan has time to post several personal attacks and flame other contributors on various talk pages a day, but no time to do a minor copyedit more often then once a week or so, perhaps this will give him something to think about and reevaluate his priorities. He has been warned enough on his talk page, and he had ample time (months) to respond to those warnings and adjust his behaviour. And, Musical, there is a level where 'Johny being noughty' is too much for our community to take, and when Johnny suceeeds in getting one of our most active users to go on months-long wikiholiday with his personal attacks, it's a proof enough that growing thick skin is not enough in this case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all your "evidence" should be placed under full investigation. For instance in this case, this "personal attack" was under big suspicion among editors . And let remind you that person have quite a problem in his real life, and he did not hide just noted about timing. And if you hold such attitude which you presented, I am regret, but I am not regret Dan, but you instead. M.K. 22:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I am quite confident that experienced RFI editors like Durova know when they've investigated enough. For instance in the discussion you brought up most editors criticized Dr. Dan for it, and the defence 'grow thick skin' as I explained above is not the one I recognize. I don't see why I should learn to take such abuse - per WP:CIV and our policies, it is the uncivil editors who should learn how to behave.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Especially then admin making such statements as this . BTW, what do you calling among other things, to months long withdrawal I understand that you historically related with user:Halibutt (), looking his contributions from 06.12.23 I cant see any so called "months long withdrawal". And another note do you intent to prosecute and all Lithuanian community, because Halibutt unambiguous made clear (bold some points to better see):

"Unfortunately, an ongoing campaign of slander and blackmail against me has forced me to abandon wikipedia for some time. Death threats from Ghirlandajo, anti-semitic comments from Renata and her Lithuanian pals, offending my parents by Dr.Dan, offending my nationality and culture by the nationalist Lithuanian community here - all these were a step too far. Perhaps I'll come back when they change their ways - or wiki finally starts to defend serious editors against trolls and ultra-nationalists. Regards, //Halibutt" "Interesting" statment deserves reaction, you say WP:CIV? BTW, did you mentioned here (for the background) that your friend, as you call it he 168 most active editor, Halibutt recently already started to mocking particular nations language, as well as living persons etc. ? M.K. 01:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who want's to verify how Dr. Dan (and M.K's) campaign effects Halibutt, you are welcome to check stats here (comapre pre-September to post-September). If you'd like us to investigate Halibutt's offences, or those of any other editor, you are free to post here with diffs or start a WP:DR procedure; otherwise, please stop your campaign against Halibutt (and if I can understand your post correctly, myself).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Dan's outrageous suggestion that my parents were members of the commie party, while funny in itself, was meant to discredit my views. This is not the way to go.

Secondly, I was indeed on wikivacations. Recently I thought that it could be nice to come back, but apparently it was not. Sorry for that, M.K., next time I'll think twice before posting anything on wikipedia. //Halibutt 02:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Take this with a huge grain of salt

I would like to warn anyone who was lucky enough to not have had any disputes with user:Piotrus, and therefore having not been a victim of his intimidation, to take his complaints with a huge grain of salt.

The essence of all these conflicts is never civility but the long-lasting content disagreements over many articles tendentiously edited by Piotrus to suite his Poland-centered world-view (I would have gone one step further and called this even Polish nationalist world view but Piotrus' nationalism is admittedly, less extreme than that of some others). Piotrus' persisting with pushing the Polish nationalist POV into various articles brought about conflicts with valuable editors from all countries that happen to be the neighbors of Poland and have lots of shared history, primarily Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Germans. This by itself would not have been abnormal if not Piotrus' reprehensible tactics he is persistently using by trying to win such content disputes through expulsion of his opponents through blocks or forcing them quit. In the past he used false 3RR reports, cherry-picking of admins to bring his complaints to, WP:AN, WP:ANI. Most recently he used several times the WP:PAIN which is now thankfully shut-down specifically because of the Piotrus'-like abuse of it. Now he found a new venue to push for expulsion of his opponents, this board.

He has succeeded in achieving one of his goals already. User:Ghirlandajo, the jewel contributor, left the Misplaced Pages and does not seem returning. Now it is Dr. Dan's turn. Who will be next I wonder?

To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk, RfC's, etc. Attempts to present this as civility issues or policy violations are misleading and aimed at achieving another content "victory" by expuslsion of another opponent. When such tricks were tried against Piotrus' friend Halibutt, I was equally critical then.

Anyway, I've seen enough to initiate the administrative recall of Piotrus for the unethical behavior unbecoming for an admin. I refused to do that earlier despite many calls I received in private from the Russian, Lithuanian and German editors in the past year. I was mistaken then and it's time to correct this now. --Irpen 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I never expected you, Irpen, to scoop so low and to present so many misinterpretations (to say the least). I have just four comments. 1) No diffs in the above post should give everyone a pause. Fiction, of course, is hard to back up with diffs. 2). Similar accusations were raised by Ghirla and M.K at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus. M.K's rant was not supported by anyone except Dr. Dan (suprise...), and Ghirla ended up in ArbCom and Mediation, where he agreed to put himself under a civility parole (requested for, among other things, to stop a flow of similar unfounded accusations). I'd thus advice, Irpen, that you don't repeat his mistakes. 3) In any case, according to the message at User:Ghirlandajo, I had nothing to do with his wikibreak (and Irpen tryong to insinuate anything else is just another example of fallacies of his arguments). That said, you are free to try DR or initiate my voluntary recall, the last attempt to do so proved quite fruitfull, I think. 4) As for my 'persistent pushing of Polish nationalist POV' - I invite anybody to read comments by our Featured Articles Director on my RfC. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC) PS. Important note: To summarize, these conflict are purely based on content disputes and their resolutions belong to the article's talk is completly untrue, as I have no problems with Dr. Dan content editing (occasional copyediting). It's his flaming on talk which is usually off-topic to article's in question I have the problem with.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you won't impress or scare me by showing what happened to your other opponents. So, please no "advises not to repeat" stuff. As for diffs, I could dig them if memories fail you somehow. I thought you remember you false 3RR report against Ghirla, that was dismissed false. Also, you may recall your inciting Elonka to post a complaint on him to WP:ANI. You may also recall your inciting someone who I never met to submit a report on myself during our dispute over Taras Fedorovych. You may also recall your asking William M. Connolley‎ to block Fisenko over a content dispute he had with you. Should I dig the diffs or you remember those cases? --Irpen 07:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you are trying to catch up with the party you missed - i.e. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus, where those issues were brought up and dismissed. I am sorry to disappoint you, but WP:RFI report against another user is not a good place to try to start Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus 2, and if you think you can try to turn this from discussing Dr. Dan to discussing Piotrus, I am afraid you'll not succeed. Per my last post, I am waiting for an apology for claims dismissed by my RfC as well as other accusations ('persistent nationalist POV pushing' and similar).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have evidence to back up such a claim of POV pushing, I would be very interested in seeing it. Can you please provide diffs? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WD, you have not been around where everyone who edited with Piotrus have been lately. At the same time you just love to get involved in all sorts of personal conflicts with your uninformed opinions. I suggest simply that you study every matter before opining. The disputes here are deep. They run for years and your last attempt to get involved was extremely unhelpful. I would rather prefer that this is dealt by Durova or anyone else more or less familiar with the context, if you would please allow this. --Irpen 07:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Durova is actively working in a mediation which involves Piotrus, so I do not think she would be the best person to look into the matter. I can myself, or another user may, but in either event you should provide diffs to support your claim. If you can indeed support such a claim I would support a recal of Piotrus, but if you cannot I would ask you to withdraw this damaging accusation. I realise my efforts earlier with Ghirla did not go as well as could have been hoped, and I have taken that as a learning experience. In my defense a series of other users that seemed to have some agenda "supported" me, and in the end were altogether unhelpful in the matter. I can of course leave the issue be if you so wish, however, as I said, you should prove this claim or withdraw it, as it's a fairly damaging thing to accuse someone of. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

• One mistake is hardly something to hold a grudge on someone for, nor does it ever speak fully for one person's abilities or attitudes. In any event, I would appreciate diffs (or other evidence of that nature) or a retraction of your comment, please. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, now we are getting somewhere. So there was a mistake, huh? And was there an apology? Anyway, was your offer to leave the dispute if I request so meaningful, or you intend to persist with your involvement despite I gave a clear answer to your offer? --Irpen 07:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

And WD, please consider my request to stay in; I always found your comments helfpul and well-meaning. PS. I second WD request for a diffs (proving that point) or an apology.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Any attempt at a sort of mediation or informal dispute resolution only works if all parties to it agree to the matter, and Irpen clearly does not, so I will not further investigate or look into the matter, though I reserve the right to get involved at a later time should I feel compelled to do so. I will however, clarify a few things. First of all, Irpen - I left Ghirla a large apology on his talk page. He is an extremely valued contributor, and someone I regard with a tremendous deal of respect. I never intended to slight him in any way. Secondly, I stand by my request for Irpen to provide diffs, or at least give some reassurances that he is having this looked at by a third party. I don't feel comfortable leaving an issue with what, if unproven and unbacked, amounts to a personal attack unresolved. So, Irpen, I beseech you, please provide some diffs, or some evidence this matter is being looked into. All I ask if I am to be uninvolved is to have assurance that someone is looking into it. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus and Durova would know exactly what I mean and I gave above some hints to refresh Piotrus' memories. Now, you can rest assured that Durova is a very thorough person and she will get to the bottom of this if she chooses to stay in. I trust her judgment a lot. Thank you. --Irpen 07:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WD, to fill you in - those issues where discussed in December at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Piotrus filled against me by Ghirla. As his accusations were supported by 5 out of 40+ people who commented there, and criticized by many more, the case ended up at ArbCom and User:Durova/Mediation, where Ghirla withdrew most of them, apologized and agreed to be put under civility parole, I really wonder what's Irpen's angle here with trying to revive this - but as I said above WP:RFI is not WP:RFC and this entire section is only distracting us from discussing Dr. Dan abuses.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:50, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Consider me recused from this investigation. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

User contributions analysis

Of last 500 edits (that's since mid-September'06) using these scripts:

• article space: 37%; Misplaced Pages space: 3%
  • Significant article edits (copyedits/small rewrites/content/reference additions): 2.6% (13)
• talk (article, user, etc.) space: 60%

Is trolling prohibited?

Since this is not a Request For Comments call, I'll refrain from posting a longer comment on Dr. Dan's behaviour or Irpen's absurd accusations above. I'm however concerned about the grounds for this RFI in the first place. I don't think there is a wikipedia policy that explicitly prohibits trolling. Is the fact that an editor is being counter-productive enough to call for admin actions against him ? --Lysy 13:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, thank you for what appears to be your support concerning this investigation (I mean its grounds, etc.) Fortunately there is not a wikipedia policy explicitly prohibiting trolling. In that case, I wouldn't be able to thank you. Dr. Dan 22:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, that you don't like something does not make it absurd. That Piotrus' in the past many times played various tricks to achieve the blocks of his content opponents is a fact.

• His false report against Ghirla to 3RR board is a fact.
• His provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla is a fact.
• His contacting William M. Connolley‎ regarding his conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable is a fact.
• His advising someone to submit a 3RR report on myself over Piotrus' dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych is a fact.
• His report to PAIN on Ghirla that was promptly removed by JzG as trolling is also a fact.

Now that the PAIN is deleted because it was most often frivolously used as Misplaced Pages:Request to block my opponent board, the new venue for this activity has been found, this board.

Piotrus should just cease attempting to eject his opponents from Misplaced Pages through blocks. This report is just another take on it. I say, this board should likely follow PAIN into the wastebasket because complaints are always brought out of context and investigating them in full requires an incredible patience of the investigator to reveal the full scale of events. --Irpen 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is a fact is your bad faith interpretation of the events, Irpen. I ask you once again to stop repeating claims already discredited in my RfC and either blank them or apologize.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you need diffs, Piotrus? I am sure you remember now each and every instance I brought up above. I can back them up with diffs and you know that. I hope Durova will finally figure this all out once she is back. Once this "investigation" is over, I will submit this board for deletion to follow WP:PAIN. There is a normal DR course and there are also attempts to circumvent it using various pages as a substitute for the Misplaced Pages:Request to block my opponent board. --Irpen 22:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Several users asked you for diffs. But you know what - we are just joking, we don't really want them... Sigh. I hope Durova or some other admin will look at your posts and take appopriate actions. And it was actions of people like you who try to gain immunity from wiki policies like WP:CIV that doomed PAIN, not actions of those like me or WD who try to deal with such abuses.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, Piotrus, since your memories seem to be failing you, here are the diffs that show your pattern to use various sneaky tricks to achieve the blocks of your content opponents:

• False report against Ghirla to 3RR board.
• Provoking Elonka to submit an ANI report on Ghirla.
• Contacting William M. Connolley‎ regarding your conflict with Fisenko to ask whether this is 3RRable.
• Advising someone how to submit a 3RR report on myself over your dispute with me at talk:Fedorovych.
• Your PAIN report on Ghirla that was removed by JzG as trolling is unavailable because PAIN's history is deleted. But here is the disscusion.

This attempt to block Dr. Dan fits nicely into the same pattern. You forced me to spend time to dig those out as if you forgot but they are all here now for review. --Irpen 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break

And as I mentioned several times they are also discussed at my RfC in the aftermath which Ghirla got a civility parole. I will not deny I have a habit of trying to curb violations of our policies, from WP:CIV to WP:VAND. That, Irpen, is what any sensible user does. In any case, the Ghirla case was difficult as we dealt with a user who while often violating WP:CIV was also an immense content creator. This case is not the case, as Dr. Dan content creation is rather close to non-existent (per stat's discussed above and below). I am still awaiting your apology for your statements above (that I was acting in bad faith and try to promote some 'nationalist Polish POV-pushing agenda').-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla is not on civility parole, that's for one. Secondly, I am glad that now you stopped demanding proofs that seeking blocks of your content opponents is your tactic as these were exposed. Good.

Now, I know that you just love to demand diffs pretty aware that they exist just in order to waste your opponents' time. This had happened before as well. Proofs of your polonocentric POV-pushing into articles are even more abundant and I can supply plenty of diffs as well. I just don't want to waste time on something that seems to me too obvious. If Durova is unfamiliar with your editing habits, which I doubt, and requests me to provide her with some material, I will set aside some time to build an equally convincing set of diffs. --Irpen 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla has agreed to a civility parole on mediation page, Irpen. I see no point in repeating myself over and over again; I can agree with you on one: I hope Durova will comment here and curbs your pointless and offending accusations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in the beginning of my comment, this is not an RFC, and certainly not Ghirla/Piotrus RFC. Sorry guys, but this is also not a proper place to discuss your past animosities. --Lysy 06:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Right. This is disruptive. With this in mind, may I ask you a few questions? Is trolling prohibited?... (rhetoric question). More seriously, are we supposed to be overindulgent to counter-productive disputes? Shall we (even implicitely) encourage trolish-like behavior? Would it build a nice and user-friendly working environment? Further, the problem is not that there are content disputes (they always will be there) - but the way we handle them. I'm afraid Dr. Dan follows one of the worst patterns - consequently and for a long time. Personally, I think some kind of talking he enjoys does not belong to wikipedia talk pages. See our discussion on Talk:Jan Dzierzon, where he deliberately led an OT "pissing match" (his own term ; he did also a good work to discuorage me ). I have some more interesting examples, if you wish, including one where he attacked your Polish-Lithuanian cooperation proposition(about 4 months old diffs at request), and another one, where some recent direct pro-Lithuanian comments by Piotrus were nitpicked. One gets impression that he is really interested in maintaining some conflicts, in which he willingly participates. And, finally, your own words to him: "your recent attempts to group or divide editors by their nationality in a number of talk pages can be harmful". Are you still concerned about the grounds for this RFI? Best, --Beaumont (@) 14:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Beaumont, nice of you to participate. Regarding your link, nitpicked, my contributions there are something that I felt were very relevant to the discussion, and I'm pleased with them. Do you see them violating any civility? Do you think perhaps a greater degree of censorship prohibiting people from expressing their opinions would be more to your liking? Regarding Lysy, I go back along way with him, and we were having a frivolous "pissing match" regarding a fictitious WP entry Henryk Batuta, sorry it, and my choice of words concerning it, offended you. Since Lysy didn't seem offended (and I doubt that he was), maybe you should get over it. If Lysy was offended, my apologies to him too. Dr. Dan 15:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Just read my text. Concerning nitpicked comment and the other co-operation proposition by Lysy I do not mean incivility, I mean conflict-aimed useless remarks. A phenomenon observed yet elsewhere by Lysy some time ago... --Beaumont (@) 17:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Beaumont, Dan's remark might have contributed to conflicts but I doubt that was his intention. People often feel angry when they write to Misplaced Pages talk pages. I have been called all sorts of names by Piotrus and his friends. Piotrus called me a Polonophobe, Lysy called me "affected by Soviet education" and made highly offensive remarks about my ethnicity, Halibutt called me all sorts of things and I am not even mentioning Molobo and other less respectable editors here. Still, I did not rush to various boards to seek any of them blocked. Some things we say may provoke conflicts. I say, grow a thicker skin and concern yourself with content creation not the POV pushing and expulsion of opponents. What is utterly reprehensible is to play dirty running from board to board agitating for blocks of those who oppose your POV. Piotrus has been doing it for a while. Time to stop it, dismiss this frivolous "request for investigation" and send this trollboard to the oblivion to follow the WP:PAIN's path. --Irpen 20:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Where did I call you a 'Polonophobe'? Please support your accusations with diffs. Unlike you, who accuses others (above on this page) of 'spreading nationalist POV', I don't have the habit of making such remarks about others.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, you did call me a polonophobe. And there is an edit of yours somewhere out there. You did it just once, perhaps you were agitated, and I did not run with that to various admins screaming "block him". Nor did I save it to hit you with it later. I am not to go dig through dozens of thousands of your edits to find it. I mean, if this was an ArbCom and the whole case would be hinged on that, I would have put aside half-a-day and found that diff but for now I won't. I do remember it clearly though and suffice that I provided diffs to every of your previous challenges on this board.

Don't worry too much. "Polonophobe" is not the worse offense I was called here and, anyway, I did not make a big deal out of that and I still don't. Besides, your friend Lysy called me worse and Hali used quite an offensive language as well. The only time I complained about civility is when one fellow called me a "purulent faggot from the hooker's town" and even then, only because he did not contribute a single content line and was just revert warring and spreading hatred. I hope this here was the last time you sought for the opponent's block. This "investigation" will go bust anyway and please do not produce any more of this. Just accept that some articles may end up differently from your POV as other editors can also have an opinion on them and can contribute accordingly. If you dislike that, use talk pages and not admin boards. --Irpen 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If I may be so bold as to interject with a comment, and commenting only in general and not on this case in particular, I don't think it's the venues of these discussions that's leading to these disagreements, it's the people. If a court has a mistrial or a bad descision that is overturned, it's not the courthouse that's to blame, it's the people in the courthouse. Likewise for these boards. PAIN was fine, and it should be noted that Durova was a regular there for a while, until certain people turned it into the civility police. I hope that these people do not turn this board into such a thing, as this board has a useful purpose. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some judicial systems are better and produce less mistrials than the others. Boards that attract sorts of editors eager to provide their opinions on interpersonal conflicts inflaming matters are likely to produce wrong outcomes. Boards presided by the members of the community entrusted by this very community (elected arbcom members) produce by far less questionable verdicts.

If you have an opponent in the content dispute, deal with the person you have, not the one you would like to have. If your opponent is an obvious troll, go to WP:ANI. If the case is complex, you tried everything and failed, go to RfArb not to the kangaroo court where random people occasionally step in to be a judge and jury on the whim. ANI is attended by enough editors to make whimsical verdicts less likely. Here we may get lucky and get Durova put aside a day of her life, dig this all out and see that the report is a bad faith one. Or we can get quick uninformed opinions provided in haste, warning templates stamped left and right to "gauge the reaction" and other similarly productive actions. This board is exactly the forum that guarantees frequent errors and hurt feelings. PAIN is gone, thanks god. Time for this one to follow. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
BTW, Peter, should I ask you to warn Piotrus to not call me a Polonophobe (as he did), Lysy to not make ridiculing remarks about my ethnicity and Halibutt not to call me a lier. I can spend another 1/2 hour to provide you with diffs but better yet, I advise you to help me bring this trollmagnet board to a closure. --Irpen 22:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Er, which is it you want? Warnings or noninvolvement? They are kind of mutually exclusive, you know. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 23:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That was a rhetorical question. --Irpen 23:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Dodge, I do not know you, and probably you do not know much about me (other than this investigation). But obviously you did not recuse yourself from this matter afterall, at least not totally. Personally, I thought Irpen's last remarks were quite "on the mark" and worthy of consideration. Forgive my being "dense" but I understood him asking you to give warning, but where did you, er, see him wanting non-involvement? Best Dr. Dan 00:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr Dan, I did ask for Peter's non-involvement further above for the reasons irrelevant to this matter. --Irpen 00:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes Irpen, I think you meant that you wanted his further involvement rather than non-involvement. My remarks were not meant to dissuade him from participation, I just thought he "recused" himself earlier. I am against censorship. Period! He's more than welcome to participate here. The more the merrier. Just the same, I don't see where you were asking for non-involvement. If I'm mistaken, then as they say in certain sections of New York, fugheddaboudit. Dr. Dan 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have no position on this RFI, Piotr, or Irpen. I was merely making an interjection about how the editors are responsible for their behaviour whatever venue they are in on Misplaced Pages, and that they cannot blame bad behaviour on a certain board or area's "climate". Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC) And yes, I'm going now. Really, really. Just wanted to clear that up.

Dr. Dan's reply

I wish to begin my belated response by giving you all my overview of Misplaced Pages. I love Misplaced Pages, and I believe it is a superb venue to acquire and exchange information. I am proud to be a member of the project. P.P.'s "Statistics Appendix Box", is interesting in itself because it truly does not reflect my participation in WP. 90% of my involvement in Misplaced Pages is reading it, and getting knowledge from it, about the many, many subjects that I have never had any familiarity with like the fig wasp, Bohuslav Martinů, or Indian Standard Time, and believe me, I play a mean game of Jeopardy!. You see, P.P., how a person contributes to Misplaced Pages is their business. It can be copyediting or going to the discussion pages and correcting or questioning or shaping an article. It takes quite a big ego to think, Hrmph!, I created articles like Żydokomuna, while Dr. Dan merely goes to its talk page and has the temerity to question it and give me a hard time over it. This argument of yours is truly a strawman argument because you had the same problems you are complaining about me with user:Ghirlandajo, one of the most prolific contributors to Misplaced Pages. Allow me to digress and say, Ghirla, if you are listening, please come back. I salute you, and the great Russian people, and the many fine contributions to Misplaced Pages that have come out of there.

I would also like to take a moment to thank the many people who took the time to support me and question the validity of this investigation and my block. I was also surprised by the many E-mails of support that I received from contributors who preferred to "remain off the record". It was comforting. I am especially grateful for the input of user:Musical Linguist, as I consider her to be not only extremely fair-minded and an impartial editor, but one who was not even remotely involved with the "personalities" of this issue. Durova, I must respectfully say that I am dissapointed that in your rush to judgement, I was not able to make my points of defense before the block occured. It had a quality of censorship that does not concur with your professed hesitancy to not shoot first and ask questions later. I should hope that in the future if the concept of the RFI should be successful "one should not be sentenced before the trial", hanged before (actually during) Eid ul-Adha, or before all the evidence and testimony are fully presented. I hope I can get a chuckle out of you, or at least a smile when I tell you IMHO, that this particular charge of yours was more of a Lord Cardigan, rather than a Nadezhda Durova. As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did, but if you, Durova, do not see the other side's equal guilt, maybe you should at least consider some of the protests to your decision and what motivated them. As a small example, I ask Durova to read Talk:Laurynas Gucevicius (archive 3) to get a small sense of what I mean. Rather than being uncivil, I'm probably more guilty of being sarcastic or what you have referred to as "sniping" or P.P. has referred to as "snipping". Would you agree, Durova, that a good example of this type of sarcasm would be, "You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours...Due to you busy schedule this is unlikely to interfere very much with your participation at Misplaced Pages." Actually this statement caused me to smile and actually laugh a little. You know kind of like touché. In any case, it wouldn't cause me to tear open my żupan or my caftan. Sorry.

Now to the heart of the matter. These remarks are for everyone's benefit especially fair-minded and objective people. Like most of you, until now I was unfamiliar with the organization, Vilnija. On January 13, 2007, the participarts of Misplaced Pages were treated to a new article by the esoteric entity that P.P. called We, I suppose this We (I asked him and he never did say what he meant) meaning he and his friends. It's title Vilnija. It has since been toned down quite a bit since then, but it began with a rather unusually hostile opening statement containing no less that seven (yes, seven) citations, followed by lots of other goodies, and ending with an edit summary, "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one." (sic) The following six entries were made by P.P., Halibutt, and Lysy (three of the most vociferous non-Lithuanian contributors to Lithuanian subjects), who seem to be having a hard time understanding why their input is challenged. I don't think it's unfair to say that the Vilnija article is a pretty good example of what starts the "ball rolling" in these frequent disputes. So much for attaining the elusive "modus vivendi" that P.P. has frequently asked for. And I've said over and over we all have to walk the walk, not just talk, the talk. Then the "article" moved to the discussion pages where a particularly onerous accusation was made against me by P.P. that "I was a supporter" of this organization. Or was it someone else? Falsehood #1. As I tried to get more information about this "extremist" organization, I ran across an edit entered in Misplaced Pages on November 8, 2005, in the "oeuvre" that the prokonsul created, Żydokomuna, in which P.P. stated that the League of Polish Families and Samoobrona were extremist and anti-Semitic. This declarative statement he made seems to the best of my investigating to be untrue. Falsehood #2. Evidently P.P. did not remember his edit, because he demanded to know the basis of my claim. In fact, I believe more than anything this so angered him (the straw that broke the camel's back), that this was the true reason he instigated this investigation. Yet he made the declarative statement about these organizations, without explanation, sources, or citations. Upon being shown where he made the statement, his explanation was that he "translated" the statement from Polish Misplaced Pages. He was further angered by the fact that after I read the Polish text, I informed him that his statement was not a translation, but at best an extrapolation from an unreferenced source. He denied that and continued to claim his sentence was a translation. Falsehood #3. Btw, I can imagine the outcry from the "club," if I had authored this article.

In this RFI, P.P., shows us that I have been warned to change my attitude many times, and gives us 8 examples from my talk starting January 29, 2006, ending January 12, 2007. Let me go to two of them (the first and the last) to save time. In the first example, he invokes the user:Molobo, a role model of civil and constructive contributions. An editor with quite a interesting history of editing to say the least. But one who P.P., never blocked (but unblocked numerous times), never even chided , and of course did not bring about an RFI or an analysis of his contributions to anyone's attention. In the second example, as things began to "heat up" a little lately, P.P. made a Request to me on my talk page (01.12.07). It seemed sincere and I told him that in essence I agreed. Peace at last? A roadmap for some type of consensus? One day later we get the Vilnija article (with "the nationalists are gonna love me for this one"). In this RFI, P.P. states that certain editors remarks caused Halibutt to withdraw from Misplaced Pages for Months Long Withdrwal (sic) Falsehood #4 (more like a couple of days). In fact I myself did withdraw from the project for a month last November, because I found the escalation of bad will very tedious. I also suggested at the time to mutually lay off "controversial" topics for a while. Regarding Halibutt's months long withdrwal, it's announcement is there for all to read in user:Halibutt/News (you have to go to the history)on December 23, 2006. In a very bizarre edit Halibutt tells us he is being blackmailed. By whom? Falsehood #1, That Ghirlandajo made death threats against him. Falsehood #2, That administrator Renata and her Lithuanian pals made anti-Semitic comments toward him. Falsehood #3, and that Dr. Dan offended his parents (never did) Falsehood #4.

There may have been a time when all of these type of "contributions" went unchallenged. Slowly this began to change as more and more people began to question the fairness and veracity of some of the information that we were reading. A particularly thorny issue was the use of sources out of Communist Poland that were often a magazine or newspaper article. And please understand me on this point, I wouldn't claim that one should use Der Sturmer as a reference either. Maybe something good will come out of this RFI, because I will definitely work on becoming more civil. As for civility, and the lack of it, I still contend there is plenty of blame to share by all of the participants in this matter. It would be a good idea for each and everyone to keep this in mind. With that, I wish all Happy Editing! Dr. Dan 16:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Dan. Nobody suggested that you should be blocked from reading Misplaced Pages; in fact nobody ever has been or will be blocked from using our project (at least, not by us). There is a difference between using and contributing to Wikipdia, and while certainly how you use it is your business (with respect to GFDL), how you contribute may become a business of others. Your occasional copyediting is welcomed; however as parts of the discussion above (not hijacked by Irpen to discuss grieviances against other editors) show, quite a few users have problems with your comments in discussions, which were found to be unconstructive and offensive. I will not, forgive me, go off topic and discuss other's actions (feel free to start such discussions at apprpriate sections). You admit above youself that As to whether I violated WP:Civil or not, I probably did and I will definitely work on becoming more civil. I appreciate such honest admissions. I hope to see many more of your helpful copyedits, and your comments on talk will have no 'snipping' quality. I hope that this and previous discussion, and the block you received, will convince you to follow my and other advices and there will be no need for discussing your actions again in the future in context of WP:CIV violations.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sean Evans The article has been posted again Sean Evans Headphonos 03:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I left him a note about that.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A user previously warned by up to Test4 (User talk:VinceB/Blabla1) and blocked for edit warring and sock puppetry has now changed a citation from an academic journal (replacing "nationalist" by a weaker description, not mentioned at all in the cited article). This kind of vandalism is especially threatening to WP:CITE. After this vandalism was reverted, an IP with only three edits in its history (all of them reverts to VinceB's versions of articles) did absolutely the same. A very similar situation has happened in the past (VinceB and his sock puppets trying to remove academic references describing a political party as nationalist and finally blocked for it). Tankred 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• 91.120.107.93 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 195.56.14.142 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• VinceB (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

These IPs were not me as logged out. Go ahead, and CHECK! This is absolutely outrageous, and disgusting. OK, I understand, that I went a bit too far, as Tankred, sorry. Yeah, pretty similar to mines, I checked them. Since the same internet provider and city, I understand the accusaton, but I'm absolutely sure, that 91.120.etc was NOT me. In the other, I'm not really sure, but I do not remember it. So go ahead with the checkuser. And before accusations, I didn't changed my mind, that these were not me. I'm just simply not sure in one of them, since it reverted Juro only. :-) --Vince 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I simply reverted an indef blocked user, User:Koooon's edit to user CoolKoon's previous one. If you check history , you realize, that it may be a sockpuppet in an editwar, against User:CoolKoon (this why Koooon was blocked). So giving me as the one, who added fake is a LIE. My only mistake was, that I didn't checked, if a possible then indef blocked sockpuppet's edit was a fake or not.--Vince 19:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, I am this, as an IP . I edited this page here also, to prove it. --Vince 19:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As the Strážay, Tomáš. 2005. Nationalist Populism and Foreign Policy: Focus on Slovak-Hungarian Relations. Slovak Foreign Policy Affairs I/2005 ref is not online I cannot verify what is the original wording, hence I cannot vefiry 'vandalism' accusation. Vince has been blocked in the past several times for violations of WP:NPA, warned many times and has been found guilty and blocked for using socks, thus I would suggest filing WP:RFCU and if Vince is again found gulity of suckpuppeting, a long block is in order. The circumstansial evidence (user has been using socks in similiar manner in the past) would indicate he is guilty, but unless another reviewer argues for a block based on this, I am tempted to WP:AGF and not block Vince based on just the evidence above.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The article can be found online and is in English. It would be great if you can find time to corroborate my claim. Tankred 18:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Database is not public, I am afraid. I will try it next week when I am at the university.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Tankred as usual, above, does note care about the WHYs, just the WHATs, and of course he understands them in the most hostile way, as it can be understanded. In Slovakization article, I simply reverted an indef blocked user, User:Koooon's edit to user CoolKoon's previous one. If you check history , you realize, that it may be a sockpuppet in an editwar, against User:CoolKoon (this why Koooon was blocked). So this is a LIE.

Tankred should be warned to WP:CIV, WP:FAITH, and asked to reduce hostility in his comments against me. He's doing a campaign against me. I never was blocked due to vandalism, only edit warring, and not logging in. Since that time, I learned the lession, but this guy is simply disturbing me, as you can see, not being thretened to fake some incidents to reach his goal to block me indef. Tankred is the one, who forces me to remain unlogged, today, as .--Vince 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want the personal abuse placed on his userpage against me removed, and warned to WP:NPA. --Vince 20:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is just a retaliation for my Request of investigation of VinceB's edits. VinceB, I think it would be perfectly sufficient to write your comment once, as you already did on this page. However, I am serious about the investigation request because I have no time to deal with your dynamic IP again. Changing cited text to something else is against the very pillar of Misplaced Pages that is WP:CITE. It should be dealt with. Tankred 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I never disputed it. My problem is wth your style, and behave against me. Please don't act like if you still don't know what my real problem is with you. Again, yes, should be dealt with, if I make a mistake, I should be warned, but not in your style - warning templates, "reverting vandalism by VinceB", continuous accusations and denunciations on every possible forum, showing single mistakes as continuous purposed behave etc. this list would be too long. You are agressive, hostile, and highly uncivil, and seemingly you have some personal vindictiveness or whatever childish thing against me. And you simply can not stop. Just look at yr userpage. I put similar thing to my userpage, with difflink, and wanted to put more links to them, when I was angry, but I didn't do it, moreover I removed it when you asked for it. See the difference? You do the same calmly, so you can avoid being blocked for edit warring. It is impossible to talk normally with you - for me at least. You are full with fixa ideas, and you project them all into me. You think that I'm a kind of far right scum, or whatever, wich weaks up, and falls asleep with the Turul, and wants revision and Justice to Hungary and whatever. And this is a fuckin' big lie, and has nothing to do with the real me. Same stands to PANONIAN. Juro's rhetorics and believes partially sticked on you also. I'm researching the question, wich is an awesomly huge difference. this is also mentioned on my userpage, almost from the first time, since I started to use this account instead of being an IP and doing such (mainly routine) activities, like this or this. My only reason, why I use an account is that IPs are not counted as a human in English Misplaced Pages. If they are reverted, noone would check the revert's right. "Sorry, no time for this, buddy". Well, at least it is clearly proved, that it's the same with usernames also, so there's not as a big difference as I thought. I can rename and create articles. Wow. This is the only + what I get, when logged in. And tracking users, whom revert everthing what they can from my contribs, not even caring it's content, or rightness.

And yes, I can't stand dilettantism, or pushing obvious lies, and/or fakes no matter with how many sources - their writer counts only, and they are checkable by everybody -, and I'm pretty short tempered wich leads to hurt some ppl, whom I did not wanted to. --Vince 00:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the above rant has no claims to investigate (no diffs to policies Tankred or PANONIAN have broken). As such it seems to be a violation of WP:NPA itself and I concur with Tankred that its seems like a 'revenge' for him repoting Vince's violations above. I'd ask Vince to remove (strike out) this request and apologize for it; otherwise I think we may have a case of personal attack (false accusations and such) to deal with.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to reach a "deal" between us, a consensus or agreement, or something like that, maybe it was bad, or too harsh, but I started a conversation, but Tankred was not intrested in any consensus, but only in his own and only, unchangeable absolute truth, wheter it has any relations to the reality. Tankred never took the time to read my comments properly from the first time. (for ex - gave him a link about an english speaking ENCYCLOPEDIA from where I take my datas and what I edit, but he simply did not clicked on it, and said that "As to your source, I certainly cannot (and do not want to) dispute it because, unfortunately, I do not speak Hungarian." Well, what is this? Im my opinion, it is a declarance of ignoring my edits, my sources and not even checking their rightness. Read my archived talkpage for more of these, and compare it with my replies on Tankred's ) You're not intrested with discussing me almost since my first edit to articles wich you "defend". (since september). All of our other discussions are the same. Tankred is not intrested in my replies, and continuosly misleadnig ppl. (see below for examples)

It is getting annoying and funny that Tankred is continuosly repeating my lines, and sometimes simply delete it , When I called yr actions against me "trolling" (per pestering) - and it was cited -, you started to call me a troll without citation, and after you were warned to mind yr words, then "t..." :-) (good proof for uncivility, hostility against me also) You continuosly repeating my words, my terms, if they were yours (first). This is also a part what I call "misleading of others". You started an edit war with me for example here, and many other places. I do not have to go far back in edit histories, since you edited this page today. It is the third month now, that I started a conversation about my edit (as almost everytime) , but Tankred was not intrested in discussion, as usual. He also abused my block for harsh behaviour and put a misleading summary on an edit of mine , wich he repeated today , and you're using the same rhetoric as the now indef blocked User:Juro . No matter, that a discussion is already started in this question long before . So, these edits by you are not only misleading, but also controversial and biased.

Your behave, by pointing me as the one, above who added bad content above is also a good example of bad faith, about wich I also warned you a thousand times. (if you have not deleted them yet). I cited that you're wrong, and also your hostility above by trying to hit me whenever its possible. The tons of WP:CIV warnings placed by me on yr talkpage have not reached you yet. This summary is a lie , per . I was not blocked for it, it is a misleading summary. Such summaries occured almost everywhere, you just revert whatever I contribute. Just see yr contrib list , your only goal is to delete whatever I do, and in the end, delete me too. . You almost do not edit else, but reverting me. You never started a discussion, instead as soon as you were able, filled a form to block me. You placed a hostile personal attack against me on yr userpage, wich occured there from jan 8 to jan 22. I kindly asked you to remove it, what you refused. . It is a good example of uncivility also. So, this is my problem. --Vince 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's my last argument with PANONIAN . Tankred also stated a false thing there, about PANONIAN (see there.)

+ I'de like to see that WP policy, wich says that signing in is a must. Or "if you have an account, log in, otherwise you're be treated as a sockpuppeteer". And I'd like to see, where did I broke any rules since I did not voted or broke 3RR. Nowadays I do not log in, because of this (3rd and 4th - VinceB is the one, wich is used to make controversial edits and/or be the punching bag for nationalist vandals. ).

• I'd also like to see the one person/PC policy, since my roomate is using the same PC as me, and he decided to create an account wich was soon blocked because of this hostile treatment of me. Tankred (or anybody else) never ever asked me, if I am 91.etc whatever. If you ask, I reply honestly yes, or no, since it does not matter fo me. Ask dude. Checkuser IPs were also confirmed by me, well before the checkuser request. Tankred knew, that they will be confirmed and I will be blocked, so he filled that form. This is also a hostile action. --Vince 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid this is not at all true. VinceB explicitly stated that 195.56.242.11 was not his IP and my suspicion that he used 195.56.242.11 as a sockpuppet was just a personal attack of mine. In an edit summary, he even "agreed with" his own sock puppet as if it was someone else. As to the diffs supposedly documenting my uncivil behavior, they are presented out of their context and I will try to explain them here. Let us go through VinceB's allegations. First, I replied to his proposed "deal" and my response can be found just after his comment at. Second, he said I did not read his source (an "encyclopedia" written in English). That website seems to be no longer active, but it certainly was not written in English when I checked it in September. Unfortunately, I cannot verify any sources written in Hungarian and I told him that. Third, I indeed deleted a warning template posted by VinceB in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on my and PANONIAN's talk pages (VinceB just copied&pasted a warning template put on his page after he vandalized an article). I did it after consultation with admins. VinceB got blocked by Durova for that edit war and vandalism of our talk pages. Fourth, I did not make up that VinceB was trolling, but that word was used by an admin who deleted his "request for investigation" explicitly as "trolling". Fifth, I would like to know when exactly I "started" the edit war, which VinceB referred to because he did not provide any diff, only a history page of Hungary. Sixth, I filed a regular request for investigation above and I do not consider it "bad content". I hope it will be dealt with seriously despite this diversion created by VinceB. Seventh, VinceB is right that my edit count significantly decreased (from 793 in November to 184 in December) and honestly, the constant harassment from his part is the main reason for that. I have no time to be involved in this crap every single week. Tankred 19:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• "I have no time to be involved in this crap every single week." Neither. Instead of managing to block me, and reverting everything I contribute, you should check what I added/removed and constructively edit them, not simply revert them, at least leave the corrected wording/fixed misspelling, if adding good/removing false content by me is prohibited by you.
• "That website seems to be no longer active, but it certainly was not written in English when I checked it in September." - It was alive, and it is alive since. There's a date of the last modification of that content (and page) a bit above the URL and URN links (between the words "információ" and "forrás") Simply hold yr mouse over it a bit, the popup speaks english, as the encyclopedia too (click on title, than on any link), since it's creation in 1996 (in electronical form since 2004-08-02). Tankred has not read it yet, and was not intrested in it ever (as this clearly proves), and this behaviour stands for all of my comments, edits, etc. You can see with yr own eyes. This is the first "L".
• "Third, I indeed deleted a warning template posted by VinceB in violation of Misplaced Pages's policies on my and PANONIAN's talk pages (VinceB just copied&pasted a warning template put on his page after he vandalized an article). I did it after consultation with admins." - from your contrib history , it clearly can be read out, that you did not talked to any admins about it. You deleted my comment, whether it was right or wrong, wich is a real vandalism, not just an edit what you call vandalism. This is the 2nd "L"
• "Fourth, I did not make up that VinceB was trolling, but that word was used by an admin who deleted his "request for investigation" explicitly as "trolling." Again "falsifying". It was archived. And Tankred used that word on me, with a falsified reason linked in, wich I realized only now. And that word is heavily used in that link, Tankred (& I also) gave. This is the third (&the 4th?) "L"
• I never stated that my "deal" is good or whatever, just started a conversation to reach some agreement, but Tankred was not intrested in it, and soon stopped. This deal thing is the the first step of the dispute resolution process.
• "Sixth, I filed a regular request for investigation above and I do not consider it "bad content"." Yes, Tankred's right, T considered it vandalism , I just used a softer synonym here (aka. "bad content"). This is the fourth "L".
• "(...)the constant harassment from his part(...)" ? Who started this RfI? Who reverts who's edits continuosly without hesitation, or at least checking it an leaving the fixed misspelling in? Who runs in all the imaginable possible case to manage to block the other one? Who's tracking who's edits? Continous harrasing by me? No no no, you just get, what you give. And you are the one, who started it, and don't want to stop. I tried several times, but you continued.

• So in all, with my few real mistakes - like my behaviour (npa, edit warring, etc.), for what I have an apology on my userpage since October 23, and I "learned the lession" - wich in a way can be understanded as a kind of promise of not doing it again), and agreeing with myself once, when I was not thinking but edit warring, and not checked if it was me - are mixed with Tankred's lies and creations (see above) creates a very false, ultra-negative picture about me, as you see, only to kick me out from Misplaced Pages once and for all. This is why I wrote above to Tankred that "and seemingly you have some personal vindictiveness or whatever childish thing against me." and "It is impossible to talk normally with you - for me at least. You are full with fixed ideas, and you project them all into me. You think that I'm a kind of far right scum, or whatever, wich weaks up, and falls asleep with the Turul, and wants revision and Justice to Hungary and whatever." Sadly, these fixed ideas with my behave (I can't stand injustness, wich lead me to some bad decisions and acts before) gives the feeling for You, that Tankred's right. No, he's wrong. Read again, if you still not belive. Intrestingly, with Durova, or others, I can speak normally, only Tankred an PANONIAN are the exceptions. But P will be a different RfI, with his behave, of accusing everybody of being radical hungarian ultra-nationalist, and his aggressiveness, and funny fight against this - on enwiki - non-existing thing. --Vince 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The following IP users have followed the same pattern of behaviour and are presumably the same person, especially as most have made edits within minutes of Pestrick:

• 86.151.1.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.129.164.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 195.153.138.151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.140.97.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 86.144.199.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

This user has been adding references to "Pat Anderson from Bexhill-on-Sea" into various articles, mainly referring to affairs with female celebrities (primarily Nicola Roberts). This user has also twice created the article Pat Anderson, which was speedily deleted both times. I left a polite warning on the user's talk page (link), who then left the message "tosser" on my talk page (diff). Gasheadsteve 21:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

tosser doesn't seem like a serious violation of WP:NPA to me, but sockuppets should be analyzed at WP:RFCU where I suggset you take this case. If proven guilty, blocks and bans can be applied.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not the name calling that I'm worried about, it's just a pain reverting all the edits. No edits have been made by this user, or any of the IPs, for a week now though, so I withdraw my complaint and hope that they don't come back. Gasheadsteve 11:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Sam Wereb (talk · contribs) has been following me around wikipedia editing anything I have written and undermining all my edits, he has become a serial pest. He has made bold personal attacks in the past followed up recently by snide comments in an attempt to provoke some outburst that will never come. Sam Wereb (talk · contribs) is frequently sarcastic about other editor's good faith editing; for example, referring to "Mikey's little article" when I put a well-referenced article (Ernest Emerson) up for Good Article review , prior to this he unsuccessfully tried to delete a large well referenced portion calling it "spam,spammity spam" because it contained a single link to the subject's website and his belief that mere mention of any company is advertising, even when the article is about the company in question. When JzG (talk · contribs), SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and Jeffpw (talk · contribs) pointed out to him that my edits to Ernest Emerson were not spam and were very well-referenced, he condescendingly replied with, " All very cozy -- and irrelevant". He has been warned in the past by Durova (talk · contribs) (his libelous accusations against me are archived on the WP:PAIN )around 11/18/2006-11/20/2006, %28aeropagitica%29 (talk · contribs) , and Jeffpw (talk · contribs) , and myself yet he simply blanks his talk page, removing indications of past behavior without archiving. I've offered links to wiki: civil, and have tried working with this caustic individual to no avail. One of his latest tactics is to call wikilinks to other wikipedia articles I have worked on as spam and advertising. He has personally posted objections to the length of the Knife entry, yet the only change he has made was to lead people away from an article I have written that is linked from there Walker linerlock.

There's plenty of other constructive work he could do on wikipedia if he's got too much time on his hands. He's turned this into a vendetta for whatever reason. Please investigate this stalker-like behavior. I just want it to stop so I can continue to be a positive contributor and not have to check on every last article I've written or contributed to just because of Wereb's histrionic outbursts and blatant vandalism.

A simple comparison of his history against mine will confirm this.

Thank you. --Mike Searson 10:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that in the past this user sarcastic behaviour was counterproductive, and if continued, he should get more seriously warned, can you offer any diffs to the specific posts that you consider offending recently?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus,

Here's one: Calls me "Mikey Boy" as if he's talking to a child, 4-5 days ago. Calls me a "girlscout" 4 days ago for referring him to WP:Civil. Same time period, libels a list of celbrities who own another knifemaker's knives:, refers to my article as a "love letter":

Calls me a "shill" for my friends:

It may seem petty to an outside observer, but wereb started life on Misplaced Pages with an agenda , which he lied about when confronted with it and tried to hide it: And it's all an attempt to derail a GA Nomination. I would like to just ignore this person, I've offered several attempts to work constructively with him, to no avail. Latest tactic is to libel magazine writers in a lame attempt to discredit the source material: perhaps that's better than him deleting 1/3 of an article under GA review, but why should I have to defend sources who are professional journalists in Cutlery trade publications that have been around for 30+years?

I made this report a 5 days ago, wereb has not been around for a few days, but I am sure this will resume when he returns. All it does is keep me from positively contributing to articles and forces me to debate him. --Mike Searson 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

SNIyer12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I honestly don’t know if this is the right place to put this, however, Misplaced Pages:Requests for administrator attention says this page is the place to report “serial pests”, and SNIyer12 definitely qualifies as that, while I’m not sure if s/he is an “obvious vandal”. When I was a far more active editor, I was frustrated by this user so much that I started an RfC which unfortunately failed to garner much comment either way—including from the user, even though s/he was informed on his/her talkpage. Based on recent additions to the RfC which I noticed in my Watchlist, and on this recent comment on the aforementioned user-talk page (which, as usual, the editor has failed to respond to), I felt it was time to seriously seek admin help in dealing with this problem. --WikidSmaht (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left that user a note to reply to RfC. If s/he does not, and continues to disruptivly edit those articles, I think a ban may be in order. On the other hand, since that user seems to be doing edits to other articles that seem to mostly constructive, perhaps a WP:MEDIATION may be helpful? Personaly I dislike RfCs as they rarely produce a concluson (your case with the user refusing to reply seems to be an exception, though).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mediation is a socond-step dispute resolution process. At the time I filed the RfC, I was under the impression that mediation requests were being turned down unless a first-step process had been completed. Then, s/he never replied to the RfC( in fact, almost no one did) and I ended up becoming inactive on Misplaced Pages. I may try to file a mediation request, but I fear that s/he will again ignore it, not even explicitly refusing to participate. Although, I suppose that inaction in and of itself could make the issue eligible for arbitration. --WikidSmaht (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

A review of Wellreadone's user contributions indicates a history of subtle vandalization of articles. He removes tags such as "unreferenced" from articles without comment and replaces information with bogus information not verified by sources (eg he overwrote the previous biography replacing "Marcello I'm Bored" with "I'm So Bored" and included a large section of writing and directing credits many of which are not included in the person's IMDB listing). He has also deleted his own user talk page to remove negative comments and vandalism warnings by editors (these comments are visible by reviewing the history page). Had the user on my watch list from a couple of months ago as well due to similar behavior that is cropping up again now in January. Requesting an investigation on the user's contribution history to determine if admin intervention is needed. Dugwiki 21:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This looks like not so subtle vandalization. I think you can report it at WP:AIV; I have warned him with {{Vand3}} - he has not edited for over a week anyway.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. The day after you posted your warning above (Jan 22) Wellreadone then vandalized a user page, User:Mikkalai, calling him a "nazi" under his picture caption. Dugwiki 18:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This editor has edits all contents relating to Periyar and Vaikom Satyagraha.He also edits all contents relating to Brahmin and deletes contents like in Justice Party (India) or adds hate comments like in Periyar University all uncited .He is will not allow an alternate view with anything relating to Brahmanism even if well cited He also uses Ramananrv123 and ip address and deletes content which he does not like .He added blog as citation in Periyar.Tametiger 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide specific diffs. Sockpuppet accusations should be taken before WP:RFCU. Blog citations are sometimes acceptable, see WP:RS.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This editor ignors the copywrite information. Image:USS Barbour County (LST-1195).JPG is and has been clearly labled it came from the Defense Visual Information Center, which is a US Government Agency. If you goto the DVIC site, and search for the USS Barbour County, it gives you a series of photos one of which is the uploaded photo. It is clearly labled correctly, and it is varifable, yet this editor continues put not sourced. --71Demon 01:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Carnildo is considered one of the experts in image copyrights. Have you talked to him? I'd expect he could explain the issue on your talkpage without the need for RFI.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

No user should be exempt from an RFI... not even the great Carnildo. Juppiter 00:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but I wonder if 71Demon has looked through Carnildo's large disclaimer on his talk page, and tried talking to him before taking the matter here? I left Carnildo a note to reply here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Because of copyvio. He ignores all attempts to contact him or do anything against the copyvio in Kim Mehmenti-article. Now he also uses his user talk for the copyvio. Also works as IP and not only here but also in the other wikis. In the German wiki known as Benutzer:Semimk, in the Albanian one he uses the same as here. In the German wiki we wrote an article to stop him and now we only have to remove the pictures now and then. As far as I've seen the Bulgarian wiki has done the same. I'm not sure if the Macedonian one knows about the problem, but the French has deleted the article, and the Albanian one has decided to ignore the copyvio. -- CecilK 13:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios should be reported on WP:CP. Sockpuppet accusations at WP:RFCU.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

I request that the above user be investigated for violating the policy on vandalism, especially filing reports rather than using dispute resolution to get the facts discussed rather than trying to delete the facts, user used vandalism criteria and complained and got IP user 75.15.203.99 banned, while the facts that were posted were not only true but taken from other articles on wikipedia. I think the facts should be checked from a neutral point of view

trueblood 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple users found that edits by an anonymous user operating under IP 75.15.203.99 constituted vandalism. I documented these and requested the block, which was reviewed and granted by administrator (aeropagitica). The same anonymous user appears to have then switched to IP 75.15.204.215 and continued vandalizing articles. Other editors have since reverted these edits. Given the record of vandalism and uncivil behaviour by User:Trueblood786, I wonder if User:Trueblood786 may have been the anonymous editor in question and sought to avoid accountability by editing under the IPs mentioned above.

Other editors who have acted on the vandalism in question include User:Eagle 101 and User:The Haunted Angel (both recipients of multiple barnstars including The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar) and User:Eliyahu S. -- Aylahs 02:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I looked though Aylahs's contributions and I didn't see any indications of vandalism. I also don't see any reason why requesting that an admin help with a situation is a problem. Please you can provide diffs. Otherwise, any kind of investigation is quite difficult. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has continually removed negative content from their talk page. I have warned the user, and waded through the history of edits (going back about a month) to return what content I can. However, the user has reverted my edits and removed the warning about this I gave the user. 88.107.102.255 00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not this time he hasnt. I thought users were allowed to delete content from their user pages, SqueakBox 00:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The only things I have deleted from MY own talkpage that were left by you or your sockpuppets in what I perceived as bad faith or are issues have been sorted out - plus I will delete any edits made from unregistered sockpuppets--Vintagekits 00:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you have removed warning messages from other users from your talk page such that other users cannot see you have already been warned about certain things - such as personal attacks. This means users continue to give you just warnings, unaware that you should fully understand what you are doing is wrong, given the pervious warnings. Thus, you can continue to get away with what you are doing - principally being uncivil. Logoistic 23:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

NB My sockpuppets are legitimate. Logoistic 23:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You only admitted they were sockpuppets AFTER I left the sockpuppet tag on your page. I removed your edits on my talk page as I considered them to be left in bad faith. I consider that your (and your various sockpuppets) treatment of me is coming close to harrassment and I am trying to stay away from you and not get drawn into edit wars or arguements with you but you are making it very difficult.--Vintagekits 00:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this elsewhere, and it is not relevent here. The matter at hand is removal of negative content. Logoistic 01:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the deletions, no further comment from me--Vintagekits 03:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The user is now removing a tag that highlights he has confirmed illegitimate sockpuppets. Logoistic 21:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have NO "illegitimate sockpuppets" - if someonelse wants to raise the subject with me then I will be happy to discuss with them - but not you as Iconsider that you act in bad faith towards me--Vintagekits 21:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Vintagekits Logoistic 22:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, that is not an "illegitimate sockpuppet"--Vintagekits 22:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

it is, it's now been banned by an admin. End of story. I just want the admin to look at the removal of negative content. Logoistic 00:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can some admin please have a look at this. It seems to keep getting overlooked. Logoistic 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Professor69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obvious vandalism to and FranksValli 07:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Has been warned and hasn't contribute since, I think we can archive this RFI.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

This user is a persistant abuser of wrestling related articles and is a constant nuisance. He was reported for vandalism but the reporter was told it was a content dispute. As is visible from both his talk page, and the WP:PW talk page he has been asked many times to stop and read the WP:PW guidelines, then told, then warned. Yet he continues to ignore everything and persist with his disruptive edits; any help would be useful. DavyJonesLocker 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I support any punishment offered as a result of this, The Damaja's disruptive edits and lack of communication have become tiresome and, to put it crudely, a persistant pain in the arse. SteveLamacq43 02:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Under investigation

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

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

Warrants further monitoring. —Centrx→talk • 03:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Soccerguy1039 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Looking at this user's block log, he was previously blocked by Friday on the 9th of Dec. 2006 for problem editing. I initially contacted Friday, but have not received a response. Soccerguy1039 is continuing his disruptive edits, refusing to sign comments, then removing the {{unsigned2}} templates that other users place next to his comments . Several users have asked him to stop, yet he continues. I believe he is also operating a sockpuppet by the name Emokid200618 (talk · contribs). Their contribs are identical, including the removal of unsigned templates on Talk:Final Fantasy XIII . Soccerguy1039 and Emokid200618 have also made identical edits on Template:Kingdom Hearts series (Soccer = ; Emokid = ). Emokid has also vandalized George W. Bush, though it was a minor nuisance. ( ) Apologies if this is the incorrect place to report this, but it doesn't seem to fit WP:AN, it isn't obvious vandalism (WP:AIV) and isn't only about sockpuppets. AuburnPilot 20:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Steve44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is either a really bad editor or a really good vandal. Often changes information to incorrect info, probably on purpose, along with intentionally bad grammar. Whether or not he is intentionally distructive his edits are still harmful.--CyberGhostface 19:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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