Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2006/06

< Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation‎ | Archives
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Robertsteadman in topic Registered users

IP addresses

Latest comment: 18 years ago43 comments17 people in discussion
  • 71.210.145.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been making disruptive changes to a wide range of articles related to railways. He keeps splitting main articles into a set of sub articles that are just copy-and-pastes of the main article sections (see for example this edit where he creates links to sub-articles of Tank locomotive, then copies the section content to the new article e.g. here). He has also done this to Locomotive, and Culdee Fell Railway amongst others. He comes back every day and makes the same sets of changes, each time being reverted by multiple editors. He has been asked to participate in editor or article talk pages many times on his talk page. He refuses to discuss his changes or work with other editors to implement them. Every day he comes back and start making the same set of disruptive and unneccesary changes to the same articles and continues until he gets a {{test4}} at which point he waits 24 hours and starts over. No sign he is willing to discuss this behavior or modify it. Gwernol 13:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)



Registered users

Latest comment: 18 years ago103 comments41 people in discussion

12:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


Only one sockpuppet here


  • User:Neuropean - clearly not a new user, almos certainly a sockpuppet (user:Syrthiss agrees - their 2nd edit was an AfD, they seem out to make a WP:POINT and seem to be, targetting, inparticular, articles with which I am associated. Many of their contributions, to date, are AfDs and there appears little constructive in their purpose (though they have tried to cover this up with a few random edits). Robertsteadman 18:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Only one sockpuppet here

    • Comment: I am not going to waste time here defending myself. This user has accused me of being a sock of everybody who has argued against him (whether those involved in Hockey, or those involved with Ruth Kelly). I have made no personal attacks, I have attempted to assume good faith and I have committed no acts of vandalism. It is true that I have edited on some articles and talk pages that he has been involved in, but the opposite is true. Yes it is true that Syrthiss has accused me of being a sock puppet, but this assumption of bad faith was not strong enough for him to file a RFCU. What this user fails to understand is that I am NOT a new user. However, there is nothing at all wrong with ANY user deciding that he would like to create a new user name (after all the editor concerned has done the same thing himself). I have done nothing wrong. I would be interested in receiving some support from those editors who have recently been on the receiving end of this user's assumption of bad faith in anyone who does not actively agree with him. Neuropean 18:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What's your old account name? --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • What does it matter? As long as I only use one account, is it important? Policy allows editors to close one account and open another - policy does not permit this if it is with the intention of disrupting wikipedia or harassing others. I'm pretty sure that apart from a spate of cat based WP:POINT violations I'm free of that. (And before anyone mentions a block for this, I have no intention of creating or deleting any MORE famous cat articles so there is no point in blocking me for that - policy is not about punishing past edits but ensuring that future edits are productive or, if this is unlikely, preventing future disruption).Neuropean 20:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment While I cannot state for certain the reasoning behind Neuropean's AfD, I do support his argument that RobertSteadman is acting in bad faith with his own accusations of bad faith. RobertSteadman seems to have involved himself in two separate battles, hockey and Ruth Kelly, and to this point, his only defense has been to violate the same policies that he is nominating Neuropean for. Specifically WP:POINT: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Also of note, a specific comment: " I am already in discussion over this with a number of people - THunder Bay Northern Hawks days are limited" ([29]). That comment was made following two failed AfD's, indicating that RobertSteadman is acting as a result of a personal vendetta. While it appears at a cursory glance that this specific RfI stems from the Ruth Kelly debate, I cannot possibly consider this a good faith nomination based on RobertSteadman's signficant history, regardless of any reason for Neuropean's actions. Resolute 01:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Yeah, Rob is not exactly a genuine person. By the way, I am interested by Rob's interest in the term "Cock Puppet"... is he sensitive to the fact that his current account is a Cock Puppet? Right or Wrong, with User:Robsteadman/User:Robertsteadman's history... and his love for harrassment and wikistalking... I'm still wondering why he is allowed to edit on Wikipedia. DMighton 03:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  • user: Deskana has now removed it, but for a while this admin had [this] as his user page from the 16th to the 19th June (4 days). Is this suitable behaviour for an admin? It seems particularly ironic when he has recently blocke someone for having poor taste images on his user page....[30] - pots and kettles come to mind. Robertsteadman 18:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is a personality clash between two editors with a long history. Does it really belong here?Neuropean 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • (Copied from User talk:Robertsteadman)Well, in response, the images was recommended by someone else. It was a joke. Regardless, the block of User:CAYA, the user keeps placing an image of a penis on the user page, and edit warring over it, against the community. You will infact find that I removed the image from my talk page a day after I was asked to [31][32], despite the fact that the user in asking, User:Iodyne, has a bad track record with collaborating with sockpuppets and trolls, has been blocked for incivility directed towards referring to me as "Dark Lord of the Black Dicks", and the post asking me to remove it was full of rants and raves about my "admin abuse" about blocking a sockpuppet that was proven using WP:RfCU. I feel I have done nothing wrong. This is all I have to say on the matter. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 05:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment but you had the page and that image up for quite some time - it was clearly unsuitable (just as the one you blocked the other user for was) but particularly as an admin suggesting you had no interest in the opinions of others. I questioned the approrpiateness of this editor to be an admin this is proof of his unsuitability. Robertsteadman 06:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, I question your suitability to edit Wikipedia legal threats, alleged sockpuppetry and repeated 3RR violations, but I don't file investigation reports about issues like that if they rarely popup and you spend the majority of time adding to the encyclopedia. I suggest you do the same. Yet again, I have no more to say on this matter. Do what you must, Robertsteadman. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of YOUR OPINIONS 17:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
              • Am I the only one to think that there is a big difference between 'distasteful' and 'offensive'? Deskana's picture was (arguably) inappropriate, but if I was editing Wikipedia with my son I'd far rather accidentally see a man holding his clothed crotch to 2 naked semi-erect penises.Neuropean 23:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell?? First off; you added us under the IP vandals, which were not, were registered users. Second, I explained everything on your user talk page which is not vandalism. Next, Batman2005's edits are not in violation of NPA. See reasoning on your talk page. The King of Kings 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the IP placing. As for explaining everything, that is hypocritical because I explained the matter on Batman's page and you placed the warning on my page. In any case, let an admin look at the case and decide the proper course of action. Paul Cyr 04:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You can say that its hypocritical all you want, but the fact is I explained myself and I'm pretty clear about it. The King of Kings 04:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I find it humorous that my talk page has created such a furor. I don't believe it is a personal attack, as I don't say "John Kerry is a douche bag" I simply link to pages of people i believe fit best into the words on my talk page. If I want to say Freddy Adu sucks on my user page, that's my business, it helps other users to get to know me as an editor. Magic Johnson does have AIDS, so that's not really a personal attack. SAE at the school I went to were both losers and gay...so that's not really a personal attack...but rather truth. I've attacked no other users (although Cuthbert11 is dreaming and thinks i attacked him.) Batman2005 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And could someone please explain to Paul that NPA doesn't apply for the "John Kerry is a douchebag" remark? The King of Kings 04:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That and i never CALLED him a douche bag, i just linked to his page so that other people could read about him and detemine whether or not they agree with me! I'm 100% innocent! Batman2005 05:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I request hereby intervention from an administrator. It is about this page Suppressive person. My edits are persistently being reverted and no arguments or invalid arguments (brush offs) are being forwarded. I have tried to clear up matters on the talkpage, but as it appears entirely invain (the responses received should speak for themselves). The reverting is violating various Wiki rules and as far as I can conclude it is manipulating the information flow in the article by deliberately deleting other available information on the subject of the article. I have in particular laid out details about this matter in discussion #21 and #17 although other users also have discussed these issues in other discussions found on that discussion page. The persons involved in the reverting (vandalizing) are amongst other the users Futurix, Wikipediatrix and Stollery. --Olberon 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Several editors are reverting without discussion and doing it frequently. They are insisting that personal opinions on a personal website be included in the article as a secondary source of information. Those same editors raised the issue last month at WP:RS about the specific website used. The consensus at WP:RS remained that "Personal websites can not be used as secondary sources of information". But contrary to that discussion the reversions continue. 65.147.74.58 20:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like a content dispute. See WP:DR. You might find WP:3RR/WP:AN3 and WP:RFPP useful. Petros471 13:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If obvious Wiki rules are being violated it would not fall into the catagory of 'content dispute'. Anyway the problem appears handled on that page. Many thanks to everyone who has joined the dispute since I posted this here. --Olberon 11:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • User:8bitJake -- Has been attacking Henry M. Jackson since his return for a 24-hour suspension for violating WP:3RR with eight reverts, even after a warning. For example, he inserts "Right-wing" or "Fascist" as an adjective in front of anyone who has noted Jackson's influence on neoconservatism, even when the reports come from the Christian Science Monitor or Democrats like Peter Beinart, and otherwise editorializes with facts he finds unpleasant.[39] He's been insulting in the Talk:Henry M. Jackson page, where everyone (including long-time left-leaning Wikipedia editors) disagrees with him. He has a serious grudge and needs a firm and urgent word from admins to adhere to Wikipedia norms. NB also his deletion of his disciplinary record. -- FRCP11 20:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
UPDATED at bottom with evidence that these usernames are sock puppets of a user that was blocked indefinitely.
Significant evidence, provided below, suggests that User:UniverseToday is the same user as User:Bad Astronomer, who was already given several warnings, a final warning, and then additional warnings (all in the same day), to stop linkspamming; and that this user also uses a few IP address sock puppets. The main reason I think they're the same is that they keep inserting linkspam to the same sites, in close concert, often in close sequence to combat linkspam reverts, as apparently their primary activity on Wikipedia. The linkspam is to a BB called "Universe Daily", and much of it is in the form of redirect URL's including badastronomy.com, robertzubrin.com, and amateurspaceflight.com, that all redirect to the same "Universe Daily" site.
User:UniverseToday explicitly claims ownership on his userpage of the linkspam site, the same site User:Bad Astronomer has posted prolifically. The User:UniverseToday username was apparently created two days after Bad_Astronomer was caught linkspamming after he had been given several warnings and a final warning to stop linkspamming (May 23, May 21, respectively).
Since User:UniverseToday created his account, his chief activity (contribs) seems to have been adding linkspam to the same URLs that User:Bad Astronomer spent his time adding, but now under "stealth" URLs that seem relevant to the article, such as "[http://www.amateurspaceflight.com Amateur Spaceflight] - The Richard Branson Space Adventure" on Richard Branson; creating new sites such as Amateur Spaceflight with names corresponding to his redirect URL's to host his linkspam, and complaining of the "vandal" who keeps deleting the linkspam. This has also apparently included registration of new URL's corresponding to the names of articles but that serve as redirects to the original linkspam site. This has been in addition to deceptive labeling of his linkspam, such as [http://www.universedaily.com Miami Beauty Pageant Crowns Miss Florida - Official Site] at History of Miami, Florida, on the day that it was the featured article on the front page.
User:Bad Astronomer's activity consists entirely of adding linkspam and making a few insulting responses to those who warn him about linkspamming; [48] User:UniverseToday's contributions consist mostly of adding linkspam, and accusing those who revert his linkspam of being vandals, monopolizing, being fake people, being contemptible, and (ironically) being spammers and being sock puppets, and recommending they be banned. [49]
As one example of the continuity of linkspamming between these two usernames and a few other apparent sockpuppets, see Richard Branson history, with the linkspam added by User:Bad Astronomer on May 21 (the day Bad Astronomer was given an additional warning after final warning for linkspamming); the same linkspam re-added (after revert) by User:UniverseToday on May 23 (the day this username was created); and the same linkspam re-added again (after revert) by 203.10.59.63, an IP address that also acted in close concert with User:UniverseToday and User:Bad Astronomer on Robert Zubrin, see below.
As another example of the continuity of linkspamming between these two usernames and a few other apparent sockpuppets, the Robert Zubrin article has had the same linkspam added six times in the past two weeks (History of Robert Zubrin article), including three times in the past few hours, by User:Bad Astronomer, a few IP addresses with no other contributions, and User:UniverseToday. The first time, the added link was to "universedaily.com" by User:Bad Astronomer; this happened to be the same day he was caught linkspamming after being given a final warning to stop linkspamming. Then, after that first linkspam was reverted away, the subsequent five times have all been to a URL, "robertzubrin.com", to match the title of the article, but which is just a redirect to Universe Daily. The "robertzubrin.com" URL was registered the day after the creation of the new User:UniverseToday username, and the same day that it was then added to the Robert Zubrin article, with a redirect to the same "Universe Daily" site; registration info here.
Here is the history of the six times in the past few weeks the same linkspam has been added back to Robert Zubrin, after five reverts:
  • second addition of same linkspam by 203.217.13.143 (no other contribs, likely sock puppet), though from here on out, the bait-and-switch URL "robertzubrin.com" is used that redirects to same linkspam site: [51]
  • update - seventh addition of same linkspam by User:UniverseToday, after being informed about this request for investigation: [56]
In addition, User:Bad Astronomer made abusive comments to those who warn him on linkspam, e.g. from talk page: "What is the point of having links then? Stop talking gibberish. Wpel? Speaky english??? Oh fine. While you try and figure out what the hell you mean I'll play around with my handle page. I assume THATS ok with you? You remind me of an old granny."
In sum, this user has apparently done little but persist in adding linkspam to promote his personal website, continuously after being given a final warning and additional warnings after the final warning to stop the linkspamming; and has employed not only sock puppets but the extraordinary measures of registering URL's corresponding to article names that are redirects to the linkspam, to serve as apparently inocuous "stealth linkspam" in the articles. I think investigation and some kind of appropriate action is called for.
I have given notice at User talk:UniverseToday and User_talk:Bad_Astronomer to invite the user to respond to this request for investigation.
Thank you. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 02:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Supplement: Original report to AN, re: the first incidents with User:Bad Astronomer. My initial concern was to simply verify that he was not Philip Plait. In a brief assessment, I did notice some of the same oddities noted above - chiefly the redirected domain names. I concur that it seems apparent that this user has no intention of contributing anything other than self-promotional and deceptive spam. Kuru talk 03:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Clarification: User:UniverseToday nor User:Bad Astronomer are Philip Plait, aka the Bad astronomer, in fact, it is my opinion that this/these user(s) are impersonating him or trying to create the illusion he is the Bad Astronomer. This user has linkspammed, among others, the article Universe Today with links to his site universetoday.net which merely redirects to universedaily.com. This site is not universetoday.com which has an association with Plait's Bad Astronomer forum/site and this user in fact keeps making as much clear on the article I mentioned. This user has now also started accusing me of being a sockpuppet and publicly called me a "fake user" in edit summaries and defaced my user talk page with his accusation.--Kalsermar 14:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE: At least one of these three sock puppet IP addresses has been used to revert to the same linkspam again, IMMEDIATELY AFTER two additional registered username sock puppets of the same user had been indefinitely blocked. Indefinite blocks of these three IP addresses seems appropriate at this point. See the referral resulting in the indefinite block of the two username sock puppets here; see an 8th reversion in a row to the same linkspam, under one of these three IP addresses, AFTER the indefinite block of the two username sock puppets, here. (Please note that the linkspam in question uses both a description and a URL that seem to be relevant to the article, but the URL is actually a redirect to the original linkspam site.) - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 01:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE AGAIN: One of these IP addresses was recently used in apparent collaboration with an apparent brand new sock puppet for this user, after two more of his registered username sock puppets were blocked indefinitely; see User_talk:Richard_Branson#Re:_Evidence_of_bad_faith_adoption_of_.22Richard_Branson.22_username_by_three-time_indefinitely_blocked_user. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
YET ANOTHER UPDATE: User:Yales is now making the same edits to Universe Today and Robert Zubrin. I believe it's yet another sockpuppet of Wayne Smith, owner of the linkspammed forums. --William Pietri 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
STILL MORE: User:203.10.59.63 is part of the party, and is adding false, defamatory information to my talk page and edit summaries, presumably because I'm reverting his vandalism. Sigh. --William Pietri 08:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I have blocked 203.10.59.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for 48 hours, the other two IPs only made one edit each so no block. Yales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked. Petros471 10:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • WIN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - For months this user has been posting long diatribes to the Talk page Indo-Aryan migration, treating the page as if it is a discussion forum to decide the truth of the theory. He constantly claims the theory is wrong with links to amateur websites to back him up, terrible English, and an unwillingness to listen to anyone. When told that the Talk page is to be used for creating consensus on scholarly opinion sourced from reputable places outside Wikipedia, and not a place to settle controversial theories, he has just ignored these warnings. I've starting reverted his additions outright as vandalism, with support from other users, but I just can't keep up with this guy. Please, look at his edit history for this Talk page, he's never made a productive edit, just endless rants. Make it stop. CRCulver 09:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
    Warned for disruption. Petros471 17:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06&oldid=1146659943"