Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Idleguy (talk | contribs)
9,928 edits
→‎RU Severe: it's irritating
Line 384: Line 384:
<!-- Please use the format "* {{vandal|IP/Username}} -- Brief Description" and SIGN YOUR POSTS when reporting vandalism -->
<!-- Please use the format "* {{vandal|IP/Username}} -- Brief Description" and SIGN YOUR POSTS when reporting vandalism -->
<!-- Please do not subst: the {{vandal}} template -->
<!-- Please do not subst: the {{vandal}} template -->
*{{vandal|SlimVirgin}} - Reverts my imagevio tag to fairuse tag when its a blatant cut and paste job of nearly 70% images. Had uploaded countless copyright photos and tagged it as fairuse, and even after asking him/her not to revert it until the issue was discussed in Wikipedia, s/he refuses to accept it as copyvios. Is impeding me from tagging any further and I'm not interested in any further reverting. Pl. stop this obsessed user. [[User:Idleguy|Idleguy]] 10:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
*{{vandal|Gorgonzilla}} - Vandalized by reverting out db|copyvio tag at Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal. This was his 5th revert for the day -BTW.
*{{vandal|Gorgonzilla}} - Vandalized by reverting out db|copyvio tag at Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal. This was his 5th revert for the day -BTW.
*{{vandal|Yipee}} - Tottaly erased The Nameless Novel, but it was quickly ressurected.
*{{vandal|Yipee}} - Tottaly erased The Nameless Novel, but it was quickly ressurected.

Revision as of 10:41, 17 October 2005


Shortcut

To update this page, purge the cache. For the old version of this page, see /Old version.

For blatant vandalism within the last few hours, please see Administrator intervention against vandalism. This page is for reporting vandalism for which an ongoing response is required. This primarily includes multiple sockpuppets, pages currently being heavily vandalised, users that need to be monitored, open proxies, and vandalism which requires study on the part of an administrator before responding. Accounts that have only been used for vandalism (with no recent activity) should also be reported on this page, so that an administrator can look through their edits. Please make sure to read the first two sections before using this page.

Shortcut

This page is intended to request administrator investigation of certain types of vandalism only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For most vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Alerts that do not belong on this page will be removed immediately, without response, and without warning.

Current alerts

IP addresses

Please report vandals who are operating under anonymous IP addresses under the appropriate severity level, at the top.

IP Severe

    • (Note: some in this group may already blocked by the time I'm re-reporting these, but since I need to show a pattern, they're all listed here.) These are all vandalism from today (October 16). Please, again, consider a range block. (These are suspected student-vandals from Epping Boys High School.) It should be further noted that some of these were purportedly blocked (with {{test5}} or equivalents thereof posted on their talk page) but vandalism appears to continue after the purported block. Note, in addition, that a large of these vandalisms appear to be "feeding" messages to each other. To be frank, I am sick of these boys and I think that until the school has its acts sorted out, these IPs should be blocked permanently.
Update of sorts: 203.166.96.238 has made a post on User talk:203.166.96.238, claiming to be an innocent user and that the person responsible for the vandalism has been caught and punished. I've asked for documentation. However, given the nature of the vandalism, I really seriously doubt that it was just one vandal, and so if this post claims that the vandal is singular (it may simply be a choice of words rather than a deliberate use of the singular), it has somewhat less credibility. --Nlu 05:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Another update; three sock puppet users have popped up and been blocked for similar vandalism: Dan91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Saradev6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Ticky2002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Nlu 06:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Warned. Next time it'll be a block. Please remember that you should warn people first on their talk page before bringing a report here. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"* 81.137.244.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- still more vandalism to Robert Steadman" vhjh-->


"* 81.137.244.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- vandalism obscenity and libel to Robert Steadman" vhjh-->

"* 82.153.106.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- vandalism obscenity and libel to Robert Steadman" vhjh-->

"* 84.65.218.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- vandalism obscenity and libel to Robert Steadman" vhjh-->


Check out Q1werty own vandalistic edits, eg here, SqueakBox 16:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It should probably be pointed out that the IP above added by Q1werty has no contributions or warnings. --GraemeL (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the right guy? I can't find any offensive and derogatory comments made today, though he may have done so in the past. Seems to be engaged in a very clueless attempt to post an AFD for Tally Hall, but unawareness of procedures is best solved by making someone aware; it doesn't mean the user is intending to vandalize. Jdavidb (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 27th September at 2.40pm BST, this person -

"host-194-46-246-153.dsl-ie.utvinternet.net/Username (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - defaced a profile about me, making commerically defamatory remarks about me and my company, at Wikipedia." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.32.196 (talk • contribs) )

  • This IP has edited several wikipedia pages, including several changes to data in the human height page, changing data values such as population size of somalia. Many of these have been tagged as vandalism by others. This is subtle change of critical information. Other, older edits, see edit to Congoid are just straightforward racist abuse. Pete.Hurd 18:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This person has only edited once today, and his contrib history isn't very lengthy. This level of vandalism you should be able to deal with yourself; this page is for reporting persistent vandalism that rises to the level of disruption. Just revert his edits. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me get this straight, this guy vandalized the wiki 16 (SIXTEEN) times since july, and you are not going to block his IP? Adidas
  • That's right. The point of a block isn't to be punitive, really, it's to discourage vandalism that is happening right then. Some of the problem with blocks of IP addresses, particularly dynamic IP's is that there is a large potential for collateral damage -- what if I blocked that IP for 48 hours and someone else who wasn't the person doing the vandalizing tried to edit Wikipedia, got discouraged and then we lost someone who could've been a good contributor? IP blocks are very sparsely given and usually for short periods of time (no more than 24 hours) because of this. If this IP starts vandalizing repeatedly I'll be glad to block. Beyond collateral damage issues, though, one or two vandalizing edits are annoying, but regular editors can deal with it themselves through reverting. It should only be reported here if it rises to a level that editors can't deal with, i.e., that it becomes disruptive. Best · Katefan0(scribble) 15:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


IP Moderate

* 219.65.248.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been doing the same thing. Twice so far.-- Ravikiran 08:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

195.10.125.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.104.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.104.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.104.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.104.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.104.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.103.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.103.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.103.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 195.10.103.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and also the range 213.137.30.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 213.137.30.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 213.137.30.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 213.137.30.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 213.137.30.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 213.137.30.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 213.137.9.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I hope I have listed these correctly. Although the vandal seems to have some POV differences with me, and I have admitted that I was wrong on some issues, he/she has also removed categories, sourced quotations, links to foreign language wikipedias and information he/she finds uncomfortable (but which has been researched/sourced/referenced where necessary). He/she has also posted threatening messages to me. Bernard Moffatt, Mec Vannin, Celtic League (political organisation) seem to be those mainly vandalise. My previous comments can be found here with interaction with the vandal. I am not interested in a flame war, but his/her damage goes beyond mere POV problems. Poster seems angry and won't have rational discussion. I hope I have listed the multiple IPs correctly. --ImpartialCelt 18:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Has gone on a rampage of vandalism today, including blanking a heap of pages related to space and astronomy. All edits have been reverted, and warnings posted in user talk page. Dupz 07:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • User is now blanking the talk page of the main page, and posting personal attacks on those reverting their edits. Dupz 07:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm moving this to moderate because the activity continues and I'm still powerless to do anything about it. Maybe it will be noticed here. Thatdog 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, interesting. Appears to be a shared proxy server; I won't block just yet since this user appears to have stopped for the last 12h or so. Also, if you look carefully you can see a few legitimate edits scattered amongst the vandalism, which would suggest the possibility of multiple users of this particular IP. Since this user appears to be in abeyance in terms of vandalism for the time being, I won't block unless the user resumes vandalism, but have left a test4 message. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 20:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User has, since the test4 warning, vandalized Joseph Stalin three times [3] [4] [5], and pasted garbage on his/her talk page three times in place of the {sharedIP} message. (There have also been several legitimate edits during the time period.) MCB 07:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the 24-block, one edit with very minor vandalism to Rove McManus [6], which he/she has edited twice before [7] [8] in exactly the same way (adding quotes to the word "comedian" referring to article subject). In theory you could consider that a content issue, but I do not believe user is editing in good faith. MCB 06:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Criterion Collection has been subtly vandalized at least twice since 6 Oct, changing the link to the company's official website from http://www.criterionco.com/ to http://www.thecriterioncollection.com/ both times. The first time was by 220.245.180.130; the second time it was done from IP 60.240.187.117 (talk · contribs). Whois record for thecriterioncollection.com is no help, but the URL redirects to a page on http://www.badgenious.com/ which if clicked redirects to amazon.com. I stopped investigating it at that point, since it didn't appear to be a case of phishing... 66.167.139.129 06:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]
User has been blocked for persistent vandalism. In future, please place new alerts at the top of this section. →Journalist >>talk<< 01:13, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for reporting, and we want to encourage you to continue, but he seems to have stopped after the warning. You did great! Keep up the good work. You can actually do a lot to fight vandalism even without being an admin (I know I used to). Jdavidb (talk) 20:31, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


IP Low

  • "Hurricane Stan" page has been vandalised - it has had junk words inserted at various parts eg. "Tropical Storm Stan and began its evil reighn of bunnies" so needs to be reverted to previous version but I don't know how to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.221.7 (talk • contribs) ~2005-10-06 02:35:46 (UTC)
  • Gosh I'm slow. Thanks for helping!


Registered Users

Please report vandals who are operating under registered usernames under the appropriate severity level, at the top.

RU Severe

I blocked Q1werty indefinitely for multiple page move vandalisms and Q2werty indefinitely as an obvious sockpuppet of Q1werty who has done nothing but vandalize. Any admin disagrees, feel free to unblock. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


RU Moderate

Blanked their talk page that contained the vandalism warnings and replaced it with the advertising spiel, plus blanked the entry about them on this page (the latter of which someone reverted). SchuminWeb | Talk 05:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jake013 just blanked the above [17], so it seems the V-word is certainly in order. -- Egil 12:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He also blanked my first complaint of his bad-faith AFD's on his talk page. If he does something like that again, I'm blocking him for a month. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to disrupting Wikipedia with his spurious AFD nominations, he has vandalized Jascha Heifetz[18], [19], so I blocked him for 24 hours. If he persists, I'm blocking him for longer. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
He returned and vandalized my talk page, so I blocked him for 48 hours this time. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 16:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[...] I also see that you refuse to answer my question whether we agree we henceforth use only "Category:" templates and no other. --Francis Schonken 08:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No I'll use what ever is appropriate. You need to get atleast a basic education in logic before you continue.--Son of Paddy's Ego 10:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: warning against this user was issued before by user:Sherurcij, see User talk:Son of Paddy's Ego#Vandalism disguised as reverts --Francis Schonken 11:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know there was a Cornchips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was blocked. Is this the same one? --Bourne End 13:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a content dispute. Please see the instructions I have left on your page, Ben's page, and the page of the anonymous user Ben reported (which I presume is you). Also, you did not follow policy to report, as Ben has not received the warnings specified above. Jdavidb 17:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I for one am well aware of it, as I am one of the victims. He's already in arbitration, he's showing remarkable restraint in that he's currently unblocked and yet only editing his talk page, and the consensus on WP:AN was that he could do what he wanted with his talk page as long as he didn't leave comments misattributed. Jdavidb (talk) 18:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • IS he currently unblocked? According to this page[25], his IP address is blocked until 3:14 , 6 Oct. If that's true, he's not showing "remarkable restraint" at all. But I could be misreading this, Jdavidb. I assume, as an admin, you have a better method of determining whether he's unblocked. Thanks. Eleemosynary 19:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a new admin, so I'm a little uncertain. But clicking on the "block log" link above (my thanks for someone providing the vandalism template for BigDaddy777, as it was very helpful when I wanted to look at that earlier, anyway) [26], I see two blocks: one from Fvw at 2005-10-03 15:51:57 (my time, I think) which was for 24 hours, and one from CesarB which CesarB himself unblocked at 2005-10-04 22:42:07. As near as I can tell, that does mean he really is unblocked. I'm honestly shocked that he's stuck to touching his talk page. Jdavidb (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OTOH, his IP may be blocked. But my understanding of that (possibly, maybe even probably faulty) is that we deliberately allow unblocked accounts to post from blocked IPs so, for example, we can tell users who share an IP with a troublesome user that they can just log in to get around it. Feel free to correct me; I want to know. BTW, we've probably gone beyond the purpose of WP:VIP, here. Jdavidb (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


RU Low

  • This appears to be more of a content dispute, though it is annoying that the person won't respond apparently. However, this page is for reporting vandalism -- you might have better luck trying to get some of the pages protected at WP:RFP as a way to force the person to start replying to you. At any rate, they've stopped editing for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Possible Sockpuppets

Current date is August 6, 2024; place new alerts on top.

Please note
This was originally at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but have added it here due to the vandal's large number of pseudonyms:
ProhibitOnions 16:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. Please copy this report to Vandalism in progress so that the usernames can be checked and, if necessary, blocked. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ProhibitOnions 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This user has a long history of improper sock puppetry with a very clear edit pattern and admittedly shared IPs. He is prolific and makes many good edits, but also many less-good ones. I had previously blocked many of the usernames when he began using them in deletions, and after leaving several warnings. The problem seems to have grown worse recently. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. -Willmcw 06:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now blocked all of the listed usernames except user:KnightsOfMalta CantStandYa (talk · contribs). -Willmcw 07:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked him for 24 hours for persistent vandalism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, having read through the recent revert war, this looks like an ordinary content dispute. The claim by ProhibitOnions that his opponents are writing "nonsense" and vandalizing is just false. They are reverting to a version of the article that leaves it uncertain whether the story of Kennedy's alleged goof is true or false. Whereas the version ProhibitOnions prefers comes down decisively that the story is false. I think on the facts of the matter, ProhibitOnions is probably correct, but disagreeing with him is not vandalism. I think Tony Sidaway jumped the gun when he protected the page. (But ProhibitOnions is correct that some of those reverting away from his version are writing misleading edit summaries.) --Nate Ladd 23:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, this is not a simple matter of disagreement. This person has repeatedly changed the article, each time adding different nonsense phrasing that asserts something that is demonstrably false. (It is not simply a weaker prior version of the text, although it is usually based on one.) No, the vandal has never discussed the topic on the talk page. Yes, the vandal uses misleading edit summaries. Apart from creating numerous sock puppets, he has now created a user name that is visually similar to mine (Prohibit0nions vs. ProhibitOnions) and used identical edit summaries to mine ("Reverted to consensus version, vandal warned"). Sorry, this is malicious vandalism, there's no other way to describe it. ProhibitOnions 19:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=25729547"