Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 203.166.96.239 (talk) at 00:52, 10 October 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

your are GASY!!!!!! NO I MEAN GAY YOU ARE GAY PENIS

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

"* 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--> peniks

"* 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. --GrapenisemeL (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

penis:* User has apologized [1]. Talk page also contains apologies for past indiscretions. Please clarify if this is somebody being disingenuous rather than just a clueless newbie. Jdavidb (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you are gay??????????????????????

no im nmot

  • 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]

ytes you are fagit and the moderators on this site are gay too

  • 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) )

  • 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

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 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 ~2005-10-06 02:35:46 (talk • contribs)
  • 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

NickBush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Impersonating me, vandalizing my userpage, basically just acting like a toddler. NickBush24 00:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RU Moderate


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[8], 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) [9], 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 September 1, 2025; 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=25162977"