Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 195.72.173.51 (talk) at 15:01, 2 August 2005 (→Moderate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please do not bite newcomers
Please do not bite newcomers

To refresh this page, click here.

The old version of this page can be found at Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Old version.

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.

Long term alerts

Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts.

Current alerts

Current date is December 26, 2024; place new alerts on top.

Fahd bin Abdul Aziz

WP:RFC

  • People are moving pages that have been certified by 2 people from "pages certified by 2 people" to "candidate pages, have not met the 2 person threshold". (unsigned comment added on 10:21, 24 July 2005 by -Ril-)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Cyrus Farivar

  • Journalist's article is getting vandalized in a variety of ways by multiple users for exposing an Internet hoax ("greenlighting"). --Tysto 23:09, 2005 August 1 (UTC)

IP addresses

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

Severe

If you block 64.231.4.58, you are not following Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view. There should be sympathy towards the Jews as well as reasons and substantial evidence on why the Nazis committed genocide. (unsigned comment left by User:DaGizza)

What does that have to do with the nonsense about Baghdad bombings that this person was inserting into the Jew article? Antandrus (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One user posted evidence that users of the FaithFreedomInternational web forum are organizing on that forum to mount a concerted attempt to change Islam-related articles to their POV. This evidence has been blanked seven times already, by Existentializer and also by various anon IPs, with much bad language in the edit comments. Dunno what to do -- if we protect the talk page, no one can use it. Block all posting by anon IPs on that talk page? Zora 23:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A wide ban of 69.50.* should be considered. It appears to be the only thing we can do now. Frenchman113 00:19, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Please link to specific IP addresses and article names. It is impossible to look at this vandal's contributions based on this information. Rhobite 05:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
For samples look at edits by entries by myself and Eclipsed below. Usrnme h8er 12:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The domain 69.50.187.* is recurring with a variation of ip addresses as what appears to be a spam bot. Should we consider a wide ban? Can anyone identify the owner of the domain? Usrnme h8er 09:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
69.50.187.92 and 69.50.187.87 both appears to be owned by organisation in San Fransico[2]. Interestingly enought, they have a acceptable use policy which forbids spamming[3], so maybe someone ought to let them know. However, a quick google seems to indicate the're a spammers haven thought. WegianWarrior 10:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
These IPs have a bit of history (see User:Nigosh/linkspammers). User:Thue took some action on 21st July - emailed ISP about spamming and added some URLs to meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Atrivo_linkspammer_on_en. Appears not to have had any effect. Propose blocking IP ranges:
  • 69.50.166.3-6
  • 69.50.184.210-215 & 217-221
  • 69.50.187.83, 85-89 & 91-94
  • 69.50.191.195-198
Nigosh 11:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
3 more linkspam events: (69.50.184.212, 69.50.187.89 & 69.50.187.91) - Nigosh 12:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've warned them, but they seem to have become bored or stopped for some other reason anyway.-gadfium 01:27, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Moderate

82.35.34.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Blanked Karen Armstrong

Jondel 00:47, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

24.229.138.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - repeated blankings to article Windows Vista. Has been warned with tests 1-3. May have stopped at time of this posting --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active again today (August 1st). Zerbey 12:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Vandal has returned. Only edits attributed to this IP are the removal of links to about 23 articles each time. This IP has never been blocked, despite the previous request and warnings on the user page. ∞Who?¿? 07:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12.73.195.132 (talk • contribs • block). This user is dead set on disrupting the Cfd process, has unilatterly made changes that were against the previous consensus, vandalized the Cfd page and removal of Cfd tags, and adding {{d}} tags to cat's that should have been kept. Is now removing comments from Cfd, [4],

[5], [6], [7], [8] . ∞Who?¿? 01:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discovery Bay
    • Please help - protect page perhaps? Receiving constant addition of the paragraph, The Plaza also provides a unique community childminding scheme, whereby children can play freely in the area, while their parents can relax and enjoy themselves without having to worry about their children's behaviour from a series of anonymous IP addresses. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia and resembles more like vandalism of the practical joke variety. Discussion started at Talk:Discovery Bay but user not cooperating. --Mintchocicecream 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is the statement inaccurate? How? It doesn't seem to violate NPOV. Is there not a place for children to play? --Randal L. Schwartz 18:49, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
His/her statement is plain wrong: The Discovery Bay Plaza simply does not provide a unique childminding scheme - or any childminding scheme for that matter! The statement is really a sarcastic statement complaining about the behaviour of children in the plaza. More such complaints can be found in external forums such as [[9]] One might also wish to compare this type of statement to the changes that *did* violate NPOV introduced by yet another series of IP addresses between 15-20 July [[10]]; furthermore attempts to discuss with anonymous user(s) has been fruitless. --Mintchocicecream 20:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One might also wish to refer to [[11]] where people are discussing changing articles in Wikipedia. --Mintchocicecream 20:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've put him under severe, he appears to be using bots. Frenchman113 00:22, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Vandal now linkspamming from 62.47.132.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Please block. Zora 22:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As noted below, he now has the username Mark512, and continues to revert the aforementioned VFD page, as well as vandalising Canderson7's user page.
Please block! Vandalism continues, has been extended to Pakistan article. Today, coming from the 172.195.85.28 address. Zora 01:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal has taken username, Ashraydos, has returned to vandalizing Shahrukh Khan, Pakistan, Kal Penn, and Indian American. Confused desi kid. PLEASE BLOCK -- possibly for a short time. Maybe he'll get a clue? Zora 10:20, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal has returned as IP 172.192.180.130, vandalizing same articles. I checked the IPs. They're all AOL. Can we contact them to stop the vandalism? Leave message on my talk page if you want me to do it. Please block again. Zora 10:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal has returned as IP 172.192.78.211, vandalizing (blanking) same articles. PLEASE BLOCK. Zora 02:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Low

Wrote stupid and purposeless things on a number of pages such as writing "He is currently dating Melinda," on the Bobby Valentino page, probably the user's name.
Osu8907 17:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Users

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

Severe

Was going to say something myself, but it looks like Petaholmes already blocked him. Nufy8 01:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks, Doc! FreplySpang (talk) 22:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)



Moderate

They're surly responses to articles I see listed for Speedy Delete that really shouldn't be, I've contributed to every single 'stub' I've removed a Speedy Delete tag from, and it wasn't a personal threat to kick your ass, it was a poetically-refrained attempt at livening things up with edit summaries among a bunch of people who slap a Speedy Delete on an artist or historical character because they're too lazy to use google and make it a proper stub like I do. I suggest you view stub histories, before running off to mommy and daddy crying that I improved stubs and used a bad word in my summary Sherurcij 22:20, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Has been blocked for 24 hours. --20:59, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Low

Possible Sockpuppets

This just one user out of many. Cool Jared (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did the same thing. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Also likely to include Goodboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
Any reasonable person can check edit histories and interests, and know that I am not User:TVSRR. However, I would suggest checking whether User:213.123.153.25 is an open proxy being used as a sockpuppet by User:Spotteddogsdotorg. Kaibabsquirrel 05:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
that sure was a good load of bull I have ever seen in my entire life! But I am glad I am not Kaibabsquirrel. TVSRR 20:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By all means, continue to draw attention to your re-creation of deleted material and repeated removal of delete tags from an article you created. It will get the material removed from Wikipedia again that much faster. —Cryptic (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Theft Auto IV is a shore to come out as Harry Potter: Book Seven, Both should be left on Wikipedia! - Agent003
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=20117448"