Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2005/09

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Pages

This section is for pages that are the targets of persistent vandalism by multiple users (anonymous and/or logged in).

Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans

User:69.171.53.72 had nothing to do with this. I was attempting to remove the vandalism. Get your FACTS straight before you accuse someone. The logs will show that in fact I deleted the offending image link as soon as I saw it. User:69.171.53.72.

User:69.171.53.72 and User:69.133.122.102 have posted the same explicit image on this page. Deadsalmon 20:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Ehhh... actually it's been quite a few sockpuppets. Given the constant edits turning this page into a blog rather than a WP article, perhaps it wouldn't be bad to lock it for a while? Deadsalmon 20:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

User:65.101.135.244 has vandalized four times, low severity. Deadsalmon 06:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Iran-Contra Affair

User:209.66.200.65 was very persistant in vandalizing this page. Evil Monkey was kind enough to block the ip for me, but someone should watch this page if the ip changes or comes back. Thanks! --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 21:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

200.81.94.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Returning vandal replaced the entire page with some nonsense about the hurricane being "sent by God to punish sinners". sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 23:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

User:218.57.243.52, User:82.201.171.87 have vandalized this page more than a dozen times in total. Please ban them. --ThomasK 14:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

fixing this up to standards and pushing this to the top of the list due to persistant vandalism. Donovan Ravenhull 14:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Two IPs so far spamming "http://www.ZaraByte.com ZaraByte.com Loves Wikipedia! and Wikipedia Loves to ban me!!!!!!!!!" link. First User:193.227.17.30 given test and test2, second User:80.58.9.42. All edits so far have been reverted. Alf 08:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

It's several other IPs as well:

I'm banning them on sight, but I go to bed in an hour. --Golbez 08:17, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The guy says he's using proxies to continue to vandalize after he's been banned... -- RattleMan 09:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

And a block of IP addresses:

It's been hit hard recently. DreamGuy 05:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

More: 69.181.199.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). This isn't along the lines of the others, so I just {{test1}}'d him. Keep on the lookout for him. --Titoxd 05:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nah, this one is just a POV violator. We've tried to tell him about that, but he isn't an outright vandal. --Titoxd 05:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

More:

Actually, if you could block 203.186.238.* that would help tons, looking at the overlap there. DreamGuy 07:10, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Somebody managed to ruin it again. Why not use them to plug the hole in the levee?

Another one, 209.232.116.100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), has been blocked for 48 hours in accordance with the note at the top of the page's source. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sheffield United F.C. & Neil Warnock

Repeated references to the team as pigs, and masturbation jokes about it's manager from 80.229.125.208 (Sheffield only) and 217.42.204.105 (both articles) Neither user has been warned yet, so I will. -- LordJumper 12:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Some background. Sheffield in the UK has two football (soccer) teams, Sheffield United F.C. and Sheffield Wednesday F.C., known as "the Blades" and "the Owls" respectively. Neil Warnock is the manager of Sheffield Wednesday United. This childishness is the WP version of football hooliganism. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ahem. Of course I meant United. They all look the same to me. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Repeated link spam vandalism by

User has been warned many times to stop adding spam links for his ON web site to search engine optimization and other pages. Jehochman 05:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

History of SNL:2005-2010

Vandalism from 69.29.91.9 --Cinoche78 06:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Bumped by Staxringold, continued vandalism by:
67.125.120.157
72.18.187.124
69.29.69.55
200.103.147.186
69.194.240.29
67.125.118.32
Another one, 200.103.148.177

Stella Vine

Repeated vandalism from these IPs + user -- Cdyson37 17:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Chaindog and one of the IPs were blocked last night, vandalism appears to have stopped -- Cdyson37 10:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends episodes

A complete banishment for the following would be nice:

They have posted fictional episodes of the Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends series on the page (and the primary page as well prior to the episode list being created.) I noted that only episodes that have been authorized by Cartoon Network and/or another source (such as tvguide.com) are to be posted, and if they even thought about it, they'd be put on report. NoseNuggets 3:06 AM US EDT Aug 30 2005

Seven dirty words

81.79.89.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing this page, adding some (more) nonsense. 5 edints in the last 7 minutes. Ban for one hour would be god.-Mariano 11:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Snoop Dogg, Bow Wow, and Green Day

User Drdr1989 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (or IP address 67.181.191.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) continuously adds linkspam to these three pages, which he admits at Talk:Snoop Dogg are to his own website wit hthe express purpose of increasing his traffic so as to being in more money from his Google ads. In addition, user broke three-revert rule in attempts to keep his links listed. User currently has stopped re-adding links, and is not aware what he is doing is vandalism. If linkspam appears again on any of the three pages or any other music related page, user should be blocked. --FuriousFreddy 08:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

1)FuriousFreddy added this passage here without following the rules. I never added a link to another page following his "warning", yet he is accusing me of being a repeat offender, which I am not. 2) Placing the links from my own site is not unsupported by any policy that I'm aware of...only by some "guideline". See Talk:Snoop Dogg for more info. Also no true definition of "link spam" exists and the one in Wikipedia is ill-defined. 3)I never expressed my purpose in the false way that he insinuates. My purpose was to provide value for value, not to be self-serving. Drdr1989.
It's true that the principle against linking to one's own sites is a guideline rather than a firm rule; it's sometimes possible to put in links to your own site and "get away with it", if the site is clearly more of a relevant informational resource than an attempt at commercial gain or personal vanity for the site creator. However, if the site has a "spammy"-looking URL like download-latest-online-music.com, and/or is full of ads and referral links in positions more prominent than any original content the site might have, and/or is being posted by the site creator to multiple Wikipedia articles, it is likely to be seen as "link spam", even if the link is at least partially relevant. If this happens, and the link gets reverted, it's definitely bad form to get into a revert-war over attempting to keep your link in place; that really makes you look like a disruptive spammer. If you truly think your link is worthy, make a case for it in the talk page and possibly other fans of your site will come in and reinstate the link themselves. I'll add that the creation of multiple "cookie-cutter" pages on various celebrities (in music, movies, TV, etc.), with a few bits of biographical info or trivia cribbed from other sites, maybe a picture or two also taken from another site, and loads of ads and affiliate links, is a popular pursuit of link-spammers these days, and their sites are always less worthy of links than genuine "labor-of-love" fan sites from people who actually care about the celebrity they're doing a site about. *Dan* 20:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hey Dan. I'm not trying to fight my way up from a deep hole. It is just that their rationale for link removal was originally unclear, and FF's steps to "warn" sound more like a true war than advice from the heart. Even though his intentions were probably good, with wars you must defend yourself. As for the URL, it may appear "spammy" to someone not interested in the subject. With that, the title was constructed relative to what people want, actually. I'll keep in mind, however, your advice, even though those pages have much more content than ads and aff links. Although, I think you would agree that if you saw other sites listed on Snoop and Green Day, esp., that they look more "spammy" than mine. drdr1989 P.S., the labor-of-love aspect is in the developing stagizzle (Snoop pun).
  • If you see other links that appear to be "spammy", you are encouraged to remove them too (so long as you explain why they are inappropriate). --Alan Au 07:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Great point. I actually have removed some already off Snoop Dogg. The remaining ones do appear to reach the validity threshold however, even if they do look more "spammy". drdr1989 16:50, Aug 29, 2005

Alienware

Vandal keeps putting very pov and probably false info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.115.235.199 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 27 August 2005 Please sign your comments with ~~~~.

  • This seems more like an edit war between user(s) who dislike Alienware and user(s) who believe that the criticism is POV and unfounded. I reverted to an edit which had a more-or-less NPOV criticism section. Andrew pmk 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney

Vandalism from multiple IPs. -- Reinyday, 03:58, 19 August 2005 (UTC).
The vandalism continues. -- Reinyday, 04:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandals include:

Bank of China Tower

User:Biscuit Krumonskiis vandalising various pages about China. He changes images to human feces.

Multiple Vandalism about Chinese

Biscuit_Krumonski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) [1] [2] [3] [4]

I think Oly_Majoieka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be one of his earlier accounts. Biscuit Krumonski is vandalizing China-related articles for the following reason:
Why am I doing vandalism? Because communism sucks. The people of China should have the following freedoms: Freedom of speech. Freedom of religeon Freedom of the press. No forced sterilizations. No cruel and unusual punshiment.
p.s. I like Hong Kong, and purposely have not vandalised any Hong Kong related articles. (Biscuit Krumonski posted this on someone's talk page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cpcheung)) --Hottentot

Sperm

User: Sexworms is vandalising the page Sperm repeatedly. Also vandalises user pages of anyone who reverts them with obscene pictures.(see mine for example)68.212.98.100 13:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

68.4.4.100 (talk • contribs • block) is repeatedly vandalizing Anti-Semitism with brief antisemitic insertions. Myron 10:16, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

159.148.233.76 is vandalizing Anti-Semitism with references to "dirty jews" and how jews treat "blacks and mexicans" badly. and that Christians who aren't anti-semites "just don't want to get sued". --Andyluciano 14:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this User:Amalekite? 204.52.215.107 15:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

TANS Peru Flight 204

Someone linked to a hideous photo with an innocuous name... [5] and then someone reverted, and then someone else removed the picture altogether.... Can we get the picture put back, and protected? Mamawrites 21:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Backstreet Boys

Two anons (70.24.173.12) & (24.153.26.249) keep blanking out all info or adding short messages in the article. Continue after several reverts now. --Mr. Dude †@£К ║ Çøת†яĭβü†ĬŎИ 19:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Internet

Repeated vandalism from 81.9.64.98. Fixed several times. RunOrDie 14:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ziabari

Can you explain me what is going on the page Ziabari by this abuser person: 64.229.134.234 ?? He is always flooding my page with abusing, insulting, bad and under 18 years old language!! this is his website [[6]] I think that it will not be good for you to let this mental ill person to continue his abusing and vandaling language on a 15 years old boy page.

Red pudding

by multiple IPs. Vandalised at least twice today, and a few times earlier. — JIP | Talk 09:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Non-governmental organization

by multiple IPs. I fixed twice already today. -- 199.71.174.100 08:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Page protected.--Jondel 02:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Percy the Small Engine

Not vandalism in the purest sense, but member 216.165.248.180 has repeatedly changed minor details in this article, such as the character's gender, despite warnings against doing so and being told that this was incorrect. He has made similar edits to Calling all Engines- despite a disclaimer to not edit the character list, he has done so three times. 68.197.6.64

University of Michigan

Several instances of vandalism over last week or so. Currently damaged by malicious editing.

Doug

Multiple anon vandals doing many things.

Gnosticism

66.170.46.163 and 24.11.227.198 adding "Gnosticism is gnosty...haha...get it?" to top of Gnosticism#General_characteristics.

Rodney Howard-Browne

Six reverts to same n-npov/vandalism from 216.23.112.181 in the last 6 hours. --GraemeL (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

ColdFusion

65.35.120.139 adding and readding spam links

Casey LeBlanc

Assorted vandalism by various anon. IPs. LeBlanc is a Canadian Idol, hence the vandalism from fanboys/girls of other contestants. --Madchester 05:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Calling All Engines

84.68.192.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Attacked "Calling all Engines" page, rewriting every section of the article with stupid dribble despite an explicit warning that the page should not be edited until further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.6.64 (talk • contribs) on 16:23, 22 August 2005

Wrigley's Spearmint

Vandalized by anon IPs with nonsense for the past 3 days or so. --Madchester 13:25, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Obesity

Vandalized by various IPs as seen in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obesity&diff=21525137&oldid=21525115 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obesity&diff=21523345&oldid=21523319 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obesity&action=history

Best advice is to lock it and look out for the IPs vandalizing it. They also vandalized the Britney Spears page too, see history there. -- 82.42.151.164, 23 August 2005

Xbox 360

Can someone please lock this for 24 hours or so, there are several sockpuppets vandalizing it and have been for the past 45 minutes. Havok (T/C) 19:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Art

The article is vandalised. --Bentong Isles 13:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Ken Kutaragi

This page is getting constantly vandalized by GameSpot users. 69.197.201.237 24.43.112.152 217.42.209.106 70.16.3.82 68.116.90.100 66.30.143.47 70.118.92.84 who are discussing IP spoofing to continue vandalism. SamJ

CBC

Falsely accused of vandalism of CBC Radio 1 and CBC Radio 2 schedules. I am not sure if the CBC (no relation to CBS) is a true article? Unknown Person 17 Aug 2005, 11:46 (UTC)

CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) is a true article. There is currently a labour dispute going on, and employees are locked out. This may or may not account for supposed vandalism. Cybergoth 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Xavier School

This has been heavily vandalised over the last few days (and weeks) by anonymous IP addresses, and some is continuing at this moment. I shall revert it to the last good version I can find once they get bored for now but it needs keeping an eye on. Don't these people have anything better to do? Ben W Bell 10:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Two people are continuing to vandalise this page, can we get an admin in here to revert it to mine or Func's version and then lock it? Ben W Bell 10:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Done.--Jondel 09:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wiki cheese-ology

Some anon or group of anons have created this category and added many pages to it. Most of the pages contain nothing but the categorisation, but some genuine articles have been added to. I've got to go, so can't cleanup myself.-gadfium 00:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Anus

This page has been repeatedly vandalized over the last few days by a number of link-spamming anonymous IPs. Needs keeping an eye on. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Counter-Strike

This page is being repeatedly vandalized by 82.153.109.156, 82.153.103.158, 207.5.192.239 et al. The first two appear to be the same person, since the last revision/blanking said something to the effect "since I was banned I changed my IP address" Kewp 09:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

An Introduction

This page, pretty much nonsense and other speediable junk has been created four times while I have been watching. Mostly by ips starting with 62.253.128, and two of them I know were .12 and .14, though I missed the others. -Goldom 23:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Update: Since this page has been protected, the vandal is now working at "An Introduction". 62.252.96.12 has created the same page there now. -Goldom 23:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

FilePile

Various users, or sockpuppets, are removing information, adding nonsense, and making personal attacks in the article. Almost all of the vandals are recently created users who are also participating in the articles accompanying Vote for Deletion. One of the vandals has even attempted to obtain my password. Main culprits are User:Tranquileye, User:Flaunted, User:Aquafinal - Xed 22:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher Walken

Anon IP deletions, apparently to hide claims that Walken's "2008 presidential campaign" is a fraud by "General Mayhem forums". (Interrupting reconstruction to leave this entry.)
--Jerzy·t 16:54, 2005 August 15 (UTC)

DeviantART

I'm not sure if this is really vandalism, or if somebody just wants to engage me in a edit/revert war over the above article. Somebody (or some people; I'm assuming the former) in the IP address range 151.44.*.* keeps adding false accusations against Scott Jarkoff (founder of deviantART) and nonsense to the page; repeated requests on talk page, as well as reminder-comment on top of page and all affected sections have been completely ignored and even mocked at. Request for protection of the above article is already up, person(s) have been warned on the 151.44.123.254 talk page (his current IP address). I have already reverted the article three times in a space of 24 hours; three revert rule seems likely to be breached soon unless action is taken. A.K.R. 15:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Multiple anonymous ip's vandalizing both article and talk page. Eclipsed 00:57, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

70.176.183.170 (talk · contribs) (is this the pages first Hitler reference?[7])
24.18.128.52 (talk · contribs)
207.136.9.106 (talk · contribs)
68.23.100.34 (talk · contribs)
71.112.175.247 (talk · contribs)
24.26.61.0 (talk · contribs)

A vandal out of Denver who has been blocked twice today is vandalizing again under:4.227.175.237 (talk · contribs). He has been using multiple IPs out of Denver, CO--Eleemosynary 06:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan is currently being vandalized by anonymous IP 67.168.236.182: massive blanking, profanity, the works. Please ban. Thank you. Badagnani 07:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

As usual in the middle of the night, Cindy Sheehan is being vandalized, this time by repeated offender 71.133.246.254. Please ban. Many thanks. See [8] for a list of his/her vandalism, most to Cindy Sheehan. Badagnani 06:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Again, in the middle of the night, Cindy Sheehan is being vandalized repeatedly by the anon IP 152.163.100.204. Please ban. Thank you. Badagnani 04:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish Plumber

User:62.52.34.208 changing the word advertisement to propaganda. I have invited him/her to explain why it is propaganda within the article, but he she refuses to do so. --TimPope 21:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I have told you several times. 62.52.34.208 22:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has now been heavily vandalised by the same user. --TimPope 22:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Quadell

Anon AOL IP(s) keep vandalizing User:Quadell and User:Micahmn (me, I guess in retaliation). It looks like he or she is overloading the page. I'm not sure how that is possible, but I have to go into the history to revert it. 205.188.117.7 (talk · contribs) 64.12.116.201 (talk · contribs) -- MicahMN | Talk 22:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Electronic organ

Anon IP (24.147.122.211 is repeatedly making the same edit (which is vandalism) to the Electronic organ article, despite it being reverted eight times already. --Daniel Lawrence 08:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

It's now thirteen times and counting. Can't anything be done about this? --Daniel Lawrence 12:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

IP addresses

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

IP Severe

213.18.248.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) placed penis image in the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans article three times! Mamawrites 20:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

134.99.162.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Added spam links to porn site to various articles about sex and/or pornography. I've reverted all except pornography and group sex, which my workplace's net filter prevents from viewing. Please revert them and block this vandal. — JIP | Talk 10:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

68.42.120.211 Edits User is vandalizing the following private user page discussion. Link. User is editing other peoples comments to add inflamatory statements and in general insult everyone taking part in the discussion. The intent is clear vandalism with no attempts at adding to discussion. Request user be either blocked from editing anything for my user page or be banned. Alyeska 05:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.12 (talk • contribs • block) - Consistently posting childish insults such as this on the Christina Aguilera article. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

212.0.138.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - vandalizing faster than I can revert. --Ixfd64 03:44, 2005 September 1 (UTC)

24.70.95.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Caught vandalizing Nickelback, and has been changing dates in other articles. LordJumper 03:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

    • Commenting on this user's flagrant link spamming and plagiarism on relevant talk pages is neither vandalizing nor libelous. It is an attempt to call attention to these problems. The decision to remove more than 60 Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew links that this user created to his web site was reached by concensus. This complaint is an attempt to get revenge because I called attention to his link spamming. 69.205.1.91 02:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

seen this one before on here? --82.42.151.164 22:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • 69.205.14.66 (talk • contribs • block) Continues without end to remove links from Hardy Boy articles. Warned but refuses to stop. Previous history with previous IP addresses PhilipO 21:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • To my untrained eye, this appears to be some sort of minor edit war concerning an external link. See user talk pages. --Alan Au 22:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Correct. This is not vandalism. No unreasonable edits to content are being made. The link spamming issue is obvious. User:205.188.117.10 12:02, 2005 August 23
    • Actually, it's not. I'm not the only person to revert the blanking this user is doing - other registered users have agreed that the links in question are acceptable. However, it is pointless to continue reverting his edits. I'll stop in the belief that this user should be blocked. A community agreed revert can then take place Hardy Boys link discussion. --PhilipO 22:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
      • No, the links are being blindly restored despite a obvious problem with link spamming. User:205.188.117.10 12:04, 2005 August 23
      • Indeed, looking at the history, there seems to be some community interest in keeping the links. I'll go ahead and revert as many as I have patience for. --Alan Au 22:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Identity doesn't matter. Copyright violation should be addressed. User:205.188.117.10 12:04, 2005 August 23
      • On the contrary. Identity does matter. Why won't you do the decent thing? - create a login and account for your actions. Don't hop from IP address to IP address. What had you got to hide? --PhilipO 17:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • On the contrary it does not. The decent thing is to stop the link spamming and plagiarism. User:205.188.117.10 12:55, 2005 August 23
        • I honestly have little or no opinion on the merits of the links themselves. OTOH, what I see is one person who is carrying on a personal vendeta, and violating multiple Wikipedia rules to do so (3RR, jumping IPs to avoid blocks, to name two). You may very well have a point about plagerism and link-spam. But the way you are going about this will not get the result you want. Your tactics are pulling in more and more editors to oppose you. Whether you originally had a valid point or not, vandalism tactics make you no better than the person you are ultimately against, and will ultiately be futile. There are ways to fight your fight here on Wikipedia that will not raise large numbers of people against you. The Talk pages of one or two of the HB articles is the place to take your fight. Wikipedia is about conscensous, and right now the conscensous is building against *you*. If you would, however, come discuss your problems with these links, you might find you can build conscensous for removal. But vandal tactics will never get you that. TexasAndroid 18:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Tried that. The links still just get put back blindly like you were doing without checking out or admitting the problem which is way obvious. Vandalism would be mean spirited removal of content which I don't do. Finnan is a link spammer and shameless plagiarist is trying to sell books by abusing his Wiki priviledges. When people really look at this they will agree, fix the problem and this will stop. User:205.188.117.10 13:16, 2005 August 23
        • I admit to being "blind" on the links themselves. However, I am far from blind to wiki policies and rules, and can easily see your total disregard for them. As long as that is the case, your "contributions" have little weight in my eyes. My restoring of the links was a judgement of your actions, not of the quality of the links. I don't know enough about HB to make a value judgement on the links. I do know enough about Wiki to make a value judgement on your removals, and find them lacking in credibility. (Because of your total disreguard for Wiki rules, and your tactics)
        • Could you point to which Talk page you did try to reason/persuade people that the links are bad? I would like to see what arguments/evidence you presented, and why it was not persuasive. TexasAndroid 18:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless you create an account, and discuss your changes responsibly, you don't appear to be acting in good faith. Comments such as "It will continue indefinitely until the problem of Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism are fixed" do not sit well with editors here. --PhilipO 18:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Agreed, mass unexplained deletions and 3RR violation by an anon is probably still grounds for a block. --Alan Au 22:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
    • User 69.205.14.66 continues to vandalize pages after repeated warnings. --PhilipO 00:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • A block will not work. Address the complaint of link spamming and plagiarism, both are obvious, and there will be no more of this. User:205.188.117.10 11:58, 2005 August 23
    • He's now acting as 205.188.116.201 (talk • contribs • block) - TexasAndroid 17:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • And a few more:
    • 205.188.117.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 205.188.116.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 205.188.116.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • 152.163.100.130 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
    • This blocked user is hopping from IP to IP at will. Some of the individual HB books pages are protected. Most are not. Request all be protected until this can be sorted out, or this one man war on the pages looks to continue indefinitely. TexasAndroid 17:44, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
    • See [[11]] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism. User:64.12.117.13 12:14, 2005 August 24
He came back two to three hours ago and started vandalizing again. Suggest immediate action, as he shows no signs of confusion or remorse; he's clearly just being malicious. --Shackleton 17:31, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


IP Moderate

Unfortunate misrepresentations by Francis Schonken, who is not in very dood standing anyway. 217.140.193.123 22:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed that this IP has already gotten a final warning LordJumper 05:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
consistently removing information from article on Canberra, note has been editing other pages too. Has previously been blocked for editing those pages, eg Turkey, note User:Petaholmes has rolled back edits. " --AYArktos 09:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


also 205.188.116.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) with same nonsense category--AYArktos 01:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

68.193.245.80 (talk • contribs • block) This ipaddress appears to be Joseph Steinberg, who has been pushing his GreenArmor solution, and placing sites which link to his URLs in the links section of phishing and pharming. The sites often rehash old Wikipedia content, such as his own site at phishing-pharming.com (registered to him). I have gone through links that he has added. All of them go back to his green armor site. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

IP Low

Pwn is also being vandalized by 68.19.90.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who is adding vanity about nn person named "Babby Poons" (gets only 1 google hit). --pile0nadestalk | contribs 04:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Registered Users

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

RU Severe

RU Moderate

Please note that user: Lulu's vandalism complaint was summarily rejected as an inappropriate characterization of a content dispute, and that he unilaterally overrode admin action to reinstate it. Monicasdude 17:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Fvw suggests this is a content dispute, but I think that is not quite right. User:Monicasdude tries to disguise his changes/reverts as factual or NPOV disputes, but in fact simply reverts all changes to whatever he himself wrote, independent of any fact or POV. The vandalism is in removing any words he does not himself write from appearing (admittedly the words he does write are more-or-less topical, rather than unrelated to the page). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:58, 2005 August 23 (UTC) (Of course, if another ViP editor thinks I'm wrong, I will not try to file this here again)

This notice is placed in bad faith. It is factually inaccurate. The underlying dispute was identified as a content dispute last week in a discussion of the 3RR notice board by admin: Gamaliel, who said "The core of the issue here is the factual accuracy of the statement in question. Based solely on what has been said here, it seems Monicasdude has factual information to back up his version. Lulu, if you have citations to back up your version or to dispute Monicasdude's version, please produce them on Talk:Bob Dylan." User: Lulu did not back up his version with factual citations, but instead posted a few quotations of opinions.
The context for the dispute is this: User: Lulu demands that the Bob Dylan article reflect his opinion that Dylan had a short-lived "Christian period," and that before and after that time his work has shown no more than scattered and oblique religious themes. This is no more than an opinion, and it is not even the majority opinion among Dylan observers. My position is that if the article addresses this question -- and I do not think it necessary for an article to pigeonhole any artist's work into sharply defined periods carrying superficial labels -- it should reflect the full range of opinions on the question. User:Lulu has repeatedly excised any opinion which he does not share, and has gone so far as to delete other editors' contributions regarding religious influences on other periods of Dylan's work. Bob Dylan has consistently written, released and performed religiously-themed material for the last twenty-five years. To insist, as user:Lulu has been doing in this ongoing dispute, that "the fact that Dylan stopped doing explicitly xtian stuff is definitely worth noting at the conclusion of the discussion of his xtian period" is to falsify a well-documented history.
And I would also note that user:Lulu has repeatedly and indisputably violated the 3RR rule in the course of this dispute (a violation for which he has been previously blocked twice), and that he engages in repeated, incessant personal abuse, including repeated objectively false statements, like the comment here that I revert all changes to my own versions and remove any words I have not written. This situation calls out for enforcement of the applicable guidelines. Monicasdude 20:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
My gut reaction is that this is a content dispute, by Lulu's own description. Vandalism is bad-faith editing. Maybe Monicasdude is making bad edits, but that is different from bad-faith editing. I'll look into this a bit more. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a content dispute, not vandalism. I am protecting the page. Please remember to assume good faith always. Further comments should go to Talk:Bob Dylan. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
warned. Rama 16:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


RU Low

    • I have complete confidence that SPUI isn't a vandal, but SPUI, you often use an approach to editing that strikes me very much like a bull in a china shop, imposing your own will on articles where consensus-building would be much more valuable. You move articles without discussion and make huge re-arrangements of things that have stood the test of time. It may be this sort of thing that has caused Pilatus to assume you are a vandal. Atlant 17:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You haven't seen the edit histories [31] [32] [33] [34] and taken a look at the diffs there, have you? This isn't about making brash and bold edits to articles, it's about striking out others' votes and comments in VfD discussions. It's just not done, and it has been persistent. Also note the graffiti left on my talk page [35]. Pilatus 20:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:RobotE, my bot, has messed up several (too many to revert by hand) of the Category:year pages. You can find them here. From 19:46, 18 August 2005 to 20:54, 18 August 2005. Can an administrator please revert these edits, my sincere apologies, I was not aware of your system with a template. By request of one of your users, I did an interwiki run on the categories. Ellywa 21:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


Possible Sockpuppets

-> After suggestions by MarkSweep continued at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption --Francis Schonken 12:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I suggest that User:Francis_Schonken (see his talkpage) is put to some periods of blocking, so he may cool down, and cease a spree of fabricated complaints everywhere. Arrigo 13:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Vandalized Stuttgart, Taiwan, NASDAQ, and Sweden, respectively. Acetic Acid 02:56, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

All targeted Jim Duffy (author) page to add in same allegation that I am the person the page is about with edit summaries It's a warning, not a self-reference. and Warning of shameless self-manipulation and Useful to know so as to watch for shameless self-promotion. *Keep*. respectively. Also targeting Dublin statues and their nicknames. Ubuntu also reimposed a poor quality gif of unknown copyright status after it had been reverted to the correct image and reinserted original research that, as original research I had deleted. Sockpuppets probably of banned user User:Skyring who was banned for Wikistalking me. All the targets above, as was Skyring's history, focused all their edits on pages I had just recently edited, added in dodgy information, stuff of dubious copyright information (or changed UK dating in a UK article to US dating — another of Skyring's 'games') the behaviour that led the ArbComm to ban Skyring for 1 year. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Watch this one

I've spotted some repetitive vandalism from User:148.235.180.242 in the last 24 hours. So far I've reverted everything, but he needs watching. 62.252.96.16 15:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've spotted some repetitive vandalism from User:70.162.11.141 (also as User:70.162.14.37) in the last 48 hours. The same is true for User:143.166.82.38. So far I've reverted everything, but they need watching. Liontamer 06:15, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


Vandalism in long progress

A few weeks ago a Macedonian Slav editor started objecting about the contents of the article Macedonia. An editor (not familiar with the topic) put the article under protection and urged the editors to resolve the dispute in Talk. So it happened. During the discussion, the objecting party would post POV propaganda as evidence for his claims and would throw out personal insults and racist implications (as in degrading degrading darker-skinned people). The situation was so childish that another administrator was summoned in order to unprotect the page and restore the original article. It's been a several weeks since this happened, but the case was far from closed. The objecting party couldn't accept the facts and kept reverting the page 50 times per day, hoping that someone will be bored and give in to his vandalism. This has been going on for over a week and continues as we speak, and none of the admins has bothered to do anything to stop it. Miskin 13:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

User Imdaking is vandalizing my talk page.

Imdaking (talk • contribs • block) This user has just deleted a lot of content from my talk page, content which documents his abuse and harrassment using several identities. He as logging in and out as several users last night, and I have documented this. Please assist. Paul Klenk 06:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

50 cent

50_Cent - this page is being vandalised by 12.72.255.138 and 67.183.49.205. I'm about to place warnings on their user pages, but not sure if it will do much good.--inks 09:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Appears to have died down now.--inks 09:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Love

That article some kind of virus edits endlessly (too hard to revert). May be it should be blocked? Brandmeister 22:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Socksex, Planetpjs, 58.104.87.64 all vandalizing vote page

This page Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/WCOOP is being vandalized by the above three users.

User:Owaldo

Has inserted a spam link from his own website about 8 times into IP address (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Likes to insult people, includinmg through threatening and abusibve emails, SqueakBox 19:12, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Admin intervention and sorted, SqueakBox 21:49, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonian Slavs

The anonymous user 198.176.19.40, erased a complete section of the Talk:Macedonian Slavs and replaced it with his comment. Probably this was not done intentionally, but I couldn't copy-paste all the comments he deleted. I hope that an admin can rollback the page and the paste the comment of the anonymous user at the buttom in a new section. Thanks. MATIA 13:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I've done a copy/revert/paste/save on this page which should fix it, I'll add to point to here for any confusion later. Alf 14:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Alf. MATIA 14:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Car

The page "Car" has been vandalized. It redirects to "Automobile" and adds nasty pictures during the redirect, but if you load the page "Automobile" none of the 2 pictures are there. I also checked out editing the page "Car" and no images were there, so I'm not good at wikipedia and I don't know how the pictures get there to remove them.

Not quite sure what you mean. Automobile looks ok to me, and it's common to redirect synonyms to one place. The images don't seem to be 'nasty'; did something unpleasant turn up on your screen while you were being redirected? Car has been a redirect for several months, now.-Splash 01:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
A vandal (199.72.198.46) made a redirect link to gluteus maximus and reverted in one minute. This may explain it... --Janke | Talk 08:48:46, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

User Via Egnatia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to change part of wikis without discussing his changes, or having in mind what discussions were or are being made in the talk pages. MATIA 15:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone should also check this move (irrelevant with Via Egnatia). MATIA 15:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

User Via Egnatia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) marches on, despite warnings and despite of being ask to use the talk pages. Perhaps he should be checked if he is a sockpuppet of I sterbinski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his anonymous vandals (see WP:AN/I archive 41) , and MyNameMacedonia (talk · contribs) MATIA 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


Thanatos Article--There is an image added that screws up the whole layout of the page, whereas before it was nice. Now the image is really big and moves the text far below it. I am an ultra-newb and I don't know what to do or who to contact, and I'm to afraid to edit it myself. Maybe someone could look into it? Thanks, dblot=aim if anyone wants to un-newb me.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2005/09&oldid=1088101523"