Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

80.134.140.94

NO wonder there are so many vandals, this guy crudely vandalism 7 times in a few minutes and you don't block him GEEZ! You admins are way too nice to the vandals. Rlevse 01:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a final warning and will monitor. In the future, please only report vandals if they have received a {{test4}} warning and have continued vandalizing within two hours of receiving that warning. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Or a {{bv}} warning. Joelito (talk) 02:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
multiple vandalisms shouldn't require a test4. Nip them in the bud. Rlevse 11:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

70.81.94.157

User has added identical spam to several articles. Have posted 4 level warning. Please help if he continues V. Joe 07:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

please post this on the main page, not on the talk... - Adolphus79 07:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reporting vandal to ISP?

ok... so call me a noob, but how exactly do you go about reporting a vandal to their ISP? I have had one user that has used several IPs over the last couple days to vandalise Stylus magazine... if you look at the history of that page, he/she/it is the one that is using the 84.6x.xxx.xxx IPs... please help? - Adolphus79 10:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Abuse reports. Note that the range you provided is really wide, are you sure it's the same individual(s). The ISPs don't usually do much, but it is worth a try. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
it's the exact same text being added each time, with little quirps aimed towards other editors (read: me)... I realize the IP range I listed is huge, but it was easier than listing the 5 or 6 different IPs that he/she/it has been using... maybe I'll just let it go, if the ISPs aren't willing to do much... it's a RIPE user, so I would have to deal with an overseas (for me) ISP anyway... eh... maybe I'll just continue squashing it's vandalism... at least it's giving me a good laugh... - Adolphus79 11:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Biased Deletions

Here's a situation that I haven't seen addressed (maybe it's gotten lost in the 50 or 60 pages of vandal reports). User:Circeus is repeatedly deleting any and all links to Crocdilian Online. The only comment made was a single one to linkspam, which I don't see as being even relevant. I've sent the first warning to him thinking it was just a page or two, but I've since discovered it's worse than I thought. Which is the appropriate template? CFLeon 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This user is now following me and reverting all of my recent edits, to the point of even reverting my spelling and clean-ups over ALL Crocodilian pages now. (Does Wiki recognize 'Web-Stalking'?) Previously, the user showed no interest in these pages and his user page has no indication of such interest. He has refused to address this issue on any Talk pages, instead sending me rude responses. This User will allow NO mention of this link, which is the major source on the web, WHATSOEVER. I have tried to get him to answer what he has against this link, but the only thing he ever said was something about "linkspam", which is irrelevant. This is the first time I've had repeated problems with another user and I'd like some help with this. I am not one who smiles when someone spits on me; if someone is rude to me, I respond in turn. I'd like to return this to being civilized, but he refuss to respond. Could someone help out? CFLeon 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't really view this as vandalism, so this is probably not the appropriate venue. But a response anyways: I've looked over Crocodilian Online and it does look like an appropriate link (it's on an .edu server in Florida, contains no ads, and is well referenced). However, it is important that the articles of individual Crocodile species are linked to the relevant subpages on Crocodilian online. I think this is the point that Circeus was trying to make. If you link as suggested above, I don't think there will be a problem. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 06:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User:MrPhillyTV

User has apparently listed another user's password on his talk page, and claims to have "hacked" Wikipedia. I can remove the password from the talk page, but I guess it should be removed from the history as well?--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

User:201.19.151.125

Regarding the vandalism by this IP, I'd like to point to a few of the edits that are not "inexperience" but actual changes in content that show the intent of this person's edits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=58059988 - there is no evidence that the coach has ever been named "Burton". The remainder of the edit is just verbage bloat to hide the false fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Bond_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=58060508 - around the same time as the last edit, in a flurry of small changes often seen to confuse reverters, he falsely reversed the intent of this statement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Characters_of_Negima_%2816-31%29&diff=next&oldid=58063539 - They are "brats" not "beasts" and if as per their added edits

this looks a lot like this... then I'm loony.

Please keep this IP from hiding their nonsense edits among verbage bloat and correct wikification just to seem "knowledgable" but still end up damaging articles. I ask that you reconsider your "don't bite the newbies" decision on this one. ju66l3r 19:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the work of providing these diffs. In my own judgment, I'm going to give this anon the benefit of the doubt and assume that he or she is trying to improve the article; even if all of the above changes were incorrect, I don't see any clear-cut, obvious signs of malicious intent here — just poor judgment and a lack of understanding of the articles he or she is trying to contribute to. We'll see if this garners any other comments from other admins. Tijuana BrassE@ 19:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll defer to your experience on this one. I have seen this style a few times in recent days (albeit not in the same IP range) where even more clearly malicious edits (like Bush-bashing or obscenity) were wrappered with thesaurus-style edits and innocent changes in attempts to bypass any bot reversion software. ju66l3r 19:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IP 220.235.253.231, IP 220.235.254.170 - "Sneaky Vandalism"

I am new to this, the notes I read here (in green ) said to post reports to the other page but it did not have a '+' so I will attempt to post here. This user appears to be be using a dynamic IP address. I was unable to post a warning to their user page as I could not find one. Using multiple IP searches located this user in nth qld cache of ISP westnet, interesting to note that other vandalism within the same article (but using different IP's) also point to the same area. It appears as if one or two IP's are used by this person over a period of time before the IP's change (hence dynamic tag). I am assuming it is the one person or persons. This user has an interest in vandalising specific articles thus far. Seeing that this user came back so quickly to vandalise the article after I had reverted 6 vandalism entries they had done, I did not revert this last vandalism entry (a false external link) and instead have attempted to bring it to the attention of Admins re: vandalism. The latest vandalism still requires reverting - 'Sneaky Vandalism' - Bacmac 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to post the IPs if anything is to be done.--Andeh 00:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand ?, the current IP being used is posted above: 220.235.254.170 Maybe where i said using multiple IP searches has caused confusion , I actually used various IP "Searching Programs" to confirm the location. Should there appear to be a repeat of the use of multiple IP's as seem to show in the article history I will add them. Bacmac 01:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ADDED: 220.235.253.231 :- this is the IP I am talking mostly about above (it looks as if i mistakenly added the seconded IP I suspected of this user) A second 'sneaky vandalism' entry has been carried out. I will revert these two rubbish entries and see how long it takes this guy to vandalise again. Can anyone out there post a warning to this guy?, I couldn't find a user page for him.

Anyone got any advice ? Bacmac 00:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IP vandals strikes again & again sneaky vandalism reversed this person has issues still editing in rubbish on article Bacmac 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Comanche cph

I am quite new to this as I haven't come across too many vandals before. Now the user page appears to be deleted. Does that mean that the user has been blocked or...? Inge 22:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)The user seems not to be eblocked as there was an edit made by that acount at 23.30 Inge 22:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I deleted his userpage as all it had was the indef blocked template; apparently an inexperienced user tagged the template onto his userpage thinking he was indefinitely blocked (he was blocked for 31hrs by Drini before). By the way, POV edits don't count as vandalism, and the test templates should be used anyway. Andy t 22:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey its me you talking about. I am very interested in History :o). And I´m no vandalizer. I´m just cleaning up on Wiki. "Inge" is the one who write unsoursed and wrong articles. Come with just one thing i have made wrong.

The time i´ve got blocked was because i deleted the tread "Swedish Empire" because it´s pathetic to write a article with that name on a Encyclopedia. Then all countries could be a Empire. I did´t know of that blocking thing tho.

- Comanche cph

What is a "recent" warning ?

The instructions on WP:AIV say that a vandal should not be listed here if...

The vandal has not received the full range of test warnings recently (i.e., not counting warnings from 2005).

This was added recently; however, 2005 seems quite far away already, and even a user who received the full range of test warnings, say, in April, would almost certainly not be blocked immediately today. Should we change that to something like "(i.e., within the last month)" (or week) ? Schutz 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to "within the last week". Schutz 12:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Demiurge and User:Ali-oops

The above users are harrassing me. They seem to be engaging in a vendetta against another Wikipedian, whom they have mistaken me for, and are deleting all my edits for no valid reason. User:Demiurge appears to be peeved because I updated one of his edits, but he doesn't have a monopoly. User:Ali-oops who appears to be a friend of User:Demiurge sent me a nasty message calling me "Robert". Even if I weren't a woman I would be offended at someone intentionally calling me by someone else's name.

User:Bobcheezy (Member's Advocate) refuses to do anything more than tell me I am right and they are wrong. Meanwhile I have to redo my edits. Is this fair??!!

Is their behavior permitted on Wikipedia? If it is I am not sure I wish to be part of Wikipedia.

Here are some of the edits they have deleted for no valid reason:

Also see the nasty message that User:Ali-oops left for me on my home page.

This is a copy of the message (professional, I thought) that I left him after he referred to me as "Robert":

Dear Sir:

My name is Marylou. If you ever address me as Robert again I will cite you for harrassment. Douglas Hyde was a Unionist -- check your history books. Just because he was an Irish language enthusiast does not change that and I will update his site to that effect if you have changed that important element.

Marylou 13:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. And don't call me sir. Clear? Or do I have to cite you for harrassment? - Ali-oops✍ 13:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC) I even tried to compromise and have your edit to Piaras Béaslaí re-instated, but it's obviously not good enough for you. And you're starting a revert-war again. I think it's coming up time for WP:RCU - Ali-oops✍ 13:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: " I even tried to compromise and have your edit to Piaras Béaslaí re-instated, but it's obviously not good enough for you." Does freedom on Wikipedia depend on his largesse??

These people have serious problems with their egos and feel free to do whatever they want.

Do I have to endure this from this pack and constantly have to be redoing my edits?? This is absurd!!

Marylou 14:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no problems addressing any questions any admins have regarding this user above. Please use my talk page. Please also feel free to review my edit history for today, as well as that of the above user. Note also that I have made no edits to Irish neutrality in over a month [1]. Edits to Simon Towneley were for copyedit/format and for the removal of the "somewhat nominally" sentence (POV/tenuous claim) [2]. Calling me a vandal is a bit over the top, IMO, however judge accordingly. However first, please see User_talk:Ali-oops/Robert_Sieger and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Rms125a@hotmail.com. BTW, I'm a she, not a he - Ali-oops✍ 16:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
While I'm not an admin or anything fancy like that, there's a few things everyone should keep in mind and use as the first steps in trying to work this out:
  1. Policies like no personal attacks and assume good faith. While I'm not picking on anyone in particular, comments like "or do i have to cite you for harassment" and ""these people have serious problems with their egos and feel free to do whatever they want" are in violation of these policies. Keep a cool head. One example for User:Marylou: when User:Ali-oops called you "Robert", you should have assumed good faith and let her know politely that your name was in fact Marylou. Threatening people with things like "cite you for harassment" usually doesn't help the matter. For User:Demiurge: repeatedly adding the sockpuppet template to Marylou's talk page doesn't really help your case either. One diff (especially the one you provided) isn't that credible evidence-wise. If you have solid evidence, take it to WP:RFCU but don't just threaten people about it.
  2. 3RR. Don't revert someone more than 3 times in 24 hours. Full stop. Unless it's clear cut vandalism (blanking a pageor similar) - a factual dispute about whether the person in question was a Unionist or not is not vandalism. Work it out on the talk page. One of you just has to stop adding/removing these facts to the article, and start giving evidence on the talk page as to why you think the person is what you say they are. Evidence needs to be readable by everyone, so "i found it in a history book" isn't good enough.
In general, the problem here simply seems to be a simple factual dispute that spilled over. If you want to work this out, all I can advise as a first step is to stop. Just stop removing/adding content that is disputed. Then, work it out calmly on the article's talk page, citing evidence for all your claims, hwoever small they may be. Hope you can work this out! --james(lets talk) 08:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone should also probably move this conversation somewhere else (I can't think of anywhere off the top of my head) - WP:AIV isn't exactly the best place. Cheers. --james(lets talk) 08:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
While I'm in broad agreement with what you said, I've never added the sockpuppet template to Marylou's talk page. Nor did I provide the diff (that was Demiurge). Nor am I a he. Thanks, though - Ali-oops✍ 08:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ooo, sorry! That's what happens when you write stuff while you're sick :) --james(lets talk) 10:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem! Get well soon ... :-) - Ali-oops✍ 11:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry that I referred to User:Ali-oops as "Sir" -- I thought User:Ali-oops is male; I regret the error and it was unintentional. It explains one of the comments I received on my talk page.
Thank you. It pays to be civil - Ali-oops✍ 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

However the fact remains that User:Demiurge continues to vandalize my edits citing the same tired excuse, which has nothing to do with the quality of the edits. Is he going to be penalized or not?

You've very close to your 3RR limit on Irish neutrality right now. I have discussed the matter on the talk page. Why are you insisting on reverting to a banned user's version? - Ali-oops✍ 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I had made a reference to User:Demiurge's "censorship" and I would like to explain where it came from as this user claims I got it from some previous incarnation as his nemesis. The info. (which a friend pointed out to me) is located at [3], especially pp 2-3. It makes interesting reading. Marylou 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Your link is fascinating and - quelle surprise - it's written by Robert Sieger, the banned editor you've been compared to. Oh dear, he's not very complimentary about me - he's even called me "he", just like you did! And he calls me Catholic, too, which I'm not. Wonder what else he got wrong? Talks about me and others without offering the right to reply. Tsk, tsk - Ali-oops✍ 23:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Hey Marylou, chill a sec, I did more than just tell you that you were right and they were wrong. I fought with these two with days on end about this issue. They're more experienced with the topic. They've delt with his sockpuppets before, and unfortunately, you are acting very similarly to many of his sockpuppets. Bobcheezy 04:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism by 142.22.186.12/question about the blocking process

I'm sorry to bother you, but if I'm reading the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page correctly, it looks like you declined to put a block on User:142.22.186.12, a school in B.C., Canada:

(diff) (hist) . . Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism; 16:46 . . RadioKirk (Talk | contribs) (→Alerts - shared IP, gone, NOT EMPTY)

My concern is that in the last 24 hours, they've been on a spree, vandalizing all the pages below:

  • 20:25, 15 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Georgia Depression
  • 20:23, 15 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Submarine
  • 21:47, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) 2006 FIFA World Cup (?ffff=Round of 16=)
  • 21:45, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) 2006 FIFA World Cup (?Round of 16)
  • 20:39, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Michael Vick (?NFL career)
  • 19:41, 14 June 2006 (hist) (diff) Edwin (clothing brand)

Times have been converted to UTC

Is there some mechanism for getting the school to exercise some control? Also, why not block them? Kids could still see the pages -- they couldn't edit them without a user account. It seems reasonable to block this account.

I'm not trying to be the Wiki-boss, or someone fighting city hall, just a user trying to understand how Wikipedia deals with something like this. Maybe I'm just misinterpreting the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism log above.

I will go place still another "last warning tag" on their talk page but if they read it, I have to think they'll just laugh -- they've had so many blocks and warnings.--A. B. 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would simply suggest relisting it. Blocks are preventative measures, so if the vandalism has stopped temporarily there is no need to apply a block. Hope this clarifies you question somewhat. --Lord Deskana I VALUE YOUR OPINIONS 21:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Report

Some minor vandalism cases caused by 82.198.250.126 on the archetype page, the death penalty page and a few others. --Onias 17:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

71.102.31.67

I've been accused of vandalism:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.102.31.67 >.

I hereby request assistance with:

Clarifying what I had done.

Why I had.

Correcting the original problem, of which I had complained.

Ensuring that this would be less likely to recur.

Securing simpler methods for ignorami, such as myself [oxymoron: airhead], to post comments, corrections, et al.

Ensuring that persons would not be accused of something that they had not actually done.

Please, I do want each of these to be responded to as separate issues, in order to ensure that the various elements do not recur.

I suspect it is because, as you just did here, you typed your comments with a ridiculously pointless amount of lines. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Responding to:

I suspect it is because, as you just did here, you typed your comments with a ridiculously pointless amount of lines. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 04:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Since my punctuation offends you, then that makes it okay that wiki would employ someone's photograph in a racist manner.

Much of what wiki is famous for, I have read on thousands of pages.

However, conversely, much of what it is infamous for, has thus far been proven tonight.

You, obviously, deal w/ any criticism w/ snap, caustic, attacks, w/o spending even a micromillisecond on the problem causing any dispute.

I do not know what community you write in; however, many of these webpages do state that the webservers are in Florida. I can see that even the best ideas, through Florida, become infested. There, I can, as well, be caustic; but, we've had centuries of Florida. You've read my comments once.

weaklypedia.

Oh yes, I see the issue. Your edit was to Wikipedia:Long term abuse/The Doppleganger. This is not a talk page. This is a page on a long-term vandal. If you want to discuss the page, use the discussion link. And please fix your formatting and whatnot. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


To you, the issue is invisible.

The discussion-page, like about half of the discussion-pages, has been malfunctioning, @ least on my machine. They often say something like:

We don't have an article called "Long term abuse/The Doppleganger" Search Wikipedia for Long term abuse/The Doppleganger - it might be called something else. ...but you can write it!

That's exactly what your servers keep giving me; pleas repair it, before accusing me of anything.

Or, @ least move that photograph.

Yes, it says "but you can write it!" for a reason. You can write it, right in that nice text box that the Wikipedia gives you that's under all of that text. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
that means that page does not yet exist... I, on behalf of the rest of Wikipedia, invite you to start that page, Be Bold, and make that first entry... but do please learn proper formatting, I invite you to read the welcome text I added to your personal talk page... - Adolphus79 05:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If I, the ignoramus, could have figured-out how to do it, I would've.

If I wanted to commit the vandalism that your oppressive regime has accused me of, I would have moved the photograph in the first place. But, I tried to be polite, & I pointed-out that it was posted in a racist manner.

Which you all have refused to correct.

So, you don't see the text box under all that? I've even tried it without logging in, and after I click "Discussion" I do indeed see a textbox. In fact, even when logged off I just created the talk page. No need to accuse us of being "oppressive" when the issue has to do with your browser or something on your side. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I don't understand why you think the picture is racist? As far as i can see the picture was added because they are twins, it's a play on the word doppleganger. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

On the photograph's description-page, it says:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Identical twin brothers Deon and Ian Baptiste, of the musical-drama group Jeunes Agape. Ian (left) was the recipient of Deon's blood donor stem cells in a successful transplant procedure conducted by the United States National Institutes of Health.

=============================

On the other page, it describes them as vandals.

I described three different sorts of racism, each of which you ignore.

But, your webservers are in Florida. I wonder whether you are in Floridahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Chadcentral, where an inability to perceive racism seems to be a citizenship-requirement.

Please assist me to move the photograph to a respectable locale. Please help me to get the discussion-pages, comment-pages, to work more simply.

The wiki-software should be edited so that I, & other ignorami, are not so stuck.

The fact that it says that I "can create it", does not make it true. Advertizing does not make what is advertized the truth. I am in [Alta] California, where much other fraudulent advertizing is created.



Please assist me to move the photograph to a respectable locale. Please help me to get the discussion-pages, comment-pages, to work more simply.

It said "you can create it", and it meant it. As you can see, I created that talk page, without even logging in, and as easily as I am typing this comment right now. If I could do it, you can too. As for describing them as vandals: it isn't. The article uses their picture because it is a play on the word "Doppleganger", which is also the name of the vandal that the article is centered around. That's it. It's a play on words, not racism. Your "different types of racism" are completely nonsensical. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I understand the argument you are making. i will remove the photograph. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Long_term_abuse/Willy_on_Wheels has a picture of a car, but it's pretty sane not to assume that the car's name is "Willy on Wheels" and that it's a vandal. I also do not think that the two are actually disabled (explaining the odd arm positioning), as another image shows them with arms in a normal position. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do they not deserve their own biography-page??

Why do they not deserve their own biography-page??


If there is anyplace that I had typewritten that the picture is racist, then I am sorry. However, the placement makes them appear to be vandals.

Again: Why do they not deserve their own biography-page??

Actually, even better, we really, desperately, need a disability-wiki.

I could suggest some names for it. However, the software needs to be much more maleable, in order to be more disability-accessible.

Again: Why do they not deserve their own biography-page?? I do not know enough about them to start it. &, I do not know how to operate the create-it-function. Although, I do know enough about disability to suggest some ideas.

&, yet, again: Why do they not deserve their own biography-page??


Why do they not deserve their own biography-page?? Why do they not deserve their own biography-page??

Photograph removed

I've finally found someone to move the photograph:

I removed the photograph in question. It's not really appropriate to illustrate a page about a vandal with people who are not vandals. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Long_term_abuse/The_Doppleganger"

Now, to get them a biography-page. If I would start it, I'd likely make a mess. However, they do deserve the effort.

Is it left entirely to me then??

Just curious: do they meet WP:BIO? If so, how? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that my reason for asking is simple: someone will delete the page unless you can justify its existance. You can read more on why in what the Wikipeda is not. Don't want you to have spent a lot of time making an article that ends up in the gutter because of this. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Jus one of many rasons why they've earned a biography-page is that wiki has targeted them for attack. That is now historical-fact. The fact the insult is no longer there does not alter that. Further, one of you had posted a partial bio. on the picture-description-page.

So, let me get this now, uuuummmm; they're worthy of a bio in order to insult them, as well as to insult me, to label them vandals, as well as myself;....

But, now that that's done, they do not deserve a searchable biography page?? They don't deserve an apology??

Wiki is absolutely conscience-free.


Identical twin brothers Deon and Ian Baptiste, of the musical-drama group Jeunes Agape. Ian (left) was the recipient of Deon's blood donor stem cells in a successful transplant procedure conducted by the United States National Institutes of Health.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Brothers_Baptiste_NIH.jpg >;

< http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Brothers_Baptiste_NIH.jpg >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:71.102.31.67 >;

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/The_Doppleganger >.

D. F. T. P.

Many of these issues could be avoided

Many of these issues could be avoided, in the future,

if we could have a disability-wiki, although the actual name should be discussed.

D. F. T. P.

Excuse me but...

This page is for discussing the AIAV page, nothing else. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 10:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Which page is for clarifying accusations, w/o evidence,...& improving disability-access??

Which page is for clarifying accusations, w/o evidence,...& improving disability-access??

& deleting racism, other insults??

D. F. T. P.

The talk page of the article in question is a good place to start. If that's not possible, the next best place is your own account. Go to Special:Userlogin and create one! It takes about 10 seconds and is totally free. You get a username of your choice (within reason), a user page to identify yourself and your Wikipedia interests, and a talk page for you and others to discuss things on.
If that doesn't appeal to you, then you need to contact directly the person you are in dispute with. This can be on their talk page or by email (if they have it enabled).
But, really, you need to stop talking here. This page has a specific function, and really isn't what you're looking for.
Thanks and happy editing! ➨ ЯЄDVERS 15:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking

Hi,

I think that we're getting a bit block-happy. See User:Refault, who received a 2-day block without a single warning template. - Richardcavell 02:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like an indef troll block now, the user was removing warnings and carrying on...I didn't look too far into it though. Rx StrangeLove 03:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Could we please have a link to Special:Ipblocklist on this page to make it easier for patrollers to determine if a ban has indeed been placed on a vandal? -- Netsnipe 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You can always check the block log from their contributions, but I'm not sure if that's as easy as you were hoping for. -- Natalya 13:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah exactly, and also (as long as each person was listed properly here) there should be a link to that user's block log. It is always more accurate than Special:ipblocklist, because it lists all blocks/unblocks, while that lists only the currently existant blocks. --NicAgent 15:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's Purge Cache Link?

Where's the purge cache of page link? I can't seem to find it. Could anyone add it please?--Andeh 13:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Done--Kungfu Adam (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
:-)--Andeh 21:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Moved it into the main header so it doesn't clog up the edit space.--Andeh 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The "recent warnings" thing just isn't working

Sorry to bring up this arguement again, as I see it's been discussed a few times, but this has really been bothering me. Over the past few days the anonymous user 68.199.204.46 had been sporadically vandalizing articles. He had already been warned by test4 on the 22nd. He was added to this page three separate times, twice by me and a third time by Oscarthecat, all three of which were denied. The first time, done on the 23rd, the administrator didn't even bother to give a reason for not blocking him. The second time, done today, the administrator denied it due to lack of a recent warning. The third time, the administrator mistook the vandalism for a content dispute, but that's beside the point. Eventually, Mushroom saw his edits and blocked him himself. My point is that while his vandalism started back before June 22nd, it took until today for someone to finally block him. Why? Because he hadn't been "warned recently". I'm assuming that's the reason why he wasn't blocked the first time as well. Maybe someone could help elaborate the reasoning behind that to me, but personally, I don't think that makes any sense. If the user is warned with "This is your final warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia." and then he or she vandalizes again and they don't get blocked, what kind of lesson is that teaching them? "This is your last warning. Seriously. At least until a few hours or so from now... then you can vandalize again." I just think admins need to stop worrying about when a vandal was given their "final warning". Geg 01:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

68.199.204.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) added just for ref purposes.--Andeh 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The vandal may have not been blocked by the admin because not ALL edits appeared to be blatent vandalism, instead some of them were adding wrong information. If you really believe that the user needs to be blocked just re-add the user to WP:AIV explaining the situation in more detail so any admins watching do make sure they need to be blocked. Also make sure to use good edit summaries so the admins know what's going on.--Andeh 17:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Echoing what Andeh says - if you think the wrong decision is reached, relist the vandal with more detail. The more help you give us in the entry on this page the easier it is to deal with correctly - if there is no detail all we can do is do a quick review of the edit contributions and make a judgement call. If there's any suggestions for a better system I'm sure everyone here would love to discuss it. Personally, I think this works well. Kcordina Talk 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


WilliamSmith on Donald Trump

User WilliamSmith made 3 vandalism edits on Donald Trump. I am not sure if his other edit is vandalism becauase I do not know the topic, but it doesn't seem so. I do not know how to check his warning history. Also, the last edit on this page on June 26 seems odd and may be vandalism. Tony The Tiger 02:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was vandalism, he's been warned by Ian Manka.--Andeh 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What's a "ceiling cat vandal"?

I saw this term in the comments as I went to edit the AIV page and report a vandal. This type of vandal (CCV) sounds very dangerous, perhaps sneaking around and pouncing from above. What should I be looking for?? Thanks in advance for clarifying. --A. B. 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
(faithful floor dog editor)

This is a ceiling cat. Someone else can fill you in on the details of the Ceiling Cat Vandal (I'm only peripherally aware of them). JDoorjam Talk 04:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The Ceiling Cat Vandal is a vandal that goes around with what seems to be a spambot, adding the same content to every article it hits (so named because the first content they inserted was a picture of the Ceiling Cat). While on its own it's not that big a problem, what really makes it dangerous is the fact that it comes from AOL, so its IP changes often. That means we can't effectively block it (and can't block it for more than a few hours anyway to avoid massive collateral damage to legit editors). --james // bornhj (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any kind of robot or program that can detect adding certain text, such as "ceiling_cat.jpg" and automatically revert changes? Flibirigit 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe we deleted the image outright. TheProject 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What to do next...

I blocked 125.236.44.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) about a week ago, with the block notice reading "vandalism; 22nd block; have your system administrator contact me" (taking a leaf out of Hall Monitor's book). Now, the supposed system administrator (Smc.helpdesk (talk · contribs)) contacted me on my talk page, but I suspect something strange is going on, as:

  1. The message left on my talk page has very poor grammar
  2. The account was created very recently (<1 day)
  3. The user's only contribution was to my talk page

An excerpt of their message:

"At our school we take these kind of issues seriously. We would like to explain to the vandal why it is not a good idea to vandalized the articles at Wikipedia.

Would you please provide any additional information about the vandalism. So our school is able to regain, editing access at wikipedia, and so we can ensure that this is not going to be an issue again in the future."

Should I just point them to the IP's contributions, and let them draw conclusions for themselves?

Any idea on how to approach this? Thanks, Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Ask them to email you from an address that is clearly associated with the school's staff. They shouldn't have a problem with this if they are genuine. Oh and yeh, there's no harm in pointing to contribution history and block log. Petros471 17:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, my e-mail user link was in the block text. Eh, I'll do that. Thanks! Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User name can't be email address?

I've been visiting WP:AIV to combat the vandalism that the users listed may still be committing, and I've been seeing that user names that are email addresses are listed here every so often. Why is that? Is there a rule that forbids user names to be email addresses? Ryulong 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Answered on users talk-page. Lectonar 08:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that bad usernames should be listed here. Using email addresses as a username is not "vandalism". --Woohookitty(meow) 08:14, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
You're right of course, but the more appropriate page WP:AN/I is cluttered up anyway; do you think we would need a separate page for reporting bad usernames? Lectonar 08:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Might not be a bad idea. There should be an easy place to put them. And you are right. AN/I and AN are cluttered already. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it could be a subpage of AIV, such as an AIV/U or its own page such as WP:AIIU or whatever sort of crazy abbreviation can come from "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention for inappropriate usernames" or some synonymous name. Ryulong 08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I'll post to AN or AN/I and see what people think of the idea. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Here we go. :) I think it's an excellent idea myself. There should be a place for non-admins to post usernames that violate policy. --Woohookitty(meow) 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merge of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2

Is there a particular need for this separate subpage? As has been pointed out occasionally, it probably isn't on as many watchlists as the main page, meaning it gets less attention.

The main reason I can see for it is that dealing with bot reports requires special care. It may actually be that the bot is more reliable than humans, since it never falsely reports NPOV issues and other disagreements as 'vandalism' - obviously that doesn't allow us to be complacent. As it's a bot and doesn't worry about how long it spends typing, why not have it post to the main page, but expand on the explanation a bit? Currently it just says "Has vandalised x times in 24 hours" - if we added "This report comes from a bot - please check every contribution and inform (whoever) if the bot is in error", we would still have that caveat. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I suppose we could use {{Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2}} below the normal reports so that no-one has to configure the bot. Or you could do the opposite and re-configure the bot and make it only add to the normal report page. Iolakana|T 14:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose we want to get a consensus on this, so I vote to merge.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the bot more likely to hit edit conflicts if it is adding to the main page? That would be my main concern, having a report lost because the bot conflicted with someone manually adding a report to the much busier main page. I'm also going to post a notice of this discussion to Tawker and Joshbuddy. They may have other valid reasons why they designed the bots to post to a separate page from the main notice page. - TexasAndroid 14:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for it for the reasons that Samuel mentioned. I have TB2 on the WL but I know it often sits there unattended for hours and hours. But I have TexasAndroid's concern. I don't want the bot to have problems. --Woohookitty(meow) 14:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any edit conflicts if it just edits its own section. --tomf688 (talk - email) 14:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It still will have edit conflicts, but I think something could be scripted in to have it try again if it conflicts.--Kungfu Adam (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be wonderful. I feel bad for our favorite bot sometimes. Poor ignored fella! Or. Fellas! lol --Woohookitty(meow) 14:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to address some of these concerns, when the vandalbot conflicts on an edit, it doesn't overwrite. Instead it could be made to make several retries. (As opposed to right now, it just gives up) As well, the listing it generates could include diffs to make them a little more standard. joshbuddy, talk 15:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge, bot alerts should be seperate from user alerts.--Andeh 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think lolakana's template idea is best. That way, TB2 alerts will appear on the main AIV page without any reprogramming of the bot or edit confict troubles. Although it also means there's no notification of a report. -- Steel 17:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Templating/transcluding the bot page onto the bottom of the main page would be an interesting solution. The bot page would need to be streamlined to mesh cleanly into the main page visually. And anyone who wants to see the bot page's edits on their WL can still bookmark the bot page. The main page gets enough traffic that this should give good visibility to the bot alerts, even if the people with only the main page on their WL don't get specific alerts for it. And this solution would require no updates to the bots themselves. - TexasAndroid 18:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But while we're here, what WOULD we want to see from the bots warning messages? joshbuddy, talk 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I would still prefer merging to the transcluding idea. Part of the point of this is that /TB2 isn't watchlisted as much as the main AIV page is, so if you have to watchlist /TB2 to see alerts, then no matter where it appears, there's still a problem. --Sam Blanning(talk) 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless there are reasons against merging which I'm currently unaware of, I'm in favour of merging. I presume that bot would add the reports to a separate section from that used by humans. I always check that it really is vandalism before blocking, and I imagine most admins do, so I don't really see a problem with allowing the bot to post reports on the same page as humans. (I check their reports before I block as well!) By the way, I think since the bot is not infallible (though he's pretty close), his message when reporting should read "Seems to have vandalized four times" etc. AnnH ♫ 21:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for merging... Tawkerbot2 reminds me of T3-M4. Faithful and reliable. Unfortunately, TB2 doesn't have the same sense of humour. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Put a horizontabl bar, give it a section heading, and transclude it. — xaosflux Talk 03:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd go with merge. Primarily on the basis of it being more clear from just one page if someone has been reported already by the bot. Also I guess admins only having to check one page. The listings being signed by TB2 will still show that they're bot edits, so there shouldn't be any confusion about that. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 04:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transclude. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Whatever is technically possible..I don't mind having the 2 merged; they're on my watchlist anyway. Lectonar 13:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the proposed merger, not particularly transclusion. Have a separate edit section for TBx alerts, which will help with the edit conflict issue, but don't transclude as that won't help with the watchlist issue. Petros471 08:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I am very much in support of just having the bot write to AIV (merging). I can see no real problems with it other than the possibility that it may cause a torrent of edits to the main page, which is just in tune to the amount of vandalism going on. The bot is much faster than the RC patrol, and if it writes to AIV, then VandalProof users (and possibly users of other software) would simply get an "already reported" message rather than risk redundancy when reporting a user that's already been listed by the bot on the other page. This is assuming I understand correctly how both the bot and VP work.
    I think making a separate section for the bot on the page would become a pain for editors somehow, though, and what's the trouble with just letting it mimic a real patroller? -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's been a while since this merge has been proposed, and it looks like the consensus was to merge or otherwise have the TB2 page show up on AIAV. I'd merge the two myself, but knowing me, I'd probably mess it up. Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I normally do merges as soon as it looks like I won't be reverted, but in this case there's a technical issue as the bots have to be reconfigured, so it seems we need Tawker to actually do it. I'll leave a message on his talk page. I think I should repeat that I hope that the pages are merged and not transcluded for the reasons above; mainly because I proposed this for the watchlist issue, which transcluding wouldn't affect, and might even harm as people would be less likely to watchlist a transcluded subpage. --Sam Blanning(talk) 08:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been following this but I'm not totally sure if consensus is to merge or transclude, hence no action from me. As of this moment transclude is the fastest way to move the results (as there are something like 4 copies of Tawkerbot2 out there, and we would need to send an updated version to each one (I think I'll transclude for the moment) -- Tawker 13:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what the technical difficulties would be, but if it's reasonably do-able, I'd prefer that it would be merged. Otherwise, when I go to AIV, and block a user, I then have to go specially to the Tawkerbot page to remove that user, saying he's blocked. It would be easier if I could just go back to the page I came from. And, it would be easier if there were just one page for reports. I was also wondering if the heading "Alerts" in AIV should be changed to something like "Alerts from human editors" (if we're going to have a special bot section), or does that sound a bit silly? AnnH ♫ 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So far, I like. I like how you can remove it from TB2 and it removes it from both pages. I like. --Woohookitty(meow) 00:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The transclusion seems to be working very well, just use oen link in new tab for the edit box if you want to keep the page open. (Open in new window for IE users). — xaosflux Talk 03:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added {{userlinks-tt}} for dealing with suspected imposters; it displays the URL-encoded version of the username in addition to the other stuff. For example, on a notorious imposter of Jimbo Wales, the template displays:

Jіmbо Wаlеѕ ("J%D1%96mb%D0%BE+W%D0%B0l%D0%B5%D1%95" · talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I couldn't find any existing username template with this particular functionality.

What do folks think? --EngineerScotty 05:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it'll be useful. It's much easier than having to change the font face of the {{vandal}} template so it shows serif. Ryulong 06:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
It's more than showing serif; it also involves rendering Unicode characters (outside the Latin character set) as escape sequences. In the example above, various characters in the Cyrillic code set which are duplicates of Latin letters (but unique Unicode entites) are used to create a username which looks exactly like User:Jimbo Wales, but is considered different by the WikiMedia software. By use of the "urlencode" macro, it gets turned into the escape sequences, making it easy to spot the impersonation.
BTW, {{vandal}} is a redirect to {{userlinks}}. It wouldn't be hard to redir it to userlinks-tt; however, such a move shouldn't be made without consensus. Lots of people transclude the User-multi error: no username detected (help). template outside the admin noticeboards, so changing where it points to is potentially disruptive.
--EngineerScotty 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

{{blatantvandal}}

Why is it that vandals that have been tagged with this and then listed here are sometimes not blocked, but given a {{test4}}? Several "only warnings" that I've given to destructive vandals were then given a final warning template, instead. Ryulong 04:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

A few admins feel uncomfortable blocking someone with just one notice, because of WP:AGF and all that. However, others don't, so it really depends on who gave them the test4, and perhaps they thought that the vandalism was severe, but not to the extent of a direct block. Titoxd(?!?) 06:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
An blatant is subjective, I've seen BV on some talks that I would have only used a test2-n or npa tag for. — xaosflux Talk 22:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

New Layout

There is a problem with the new layout. Automatic reporting using VandalProof puts the reports at the bottom of the page - where Tawkerbots reports are meant to go (and where what looks like a temporary report on Rajput troll is). This is not that big of a deal, but not so nice looking.--Konstable 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I've re-ordered the sections to deal with this. Hopefully that Rajput section can go soon as it's making the page more confusing for reporters. I'm also not sure if tawkerbot will revert my edit to its section (depends how reports are added to it I guess). Petros471 14:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the Rajput section out as it's been over an hour since the last attack so the vandal is clearly out of IPs or out of energy. Easily restored. Page looks nice, Petros! ➨ ЯEDVERS 14:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that the user-made reports are at the bottom where as Tawkerbot's is on top? Coding work around?Ryulong 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
We put Tawkerbot's reports at the bottom for a few hours. Reporters proceeded to add reports below, above, in, around and generally all over the place. Confusion reigned. So it was moved to the top, where it is "hidden" amongst the code. Confusion ended. So, whilst not being as logically laid out as some might like, for ease of use of the reporters and the clearing admins, it's best to go there. ➨ ЯEDVERS 11:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Notice removed for reason I don't quite grok

A little while ago, I posted the following notice:

This notice was then removed by RadioKirk, with the edit summary "rm content dispute, try WP:DRV". I thought the removal of an AfD tag during an ongoing discussion was an issue of conduct, not content. (It's not a part of Wikipedia I delve into very frequently, so I may be mistaken about community practice here. Nothing new about that!) WP:DRV doesn't seem to address this type of complaint, either, since the article in question hasn't been deleted yet — it just seems to be going that way very rapidly. Would anyone care to educate the naïve (me)? Anville 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It is vandalism - Avoidant vandalism - but the warning was misplaced on the user page instead of the user talk page, which might be the reason why Iq Prophet didn't receive the message yet. AZ t 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/Archive_3&oldid=1190272275"