Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pakaran (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 16 November 2003 (Possible Michael?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Purpose

The purpose of this page is to provide instant notice of vandalism taking place. You can use the format under the Current Alerts heading: IP address, pages touched, damage done. For a more comprehensive guide for dealing with different types of vandalism, see Dealing with vandalism.

For a list of currently blocked IPs and usernames and the reason why they were blocked, visit: Special:Ipblocklist. Tools for finding information on an IP number:

Cautions and alternatives

However, please do not label isolated instances of text deletions, replacements or odd additions as VANDALISM unless they seem intentionally overly lewd or offensive. More often than not, this is just a visitor to the site experimenting with how to use it (also see newbie test) -- labeling them as a VANDAL is a sure way of ensuring they will not become contributors. Only add alerts to this page of true VANDALISM such as a systematic attack on several articles. Above all, please be polite at first and give the person the benefit of the doubt until they prove they deserve otherwise.

Please note that deliberate vandalism of this page is likely to lead to your being blocked from editing the Wikipedia.

If you disagree with someone's edits, please see the following pages:

  • Note: Please add new alerts at the top of this list.

Current alerts

Miscellaneous

  • [1] looks like a possible Michael. Note the redirection to Hephaestos' user page. -- Pakaran 21:43, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • If y'all could keep an eye on Frida Kahlo through the day. The article has been bothered by a prankster many times today. thanks. Kingturtle 18:36, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • User:204.96.197.145 made his first three edits to User:Michael and Michael-related pages. The fourth edit to Death By Stereo appears okay, but I'm tempted to block/revert/delete on principle. 3 of 4 edits being vandalism is not good. Daniel Quinlan 08:46, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
    • Michael is hard banned, even useful edits are to be reverted. The first three edits were clearly Michael-like. -- Tim Starling 08:57, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:69.139.182.75 has now met my definition of vandalizing Channel Tunnel. Before I just figured it was someone wondering what happens when you replace the contents of a page with nonsense (it gets reverted, that's what). When you replace the revert with more nonsense, that's vandalism. --Charles A. L. 21:23, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:65.110.6.34 purposely removed all text from the Las Vegas, Nevada wikipage, leaving it completely blank. This is not the first incident of vandalism by this user! I have also had to revert pages such as WNET which he purposely changed with inaccurate information. According to this user's talk page they were reprimanded by RickK for deleting items. It is therefore my recommendation that this user's IP address be blocked. Misterrick 00:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This IP has been used (once, I think) as a sock-puppet for User:Slakhan, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the same person again. Then it appeared that Slakhan was attempting to divert a page of his from deletion - this isn't his style. Anyway, if it's a dialup (I can't tell from reverse-dns) then there's no way of knowing who it is, and IP blocks generally last only a day (as they're mostly intended to stop persistent vandals in the midst of a prolonged attack). -- Finlay McWalter 00:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Ahhhh. This IP belongs to www.proxyweb.net, an anonymising service (a free one too). I just used it to write stuff on my own talk page, and indeed it shows up as the same IP. So this tells us a) there's no way to know what wikipedian is using it this time, if any and b) this is one IP we need to keep a weather-eye on. -- Finlay McWalter 01:06, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • IMHO I think that this IP address SHOULD be banned immediately because otherwise you will start having a wave of abuse on Wikipedia coming from this IP address. Misterrick 01:19, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • Well, there's no wave yet (there really very seldom is). And anyway, I'm sure some could honestly argue that permanently blocking an anonymiser could discourage wikipedians from countries with totalitarian regimes from updating pages about that country (lest they get dragged away by the secret police). In the absence of such an onslaught, I'm included to let it lie. -- Finlay McWalter
  • User:Michael is back, now with changing IPs like 152.163.253.xx. andy 16:18, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Also made the name St. Hephaestos, blocked by 3 different users within 1 minute. -- Mattworld 20:08, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • User:35.8.131.155/User:134.215.226.45/User:207.179.108.132 keeps changing the regular dashes between birth and death dates to ndashes; refuses to discuss the matter. --Wik 03:00, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
    • And that's vandalism? Angela 03:27, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes. It undermines the existing standard and creates an incoherent mix of styles. Also, some browsers render the ndash as a question mark. --Wik 03:32, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)
        • I for one would be interested in knowing exactly where this "existing standard" is defined. On Wikipedia:Special characters such " typeset-style punctuation" is considered safe and acceptable. -- Viajero 11:08, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
          • It is defined by the fact that the vast majority of the existing biographical articles use a regular dash. --Wik 01:34, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
  • 62.167.198.44 Added a link to Current Events about George W. Bush being killed. Reference was listed only as "Yahoo!". Oddly, Google News has not picked up this shocking event. -- Pakaran 00:48, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Didora - account obviously only created to upload nude copyrighted pics. I blocked him after he continued despite warning on his talk. andy 09:19, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • 68.36.87.194 is making racist entries. All the entries are identical and consist of an entire of a racial slur repeated over and over. —Frecklefoot 16:20, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Can find nothing for this ip: [2] Can you recheck or post name of an article? Thanks Viajero 17:20, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Recent changes showed a few articles being deleted just before the mention on this page, with 'racism' in the deletion comment. I haven't checked, but there may be a connection. Κσυπ Cyp 18:21, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Yes, that does appear to be the case. Articles such as Hyperion (superhero) and Golden Archer were created by 68.36.87.194 and have since been deleted. Angela 18:34, Nov 6, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:64.180.13.158 and Ivar Kreuger. Repetedly changing the article to purport claims that Kreuger was in fact assassinated. There are no conslusive evidence supporting a murder theory, and general belief holds that Kreuger committed suicide. Mic 13:30, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:195.92.67.70 has returned to vandalise my user page. This is the same User:guy as 195.92.67.67 that I mentioned below, clearly on a dynamic IP (issued by Planet Online, UK ISP - if he persists we can complain to them I guess). The joke is wearing a bit thin now. GRAHAMUK 23:47, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:167.83.10.23 vandalized Luise Gottsched -- Nico 15:23, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • This is part of the Danzig/Gdansk Silesia argument. This is an ongoing national edit war not vandalism. Secretlondon
      • This person has done the same edit on this article a number of times, and has consequently been reverted by several admins, including RickK. ----
        • We can all revert articles - it's not that hierarchical. From looking at the Selesia edit war you and RickK are on the same side. This isn't overly lewd or offensive - it is national/political. Secretlondon 17:38, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:68.101.124.249 is creating nonsense articles and vandalized my user pages. -- VV 07:58, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:12.234.63.242 is vandalizing/blanking pages like crazy. I can barely keep up. -- VV 06:26, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Warned, will keep an eye out. Dysprosia 06:31, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • this user vandelized this page. I have a nasty hunch it's the same person listed below. -- Pakaran 16:58, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Massive vandelism of this page ("Angela's Penis" pasted all over the place). Someone block 205.188.209/25, maybe even /24? Please? -- Pakaran 15:35, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • That seems to be AOL IPs. IIRC AOL has the problem that the IP changes all the time even without the user is reconnecting. But blocking all of AOL would be a bit drastic... andy 15:47, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Well, I'll just revert his stuff as it happens then, I guess. -- Pakaran 15:49, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:195.92.67.67 keeps insisting on adding some mildly amusing (the first time anyway) but bogus text to Long Crendon. He/She/It has made a number of other perfectly fine contributions under this IP, so seems to be a sub-vandalism attempt to inflict his/her/its badger-related sense of humour on the rest of us. GRAHAMUK 11:51, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Has vandalised other (user) pages. I have blocked that IP - if you feel thats overreacting, will unblock it. Kosebamse 13:12, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Unblocked, it seemed not too serious, let's see. Kosebamse 11:26, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Kingpr0n

  • User:Kingpr0n. Signed up today and his edits are quite inappropriate. Seems to have a interest in the female anus. User name probably considered offensive as well. Suspect he's simply a vandal, as he seems to know his way around well enough. I'm going to revert Tera Patrick and Sylvia Saint. Not going to touch current events. References: Tera Patrick, Sylvia Saint, Current Events -- Vudujava
    • I reverted Current events, and left a message for him(?) on his talk page. He's probably twelve. -- Finlay McWalter 15:09, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • He also blanked my user page and left his (rather unhelpful) response there. But he doesn't seem to have done any more changes in the wikipedia namespace (and his user page is none of my business). -- Finlay McWalter 19:55, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • In his defense, the alterations on the porn star pages were genuine additions of genuine information, albeit concerned exclusively with anal sex. Of course, that subject's not wildly surprising on a page about a porn star. (Whether it belong in wikipedia is another story.) But it can't objectively be called vandalism, I don't think. By the way, both starlet pages use the euphemism "erotic actress" rather than the more stright-forward and obvious "porn star". Why the weasel words? orthogonal 22:01, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Making baseless claims about anal stretching is not exactly an appropriate entry. If he wants to do an article on the subject, fine, but saying this porn star or that engages in the practice is pure speculation. vudu 00:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm starting a stub article on Anal stretching. Kingpr0n, if you like, feel free to state the objective, NPOV facts as you perceive them. It might be best to keep them there, and not to put allegations on individual actor/actress articles. I also wonder how seriously you take the whole thing, given the goatse reference on your user page, but that's a different issue... -- Pakaran 02:29, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Anyway, is it baseless speculation if there's documentary evidence? --Charles A. L. 13:24, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
      • I won't argue the practice of anal stretching (tho the idea makes my eyes water) as I know the practice exists. Baseless speculation would be claiming that Tera Patrick's motives for leaving the industry were to practice anal stretching AND to return for the express purpose of performing anal for big money. Show me reputable (for some value of reputable) documentation of either Ms Patrick or Ms. Saint's participation in such a practice. vudu 17:06, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • That's fair enough - and in that regard KingPr0n's edits were just as problematic as similiar edits in a less contraversal area of human knowledge - he's making claims that have no apparent factual justification. Nobody argues that a practice of stunt work in filmmaking exists, but saying that Ronald Reagan retired from the movies to gain that skill would be contraversal to say the least. -- Pakaran 20:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

BigCat

  • I'm not sure if User:BigCat is a vandal or just an overly friendly and ambitious person, as they have attempted to write the The Decline of Western Civilization article, but they have also been adding strange greetings to various user talk pages (mine, Trontonian, Snoyes, Zoicon, some others). Maybe it's nothing, but I thought I should mention it. Adam Bishop 03:02, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • It seems harmless to me... as long as it's not added to a lot of talk pages.. ehh. Evil saltine 03:08, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • He added a strange greeting to my home page as well. Is he just vandalising Canadians talk pages? dave 01:49, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Ok...another question then, what about User:Khranus? Is it alright to add some bizarre essay to a talk page? He has apparently been warned about vandalism before, so this seems like a sneakier way to get around it. Adam Bishop 03:15, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • More defacement of this page, very similar to early defacements listed below, this time from 65.33.254.185: IP blocked. -- The Anome 15:59, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • 64.12.96.199 is vandalizing this page as well. Time for another ban I think, search for this user in this page for other instances Dori 22:44, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Kommiec

  • User:Kommiec is putting a personal POV on the history of Poland into a number of Wikipedia articles. RickK 05:55, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • If you scroll down, you'll see that they are already listed on this page from their earlier activities. InanimateCarbonRod 06:16, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • He continues to vandalize/removing German names from articles like Andreas Schlüter Nico 03:00, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Kommiec is now back as User:12.243.94.55, vandalizing articles like Gdansk -- Nico 14:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

80.14.148.173

  • Someone is interspersing the village pump with huge numbers of obscenities. Pakaran 00:27, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Note - it looks like this was done with the aid of a text editor replacing the word "the" with a certain unprintable phrase. -- Pakaran 00:32, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

80.255

"Duchy" problem

  • I need help on the Duchy talk page. I want out of the page and trolls come by to revert it back there, calling me a vandal, trying to flame me and they want to be fed a cookie. My comments are old opinions of possible mistake that I no longer pursue. I feel abused and that I am being set up to look bad. Kenneth Alansson [User:Someone else|Someone else] has refactored his contribution and deleted my input. I surely hope it stays that way. When I delete my stuff it's because it has become irrelevant, and trolls dive in to revert flame and call me a vandal when I am no longer in dispute over an issue. Someone else and I have resolved our dispute.
    • You shouldn't revert a talk page (for anything other than out-and-out vandalism), even if the stuff you're reverting was put there by you. Doing so makes it difficult for the rest of us to figure out what went on there previously. When you submitted stuff, even on the talk page, you surrendered exclusive ownership of it, and other users are quite within their rights to restore talk you've deleted. A talk page should read like a contemporaneous discussion, not just one side of that discussion. The fact you have resolved the dispute does not mean the dispute did not occur. -- Finlay McWalter 20:30, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • But it also does mean that the dispute is irrelevant to the page. Why keep a sight for sore eyes around when nobody cares? It simply wastes space. Why should anybody care that Someone else and I had a dispute over the issue? He summed up a proper finish to the issue and I am glad he was okay with it, and I do not appreciate being implicated as a vandal or accused as potentially blocked from this site by random visitors not involved with the issue. The issue was solved. Finito. Done. Gone. Over. Get the clue.
        • "Please note that all contributions to Wikipedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Wikipedia:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." Andy Mabbett 15:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

203.14.53.105

  • 203.14.53.105 has vandalised Bob Brown (someone out there loves me) Adam 04:28, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

210.50.216.195

  • My homepage and the article Kerry Nettle are being vandlaised by 210.50.216.195 Adam 04:23, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I blocked this IP. Angela 04:26, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

64.12.96.71

  • I have now IP blocked 64.12.96.71 -- The Anome 13:50, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 64.12.96.71 (cache-mtc-ac02.proxy.aol.com) and 64.12.96.199 (cache-mtc-ak02.proxy.aol.com) appear to be the same or related vandals: common characteristics: same ISP's proxies with apparently related names, same /24, vandalism of admin pages, similar timespan, liking for interpolating text with the word "penis". -- The Anome 13:37, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:64.12.96.71: vandalized Wikipedia:Protected_page. -- BCorr ? Брайен 13:30, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:64.12.96.199: vandalised this page. Change reverted, IP blocked. -- The Anome 13:29, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Older entries

  • 12.64.96.36, assorted vandalism one right after the other. IP Blocked.Ark30inf 02:53, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Mythrandia has been adding nonsense articles and adding nonsense links to valid articles. User contributions show every entry by this user is now listed on VfD. Attempts to are ignored. - Marshman 17:02, 18 Oct 2003
  • A user with changing IP keeps vandalizing Paul Levesque. All the IPs appearing here should be blocked (and not just for 24 hours). --Wik 04:46, Oct 17, 2003
  • I may be jumping to conclusions, but 67.123.172.223 seems like he might be Michael, since he is making strange changes to Hephaestos' userpage. He's also been making a lot of music-related edits all day, that have gone unnoticed. Adam Bishop 02:37, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • That looks very michaelish.64.175.251.52 looks suspicious, too, sorry, can't check further as the Wiki's choking. Kosebamse 15:15, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Yeah, those were him. He might get away with it if he didn't vandalize user pages... Adam Bishop 03:52, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 12.228.92.12 has been making edits in the articles previously favoured by the "Ptolomaic dynasty" vandal. I can't absolutely say they are vandalism, but they are suspicious, and do require scrutiny. I have asked (on anonymous user's anonymous talk page) that they explain additions in edit fields. -- Someone else 22:18, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Barry20lions is repeatedly vandalizing the Juventus article. If he does nothing else besides that, a quick block should take care of things. --Modemac 14:14, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:65.117.156.222 has been adding junk about girl scouts and the like at various articles across the board, examples [3], [4], and much more, this user has done this twice already and has been blocked twice... Dysprosia 01:36, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Who keeps unblocking him then? --Wik 15:11, Oct 9, 2003 (UTC)
      • AFAIK blocks now expire after 24 hours, as most vandals won't come back, and rarely with the same IP. andy 15:27, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • The girl scout vandal has made a short reappearance as User:210.50.40.191. After vandalizing my User page I blocked him directly. andy 14:48, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • A user on a dynamic IP in the range 138.163.0.4x is trashing Clinton articles and removing negative links from Bush articles. [5], [6], [7] --mav 22:17, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:12.243.94.55's strong feeling that Danzig should be referred to only as Gdansk is...reminiscent. -- Someone else 01:45, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Hmm..I wonder who that could be.Vancouverguy 01:47, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Well it's not Heine this time. This is an American IP. Heine's was from Norway. Angela 01:56, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • If it had been me, I had insisted that Danzig should be referred to only as Danzig, and not the other way round. But I have no problems with mentioning the Polish name too. Heine 07:07, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • The tactics are similar, and this one isn't restricted to one page.Vancouverguy 01:57, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • I was thinking only of the fixation, which matches that of User:H.J., whose previous IP address was American but different from this one. Doesn't mean it's her, of course, I suppose there's more than one person of such mindset. -- Someone else 02:21, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • 12.243.94.55 is back again. I'm concidering blocking this IP.Vancouverguy 03:30, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • 12.243.94.55 is now User:Kommiec.Vancouverguy 03:38, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • 206.172.171.1 whilst not actually a vandal this person is clearly pro-nazi and has sneaked pro-nazi POV edits into articles. Those who are concerned about such things might want to keep an eye on them.
    • Took a quick look, and it seems debatable. The guy isn't going overboard, so we'll just keep a lookout. No red alerts are necessary at this time. --Modemac 09:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure- anyone who changes a description of the book The Turner Diaries from "race-hate fantasy" to "racial revolutionary fiction" ( on the National Alliance page) and regards violent race-hate mongers like Combat 18 as 'revolutionary' certainly needs to have an eye kept on them...
  • As a heads-up, 203.59.48.208 and new user Northboat ([8]) are almost certainly the same person. - Hephaestos 07:52, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • And Southboat isn't doing us any favors either. Fuzheado
      • Judging by the edit summaries and number of edits, I would say that if s/he comes back, they should be automatically blocked.Vancouverguy 15:40, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I thought it wasn't allowed to block by user name, with the exception of previously banned users? Angela 15:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • Or cases of simple vandalism [9]. Remember the MIT vandal? Many, many logged in edits, all simple vandalism and no way to block without developer access. There should be no problem with blocking this sort of thing. -- sannse 12:20, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • If they come back and do the same things, we can discuss a ban.Vancouverguy 15:44, 28 Sep 2003
      • This is a slippery slope, folks. The revert button should be sufficient. -- Cyan 20:04, 28 Sep 2003
  • User:80.225.73.197, after a long series of edits today that seemed OK (at first glance, anyway) added Fawcett's gill-eyed frost stalk, (Fawcetociconius novazealandiae ) an entirely fictious "recently extict member of the stork familly" that lays eggs underwater. Females then pile dead fish atop the eggs, and the decay of these would warm the water, incubating the eggs. Even so, at lower than usual temperatres found in such a habitat, chicks would not be ready to hatch out until 9 months after laying. after hatching, chicks would swim up through the rotting fish carcasses, and kill their exhausted mother, whose body would provide both shetler and food in the hostile climate. And so on. Quite funny, but utter nonsnse. I deleted that page, but the user has edited heaps of other stuff today, all of which will need to be checked. I have not banned the user at this stage (everyone is entitled to one chance), but I certainly will if he/she repeats this or any similar offence. Some of the topics 80.225.73.197 has "contributed" to are within my field of competence, but others are not, so please take a look and see if there is more stuff that needs to be deleted or reverted, and implement a ban if needed. Tannin 10:02, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • OK, there is more: Dobson Teighnditch "Former British Physicist and developer of the malholnian theory of magnetic diapause dispersion. He lives in east sussex, england and also has a keen interest in breeding rare breed pigs and hard-boiled eggs." Zero Google hits. Also Hubalu lake squid - zero hits, but no obvious nonsense this time. Tannin 10:11, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • It's also interesting to note that the same IP has made a number of edits that have attempted to tone down criticism of the BNP in the British National Party article. Is the pro-BNP slant an indication of this author's real opinions, or is he/she trolling? -- The Anome 15:46, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • He is back as User:80.225.62.213. Tannin 12:37, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I think this is the same person -- User:80.225.79.69 -- who had been adding extraneous text to articles to link to Horace Donisthorpe yesterday. I removed them myself because they didn't seem to rise to the level of vandalism, but when I looked at User:80.225.73.197 and User:80.225.16.87 they've been editing the same sets of articles. -- Bcorr
    • This user is back at 80.225.76.94. I have posted a message on their talk page. -- The Anome 18:36, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • OK, I'm finding dealing with this user tedious. The Peterborough/Cambidgeshire edits are particularly silly -- a moment's research shows his edits are wrong. I propose a IP ban unless this user changes their behavior in the next few minutes. -- The Anome 18:46, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I agree.Vancouverguy 18:51, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Seconded if needed. Ark30inf 18:52, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Me three Bcorr 18:54, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Blocked by Angela and Tannin.
      • Unblocked by Enchanter In particular, I disagree that the Peterborough/Cambridgeshire edits were silly - he had some good points - and blocking him immediately after these edits might be interpreted as using a ban to resolve a content dispute, rather than out and out vandalism. Enchanter
      • Enchanter is right: recent behavior appears to be improved. We should not ban based on content disputes. -- The Anome 22:15, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • In fairness, I don't think you can say that is what the ban was based on. It was largely based on other things. Apparently there is a chance that the user will get with the program.Ark30inf 22:20, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • I agree with Ark30inf -- this user's behavior has been problematic in a number of ways -- but I think it's fine to give the the benefit of the doubt for the time being. Bcorr 22:25, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Perhaps I was too hasty, but it seemed s/he had been causing a lot of problems all day and there was a great deal of support above for this ban, and then I saw what I felt were unnecessary personal attacks which is what the ban was for, not for a content issue. Angela 22:27, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Just to clarify, my comment above was not meant as criticism of Angela or Tannin: after all, I originally proposed the ban, and will re-propose it if the user reverts to previous behavior. However, they do seem to have changed their behavior for now, so the short ban seems to have been effective... -- The Anome 08:47, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Once again, "me too." I completely appreciate your taking action as was requested, Angela -- I was just thinking that perhaps I was also too quick to jump on the banning bandwagon. -- Bcorr 20:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Just noting that this person is back as User:80.255 -- so far focusing on same stuff -- Bcorr 02:20, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Adding a note that tonight Hephaestos and I had a chat with User:80.255. In creating an article about Arthur Chesterton, the founder of the racist organization called the National Front, 80.255 minimized Chesterton's racist feelings (calling him merely right-wing) and attempted to associate J.R.R. Tolkien with the man, despite a paucity of evidence. Not the kind of behavior I'd normally report (80.255 was fairly civil and not inflammatory once I challenged the way the article was written), but as this user is apparently controversial, I thought I'd note that perhaps 80.255 does have a political agenda, though of course I have no way of knowing. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 01:13, 11 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:64.216.58.65 is systematically removing all toxicity information and external links from the elements -- 17 so far. (I'm pretty new, so if this isn't vandalism, let me know where to report this in the future....) -- Bcorr 01:28, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • That is definately vandalism.Vancouverguy 01:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've asked them why. Dysprosia 01:32, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've reverted his edits.Vancouverguy 01:48, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • They're back -- did the same to Vanadium and Chromium -- I'm reverting the edits now... -- Bcorr 18:34, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)bb
    • If he comes back and does the same things, I propose an IP ban.Vancouverguy 18:57, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I've now reverted 14:53, 27 Sep 2003 Copper, Nickel, Cobalt, Iron, and Manganese in addition...ban away! Bcorr 19:05, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Done. -- Viajero 19:24, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I may have to eat my words here, but I doubt it; 80.225.78.24 appears to be creating a slew of fantasy articles. - Hephaestos 23:18, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Reddi steadfastly refuses to accept the consensus view regarding the terms "suicide bombing" and "homicide bombing". Already necessitated two pages to be protected indefinitely, and now going for a third. How long is this to be accepted? --Wik 03:27, Sep 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Wik, Reddi's actions aren't vandalism. Compare what he's done will the other "contributions" listed on this page. -- Cyan 05:12, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • And what do you call it then? How many pages should he be allowed to force to be protected by insisting on inserting his personal POV (which no one else here has supported so far)? --Wik 13:50, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • I guess if I was where you are, I would call him a problem user. -- Cyan 18:22, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • I moved the following item (RK & Wik re: EofT) from a talk page - I forget which. --Uncle Ed 14:34, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • RK said "EntmootOfTrolls is back (he is banned for making multiple death threats; this is no joke). Please keep a lookout for the IPs he uses."
      • Wik asked "Where can I see those multiple death threats?"
  • Not sure if this is the right place to note this, but Airport (novel) is patent nonsense. DJ Clayworth 17:26, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Mmmm - the version I just deleted only had "this book freakin blows my nuts!!!!'" in it. Nothing about patents, even though it still was nonsense (and offensive nonsense, for that matter). -- Schnee 17:37, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • Repeated vandalism by User:68.244.5.61 to Oakland Raiders page. Rude comments "Oakland Suck Ass" and the like. This occurred on 12 Sept 2003 and again on 22 Sept 2003. See example: [10] vudu 19:28, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • blocked -- Viajero 19:52, Sep 22, 2003 (UTC)
  • A burst of deliberate vandalism by User:194.83.57.170, designed to look like error messages from within the Wikipedia. See for example [11]. Seems to have stopped after requesting a halt on this user's talk page. -- The Anome 12:16, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Vandalism continuing, alas, with Niels Bohr. Blocking. -- The Anome 12:23, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • This user has now posted an apology (from 217.168.35.200, giving the name Breneric), and promised to change behavior. I'll unblock the IP. -- The Anome 13:08, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • User:68.5.127.81 [12] removed VFD notice from, then blanked User:Kkawohl's Transcendentalist_Hypothesis_of_the_Fourth_Dimension, then deleted comments on VFD about it. -- Jake 10:02, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
    • traceroute points to a cox.net address in Irvine, CA. Kurt Kawohl lives in southern CA and has a cox.net email address.... -- Jake 10:09, 2003 Sep 20 (UTC)
      • Hmmm....Vancouverguy 14:53, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • Can I ask if the WikiCommunity is yet ready to talk about a ban on User:Kkawohl and his anonymous incarnations? I know he does far less damage to Wikipedia than users like Michael or DW, but I feel he's beyond reasoning with, and it seems to me that at least an auto-revert policy might end the constant Transcendentalism problems that Kurt has been creating the last 4-5 weeks. Jwrosenzweig 07:09, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • User:24.93.236.73 Have just reverted three pages vanadlised by this user: Harry Houdini, George Washington and John Ritter. May be more to come. Graham  :) 04:31, Sep 20 2003 (UTC)


  • User:Poposho (contribs) -- blanked a few user pages, and made some minor corrections to music related pages. Shares a taste in music with Michael. -- Tim Starling 04:54, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Michael's Vandalism - Guess who's back. - Efghij 22:53, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)
    • Blocked. Note that any sysop can now block by username, using Special:Blockip. Sysops may only use this facility to enforce bans already approved by Jimbo. This qualifies. -- Tim Starling 02:33, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:207.172.44.152 blanked the article wave earlier today. Only activity indicated on "user contribution" so maybe an accident? - Marshman 04:43, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • User:172.165.228.225 removed a paragraph about a study regarding homophobia from Sexual arousal. Although just an isolated incident, the fact that this was labelled as a "spelling" change seems to hint that it was not just a newbie experimenting, but rather someone who wanted to remove material he personally didn't like from the page and tried to conceal the fact. -- Schnee 07:43, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Spelling was deceptive but that piece did need work. I've revised it to reflect the actual conclusion and title of the study but I'm not sure it belongs on the page at all - it's probably better on a page about homophobia or homosexuality. However, I'll leave that choice for someone else. JamesDay 12:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Liam modified several articles about Nazi Germany to give them racist meaning, most notable his change of Adolf Hitler. I reverted all, but we need to keep an eye on it. andy 18:09, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that, in apparent return for his work restoring NPOV to the articles that were changed, andy's user page was vandalized by User:Liam about ten minutes after the above post was made. Jwrosenzweig 05:48, 17 Sep 2003 (UTC)


  • This person, 24.199.69.40, keeps using the Los Macheteros page to express his point of views about the organization's activities and about Puerto Rico's political situation. I, for one, although I agree with him that Puerto Rico should be independent, dont go out expressing my view in any page, and I certainly dont agree with him who tries to make the Macheteroz look like heroes. Something might be needed to be done. Antonio Childish, sex starved diva Martin
  • Silesian language I have made an early version of the Silesian language (or Silesian ethnolect) article about the Western Slavonic language similar to Czech and Polish spoken in Silesia, showing various points of view on the subject. At the talk page I have explained why I think the article is valuable. A group of editors first tried to delete the entire article and when it failed the article was moved to Lower Silesian and replaced with content about a dialect of German. I have nothing against the Lower Silesian article, but I cannot understand why somebody wanted do destoy the article I wrote, and destroy the Talk page without any discussion. Now there are a couple of articles, talk pages, redirects, link and a total mess. Please HELP!!!! The backup version of my article is stored at my talk page Grzes of Poznan 10:05, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • User:68.19.46.85 is vandalising many maths and physiscs articles. They have all to be reverted to previous versions. If somebody tells me haw to I will gladly oblige User:Vanderesch
    • Warned, will keep an eye out. Have a look at Dealing with vandalism for dealing with vandalism and reversion and stuffles ;) Dysprosia 09:59, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=1752393"