Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rama (talk | contribs) at 16:56, 15 May 2005 (→‎214.13.4.151). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please do not bite newcomers
Please do not bite newcomers
Shortcut

This page documents vandalism in progress. Please report users engaging in vandalism at the top of the "Current alerts" list below. Please only use this page for repeated malicious vandalism, not for one-off edits, or newbie tests. If you discover newbie testing and feel like the user could use some help, please list them at Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. Except in cases of vandalbot or other rapid-fire attacks, please warn users and wait for further vandalism before listing them here. Do not list non-vandalism (see Cautions and alternatives below).

Contents
Most vandalized pages
Long term alerts
Current alerts
(report vandalism here) User:Ravinesh rds


Please list the IP address or user name, pages touched, and damage done. Sign your name using ~~~~ after your report. Put the person's IP or username in the edit summary.

User:Ravinesh rds is delting images and text from articles relating to the human body.

Cautions and alternatives
Please do not bite the newcomers by listing newbie tests as vandalism. Instead, assume good faith and list them at Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. If you suspect an edit may be vandalism but are unsure, list the edit on RC patrol. See NPOV dispute, Accuracy dispute and Requests for comment for content disputes. Page protection may be requested. Report three revert rule violations at WP:AN/3RR.
If you come across very recent vandalism where it seems that the perpetrator should be blocked immediately (and has already been warned), try listing your report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Archives and related pages
How to spot vandalism, Dealing with vandalism, /Archive 1, /Archive 2, /archive06072004, /Archive 20040724, /Archive200408, /Archive200409, /Archive200410, /Archive200411, /Archive200412, /Archive200501, /Archive200502, /Archive200503, /Archive200504, /Archive200504-1 /New Imperialism, /Mr. Treason, /Wik, Old page history (pre May 2004)
Blocks and other tools
List of blocked users, information on an IP, network tools, Whois, Meta:Finding network abuse contacts, Trace the location of an IP address

Pages suffering from repeated vandalism

See Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages.

Long term alerts

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

199.178.207.10

Current alerts

May 15, 2005

24.190.97.181

85.70.52.185

81.157.13.103

220.237.227.3

220.237.227.3 (talk · contribs)

I just noticed this user's edits; mostly sneaky vandalism re religion to articles such as Sukarno, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Indonesia, Malaysia and others.

On Talk:Megawati Sukarnoputri user deleted posts by User:Adam Carr. — Davenbelle 04:29, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

4.242.210.140 4.242.189.11 4.242.192.149

Still at it. It would be really nice if this block of IPS got blocked. Gzuckier 04:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC) Changing people's birthdates. Suggest blocking ASAP because these are hard to detect. Gzuckier 06:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC) I've warned them. While this subtle vandalism is harder to detect, it's probably just another newbie test.-gadfium 06:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Well, his/her/their response was to come back and repeat the vandalism 20 times in one day. Special:Contributions/4.242.189.11 Suggest blocking ASAP, thanks. Gzuckier 15:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

214.13.4.151

user warned about minding NPOV and not blanking pages. Rama 16:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 14, 2005

152.163.101.8

205.188.117.9

Vandal voters

Mindspillage (talk · contribs), Texture (talk · contribs), Rhobite (talk · contribs), TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs), android (talk · contribs), Zscout370 (talk · contribs), Sockatume (talk · contribs), roozbeh (talk · contribs). The above people deleted my first scientific article by collecting 8 negative votes (all of them have been paid at a few hours!), changed ALL other positive votes as it is recorded in the history of the page[6]. I complain about this intrigue.[7]. For example: one of the removings: [8], one attack to one voter: [9] and so forth. See how many times these peaple placed their negative point of view in different places of the page only in a few hours. Since this vantal BAND of admins/users are guilty, they cannot decide anymore about my Article Iranian Physics News. In addition to this vandalism, some of therse users placed a doubtful comment behid each one of the positive vote, to change the situation for their benefits. I want a neutral judgement, and immediate re-creation of the article. I strongly want other administrators of wikipedia to judge about their fault and obvious vandalism. I think only an expert in physics understands what means that Iranian Physics News has been linked to and as a creditable, of good standing and reliable Newswebpage from within the Institutes like Institute of Advanced Study of Basic Science [10], Quantum Diaries [11], The University of Alzahra [12] and The Selim and Rochel Benin School of Computer Science and Engineering [13] so on . They have motivated their colleagues to follow the notable News Website of Iranian Physics News. It seems not to be easy to get the attention of the mind of many researchers.

Some of these vandals placed a doubtful comment behid each one of the positive vote too, to change the situation for their benefits, and deleted some of them! In addition to this vandalism, some of therse users placed a doubtful comment behid each one of the positive vote, to change the situation for their benefits. The author of the words wants a neutral judgement under the supervision of some neutral admins out of this guilty network, and immediate re-creation of the article and thier official excuses. I strongly want other administrators of wikipedia to judge about their fault and obvious vandalism. They have personal problem with the author of these words (by having a qiuck look at the many negative comments they have made in here [14] to win) and may not be suitable for furthure judgement. It is obvious that I will write an article about the vandalism and black networking between these admin/users and will send my documents to some of the well-known scientific websites to warn them about the hiiden problem of Wikipedia.- A defender of scientific part of wikipedia against networking. -Hamidifar

Wikipedia policy expressly prohibits personal attacks, including threats, to other users. So I would advise you not to ask rashly. Aside: There is no conspiracy. I do not know who any of the other voters are. I neither know, nor care, who you are, so I certainly can't have a personal problem with you. You're a significant proportion of the world's curvature away. My only concern is ensuring that the policies which hold the wikipedia together are not undermined. Sockatume 01:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My only concern is ensuring that the policies which hold the wikipedia together are not undermined!!! The policy of Wikipedia never allow you and your friends (whom you are defending of) to place many negative comments/votes you want is a fair vote page and attack other users who have positivly voved. This is a policy violation by this network, which you are involved in. So you have defeneded many time to clear up your band. If you are really concern about the policy, why you don't complain about the obvious vandalism your frieds have done in the vote page. They have deleted, changed and attacked to voters badly. Concern it babe too! Now I am waiting for other admins point of view. You and your band should learn that wikipedia does not follow jungle rule, as you attacked to the voters in here [15] -Hamidifar
If you can show me what section of Wikipedia policy has been violated by our behaviour, I'll happily accept whatever punishment that admins consider to be correct. Sockatume 13:46, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While this isn't the place for such discussion (the VfD has ended): A half-dozen links on websites which are themselves non-notable does not constitute notability, unfortunately. Have a look at the other web pages featured on the wikipedia; the majority are linked to be a large number (maybe hundreds of thousands) of other websites many of which are themselves extremely notable. Sockatume 00:59, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who has not been involved at all with that page or its vote for deletion, it seems clear that the page went through due process and was deleted in accordance with our policies. The people who voted for deletion of the page include some very well-respected Wikipedians. As always in these cases, votes from anonymous contributors, or those who have made few contributions to Wikipedia, are not counted. This is not the appropriate place to complain, since this is clearly not vandalism.-gadfium 23:20, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately the article was deleted to point out to and people understand its sufficient notability. Summary of debate: Attempts to prove lack of notability consisted primary of google searches; the blog was linked to by less than twenty sites in any language, and referred to by name in less than four hundred (searching for Persian name of blog) including the wikipedia article and its mirrors. Attempts to prove notability consisted of calling the voters' motives and qualifications into question.Sockatume 00:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addenum: I'd be perfectly happy to see a re-vote under the supervision of a team of admins, however unlikely this may be to occur. Sockatume 00:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

84.41.160.82

Spammer. User started off slowly, apparently to test the waters, then added a couple more per day till today they got greedy and started going crazy. Has been blocked for 24 hours, but needs to be checked. RickK 22:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

62.131.248.45

Has deleted Zuni_language twice. User was warned by contributor that they are using that article and all other language articles from Wikipedia in violation of GDFL code. The vandal erased claiming "copyright dispute with author". They are using language articles without displaying the text on their page, citing GDFL, or linking to gnu.org or wikipedia for the purposes of unwarranted success in search engine results.--Amerindianarts 14 May 2005,

  • Can you tell us what website the User is using? RickK 22:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Ahimsa108

4.1x.xxx.xxx

  • (Myself.) I was accused of vandalism to the Toscanini page, and later the Krypto page. That was not vandalism.

See history on Toscanini and Krypto page.

  • Also the cartoon article, Disco Dog featuring Charlie, they claimed to be "bogus" was deleted, and now, there is no way to restore the article, and start all over again. These users did not believe me at all.

84.64.14.13

MuseumTour

====198.234.148.126==== 198.234.148.126 (talk · contribs)

  • Has changed the word Communication to Blommunication twice within a short period of time in the Ohio University article.

====61.2.207.12==== 61.2.207.12 (talk · contribs)

User:RicK

    • Vandalized user page of RK, was reverted and justifiedly blocked indefinitely by User:El C.

170.76.20.253

====67.165.187.69==== 67.165.187.69 (talk · contribs)

  • Has linkspammed a whole series of sex-related and Islam-related articles, always with links to the same website. Emiao 08:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

68.43.238.101

144.137.29.47

12.202.43.75

Walesboyo

Vandalism to the oft-vandalized gay page. Essjay 10:33, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

May 13, 2005

131.111.8.96

  • 131.111.8.96 (talk · contribs) and others.
    • The following IP addresses - all assigned to the University of Cambridge - have been participating in attempts to disrupt Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tess khoo.
      • 131.111.8.96
      • 131.111.8.97
      • 131.111.8.102
      • 131.111.131.186
      • 131.111.202.99
      • 131.111.202.111
      • 131.111.203.140
      • 131.111.203.154
      • 131.111.250.80

Introduced a number of what I call "mockpuppets". They are like sockpuppets without all the trouble of actually registering. The user entered edits in the form of [[User:Wanker|wanker]] 14:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC). One edit 13:20 12 May 2005 from 131.111.8.97 entered spurious "keep" votes from

Other activity on this page from the University of Cambridge included the following. 131.111.8.97 Blanked comment by Whimemsz 131.111.203.154 replaced entire discussion with "TESS LIKES TO WANK SMALL DOGS" 131.111.8.96 added more explicit raunch to the above. After the page was reverted, 131.111.8.96 added abuse to another user. And it has continued. """WCFrancis 04:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • 131.111.8.97 also appears to have vandalised a number of other articles PatGallacher 12:16, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

24.247.194.185 etc.

Rhobite

  • Rhobite (talk · contribs)
    • Dear reader, please tell me your point of view abouty this. Is this [18] a very clear vandalism or not!!!!!! Somebody obviously removed my request of protection from and it is obviously against the Wikipedia: protection policy [19] Am I right? I am waiting for your fair detailHamidifar
      • Sigh. Will you please stop accusing people of vandalism? Not a single person you've accused is guilty of vandalism. However, you are removing VfD tags, placing protected notices on articles even though you're not an admin, and claiming that the Iranian physics news article is protected. Only admins can protect a page. You could go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection I suppose. You should not edit Wikipedia:Protected page and claim that the article is protected, when it isn't. You should know that any admin who protects the page will certainly leave the VfD notice on it. A word of advice. You're very close to being blocked from editing. All these vandalism accusations are disruptive. All you're doing is making people angry, you're hurting your case. Please stop. Rhobite 02:49, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
      • That wasn't a "request for protection" you put on it, it was the protection template. You have to actually request protection from the admin team, they decide if protection is warranted, then they protect the page and place a protection template on it. Seeing as you're becoming a bit manic when it comes to reporting people as vandals, I suggest you familiarise yourself with wikipedia vandalism, voting, page protection, and other policies before you act further. Sockatume 02:52, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am sorry for wikipedia whose scientific pages are some tools in hand of some kids, absolutely ignorant of professional science. i was thinking that wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia and it can be trusted to. Unfortunately, instead of using expert's point of view, some kids decide about its articles. Iranian physics news was my first and last article. Clean it as soon as possible and upload some garbage pages like this loop quantum gravity. When you do not ask experts, this is a doom destiny for your papers! I will write the entire story and send it to all scientific webpages to let them know what is going on inside this encyclopedia. I am happy some of my colleagues think the same about your useless scientific page. And probabely you know how serious I am on my promises. Hamidifar
    • Thanks for verifying that it was you that committed the initial vandalism to the VfD page. android↔talk 03:46, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Seems vandalism has occured by some of the names Dr. Hamidi claimed for which. By the way apparently some of the above friends seems to bet on sending the piece of science to Wiki-Hell in the hurly-burly! Seems deletionism should be controlled in Wiki's scientific pages of wiki. "A big sure". By the way I'm gonna critisize the one-sided freedom of some "kids" in science. Dr. Hamidi, I hope you read this and contact me ASAP. If anybody else has the similar complain plz feel free to contact me. Jeffmarq2

====Android79====

  • Android79 (talk · contribs), Zscout370 (talk · contribs) , Roozbeh (talk · contribs), Texture (talk · contribs), Func (talk · contribs)
    • These friends (with the proof [20] that they are frind or one) are trying their best to delet my articel Iranian physics news by placing a vote on it and calling each other for nagtive vote. Also they have changed some of the positive votes as I gave you in the following enough proof for it. I believe my article is by itself enough reasonable to stand by itself as a notable one. Just check it once. Placing a VID above it is just a trick by these enemies to remove it. They are writting one after one to kick me out of here and celebrate the victory! I do not write any more and will be waiting for a full protection of my first and only article in wiki pedia. They have come here SIMULTNEOUSLY (Isn't it odd!!!!)Hamidifar
      • One, you already listed us, so there is no reason to do it again. Two, Android is trying to help you understand what is going on in Wikipedia, so placing him here is short of a personal attack, insult at worst. As mentioned before, no one is calling each other to vote for delete or trying to kick you out of Wikipedia. Plus, as I said before, it is against the rules to erase the VFD tag, and that you do not have the powers to project the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I will erase this VDF because you are changing the votes and it is against law. It is obvious from the history. I need before VDF, a STRONG protection against you enemies. The validity of a scietific article depends on its scientific background, not your point of view!! Hamidifar
          • That's not a scientific article, though, it's an article about a scientific weblog. There's a fundimental difference there. Sockatume 02:54, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These allegations are false; I have not voted on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Iranian Physics News, nor have I edited any comments at that discussion. This is getting out of hand. Hamidifar, please read what I have written at your user talk page. It is obvious that you have not. Including me in your ridiculous conspiracy theories is nothing short of a personal attack. android↔talk 01:11, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a lot of fun to see how many account this (these) person has. Just as a test. From now on, i delete their VDF time to time and see how many different accounts come and place it again. Have a fun look in here and block all of the vandals that are there appeared and place VDF again ana dagain. We have a lot of fun from now on!! in there [21] (they are working so hard and free only for humanity!) Wikipedia should be aware of this illness on its pages. Hamidifar
    • So, we're all the same user now? I'm having conversations with myself? Need I remind you of WP:NPA?
    • There is no sockpuppetry dealing with the VFD removals. I had my three reverts, so I let someone else take care of it. Plus, this is what is said on the VFD notice: "You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank, merge, or move this article, nor remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress." The removal of this template violates the rules, thus, it has to be restored until the vote is over. I am sorry to those trying to add real vandals here, but this is a situation that needs to be dealt with. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:38, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I will erase this VDF because you are changing the votes and it is against law. It is obvious from the history. I need before VDF, a STRONG protection against you enemies. The validity of a scietific article depends on its scientific background, not your point of view!! Hamidifar

I've had a good, detailed look at the history of the vfd for this page. There has been vandalism, but it has been in the opposite direction to that stated, in that most of it was done by User:216.16.237.110 - including attempts to alter votes to make it look like the original nominator for deletion was supporting keeping the site (see [22]) (Roozbeh's original nomination was finally removed completely, as was a later one, but he same anon [23] (later reverted)). The same anon also amended comments "Signed" (i.e., by name but not username) by at least two other contributors to the debate. One or two of the moves by others were a little heavy-handed, such as the automatic assumption that anonymous votes are not counted - the rule states : Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. However, given the machinations of 216.16.237.110, it would be fair to assume a certain amount of bad faith. (It is suggested in the page history that this is User:Mansari, although the anon's editing is so all-obver-the-place that anything is possible.). Accusations are flying thick and fast, and this probably requires arbitration, but the listed users are clearly not vandals. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I have had a look on your words. Thanks for the comment. I am against this suspecious election too and I need protection against these vendals. If you were talking fairly You had to mention that there are a LOT of palced recoreded in the history that these people changed the votes. I have explained the points clearely in my previous posts to this respectful vandalism page. I complain of all of these people who have 1) placed a vfd in top on my first and only scientific article because the weight of a SCIENTIFIC article is basd on its scientific background and I have explained enough reasons for validity of my article via some direct links from the most well-known institute of physics in there. 2) changing all positive votes by these vandals. I hope a fair judge decide about the truth of my words.

I need immediate protection about my first scientific article and if I am not given this immediate protection about these vandals, I myself, erase the article because wikipedia was not the worthwhile place for a scientific article and it need these dangerious BAND of vandals more than pure science. I can see how vandals have changed othe rscientific articles like loop quantum gravity too. these actions make wiki pedia weaker and weaker day by day. Hamidifar

Sillywilly, 67.164.115.131

User:Texture

  • Texture (talk · contribs)
    • This user change other votes in here. See: [24] (Report by User:Hamidifar, who also reported Func and Roozbeh for same issues on the same VFD page).
      • Users are allow to tell Annon. IP's that they need to sign up before they vote. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I warn wikipedia that there are four friends who artrying to kill my first article in wikipedia. They place VID in the top of my article, then call each other and gather some nagative votes. Also they delet/change all of the other positive votes in order to bite me and finally kill my first article. Please have a very careful look at the history of the way they put comments and their changing in the positive votes in here : [25]. Please protect my article as soon as possible, otherwise nobody can trust wikipedia and place new articles on it. These frinds are Texture, Roozbeh, Func and Zscout370. I complain about their behavior to you as the only responsible. To prove that they are frind please see here [26] how one of them inform another that there are some positive votes about IPN and they have to get to work to remove the balance of election. From the last paragraph it is obvious that they do not feel responsibility about wiki and they are doing whatever they want. They have no right to place VID and change the votes themselves. Am I right? Hamidifar 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • As for the votes, I want you to see this: "Please vote only once. If there is evidence that someone is using sock puppets (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) to vote more than once, those votes will not be counted." The evidence which I placed on Texture's talk page si showing that some of the votes to keep are placed by the same user, which violates policies on the VFD. I want you to see WP:VFD to see how the VFD policies work and what rules are established for the VFD. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Show me where the politicking is. As for the VFD template: once the template is placed there and the article has been listed at VFD, the template stays in place until the vote is over. If the tag gets erased (blanked) from the article, then it is restored. We do not change votes from keep until delete, but users have came in and stated if the vote came from the same people. Here, it is a one vote per account rule. Though you keep on signing other people's names to the Keep votes, they come from the same account. That is iilegal, since it ammounts to sockpuppetry. Plus, it cannont be projected, since the projected version I have seen will be without the VFD tag. As mentioned earlier, the VFD tag must remain until the vote is over. Plus, other than the tag being blanked and replaced, the article is not being vandalized, so projection will not be needed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • This proves my theory about these four people very very precisely. Wiki guys can see that they have warned each other and all the four came here at almost the same time and started to make their best effort to kick me out and celebrate their victory about removing my fisr and only article which is something about science not these people. Just check the hour they come here and write. In the meanwhile some of them are trying to change vote page too. All the four attacked me by their strongest power to kick me out. What is the meaning of enemy, you think?!!! Do you think that they are really so hot for making wikipedia a cleaner place? I am not that fool to believe it. Please protect my article with your best power, if you think I am right. Hamidifar 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Please have a look on this page [27] to see how they pass these notes to each other to come here and make a reply. They are cheating wikipedia. Hamidifar
                • Please see your talk page. I have tried to clarify some things for you there. android↔talk 00:30, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
                  • I beleive that they are not for wikipedia and they are doing their best to remove me, my article and celebrate it as a big victory. Do you as the organizer of the world encyclopedia trust such administors? The worst thing is that they are deciding about the existence of a sciefitic page which is absolutely out of their professioan. How do you decide about my article. By the institutes those have linked to IPN or by these people's decisions!!! It is up to you and I never write again until the time you decide about the article. Hamidifar
                    • Dude, I'm not even an administrator, much less the "organizer of the world encyclopedia." I don't decide anything; the community does. Take a break and a deep breath, read this guide to votes for deletion and all of the other policy pages I linked for you on your talk page, and come back and discuss this rationally and calmly. You'll feel better, trust me. android↔talk 00:39, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
                • Texture voted on 22:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC), I voted on 13 May 2005 (UTC). That is a difference of a few hours and that there is no proof that people came and talked to me about voting for deleting of this article. The other two users that Hamidifar has listed on here has not voted on the VFD page of this article, but just re-enforcing the VFD header. Also, anyone can edit the page and anyone can see if an article is worthy enough to stay on Wikipedia. I do not have to be a scientist to vote on it, just like I do not have to be Russian to work on Russian related articles. We are just enforcing established rules and once again, I ask you to look at the pages I have listed that discussed the VFD policy. One more thing, I am not admin, so please, I beg you, be accurate if you decide to attack me next time. Also, just because the article is toast does not mean that you will be gone or the actual website will be gone. Thank you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a good, detailed look at the history of the vfd for this page. There has been vandalism, but it has been in the opposite direction to that stated, in that most of it was done by User:216.16.237.110 - including attempts to alter votes to make it look like the original nominator for deletion was supporting keeping the site (see [28]) (Roozbeh's original nomination was finally removed completely, as was a later one, but he same anon [29] (later reverted)). The same anon also amended comments "Signed" (i.e., by name but not username) by at least two other contributors to the debate. One or two of the moves by others were a little heavy-handed, such as the automatic assumption that anonymous votes are not counted - the rule states : Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Anonymous and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their votes may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith. However, given the machinations of 216.16.237.110, it would be fair to assume a certain amount of bad faith. (It is suggested in the page history that this is User:Mansari, although the anon's editing is so all-obver-the-place that anything is possible.). Accusations are flying thick and fast, and this probably requires arbitration, but the listed users are clearly not vandals. Grutness...wha? 02:01, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have had a look on your words. Thanks for the comment. I am against this suspecious election too and I need protection against these vendals. If you were talking fairly You had to mention that there are a LOT of palced recoreded in the history that these people changed the votes. I have explained the points clearely in my previous posts to this respectful vandalism page. I complain of all of these people who have 1) placed a vfd in top on my first and only scientific article because the weight of a SCIENTIFIC article is basd on its scientific background and I have explained enough reasons for validity of my article via some direct links from the most well-known institute of physics in there. 2) changing all positive votes by these vandals. I hope a fair judge decide about the truth of my words. I need immediate protection about my first scientific article and if I am not given this immediate protection about these vandals, I myself, erase the article because wikipedia was not the worthwhile place for a scientific article and it need these dangerious BAND of vandals more than pure science. I can see how vandals have changed othe rscientific articles like loop quantum gravity too. these actions make wiki pedia weaker and weaker day by day. Hamidifar

User:Func

See my comments under User:Texture, above. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Roozbeh

  • Roozbeh (talk · contribs)
    • This user is vandalizing my first article Iranian_Physics_News with adding deletion vote on the page and changing others votes. -- Hamidifar 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Roozbeh's only edit to this article was it's VFD page. He was explaining to the new people that their votes will not count, and also adding his vote to the bottom. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Iranian_physics_news&diff=prev&oldid=13672087). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Roozbeh is not a scientist. None of the scientists can decide about the existing a scientific page. In my article Iranian physics news there are some refrences that insists that IPN is not a webloge and it has been linked to by some of the well-known Institutes of Theoretical Physics like IASBS and others. You, Func, Roozbeh and Texture are friends and you call each other to vote against it. thei is the reason [30]. I am a new user of wikipedia and this first behavior withj my article is very rude and very aggressive. Hamidifar 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • None of us who voted for the page to be deleted are scientist, but that does prevent us from voting anyways. We have people come on, create articles about websites and also received awards, but were also deleted. There is no proof that your blog (yes, it is a blog, not a website, check the URL out) is the first blog that has documents in both Persian and English. Plus, as mentioned above, there is no evidence of people calling each other and voting delete on this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • I believe the article itself [31] proves the notability of the page. It is just ridiculus and it is like that some civillian decide about the validity of the theory of general relativity of Einstein!! You can see how other users voted for keeping the page in wikipedia since being the first persian/english news website make it notable see here: [32]. I guess are vendals. Hamidifar 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • The power was given to us by this statement from WP:VFD:

"Votes for Deletion (VfD) is where Wikipedians decide what should be done with an article. Items sent here usually wait five days or so; afterward the following actions can be taken on an article as a result of community consensus:" I encourage you to read the VFD to see how it works. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my comments under User:Texture, above. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Zscout370

  • Zscout370 (talk · contribs)
    • This user is vandalizing my first article Iranian_Physics_News with making a lot of efforts to gather negative votes against its existence. This user insists to delet my first page for a long time and thi is its reason. See this: [33] Hamidifar 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • In my own defence, I placed one vote at the VFD page. My only edit to the page in question was to restore the VFD tag, which was blanked from the article (See [34]). I explained in the edit summary that I was "replacing protection notice with VFD notice. Annon. users do not have the power to protect articles and the VFD is not to be deleted until the vote is over." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my comments under User:Texture, above. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

216.16.237.110

See my comments under User:Texture, above. Grutness...wha? 02:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

209.232.147.200

67.81.13.193

  • 67.81.13.193 (talk · contribs)
    • Just went around blanking a load of pages. Looks like they've been blocked previously (see talk)

207.63.113.10

Identification of IP shows edits coming from a K12 school in Illinois. Chances are good we won't see this again until after the weekend.--WCFrancis 20:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4.242.189.11 4.242.192.149

4.242.189.11 (talk · contribs) 4.242.192.149 (talk · contribs) Changing people's birthdates. Suggest blocking ASAP because these are hard to detect. Gzuckier 06:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've warned them. While this subtle vandalism is harder to detect, it's probably just another newbie test.-gadfium 06:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, his/her/their response was to come back and repeat the vandalism 20 times in one day. Special:Contributions/4.242.189.11 Suggest blocking ASAP, thanks. Gzuckier 15:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

210.54.64.160

  1. According to whois lookup, it appears to be a series assigned to ISP in New Zealand.
  2. User revised the article to say that the Holocaust never happened.
WCFrancis 22:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

208.39.151.150

203.222.134.242

  • 203.222.134.242 (talk · contribs)
    • Inserting various innappriate words into articles. I can't figure out what is going on, because the user contributions clearly show the vandalism, but after I reverted the last two, but now those articles don't show this IP in the history. Spalding 10:57, May 13, 2005 (UTC)


4.242.189.11

  • 4.242.189.11 (talk · contribs)
    • Randomly changing bithdates inaccurately - and by a large amount, not the usual subtle one year. Has been warned, has not stopped. --Kiand 08:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

61.8.141.202

61.8.141.202 (talk · contribs) again partially blanked my vote on the vfd page. --Ragib 14:37, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

209.170.130.127

Fuel Wagon did not list the diff to back up his accusation; here is it: [36] --comments: While I believe it was NC Dave who did the "vandalism," as shown in this diff [37] by the author of the above, this may amount to less than vandalism.
Closer analysis of (apparently) NCdave's edit shows that he got a little talkative -and may have inserted either repetitive or slightly biased comments. (Mention of MCS initially may not be necessary, hence it may be repetitive; also, the breaking of the marriage vows by Mike Schiavo may not have relevance and be slightly distractive or biased.) However, since both sides of the court-appointed doctors were mentioned (those for and against the PVS diagnosis), it would not be fair to only list some "Pro-PVS" doctors that were not court-appointed. In this sense, it would only be fair that some Anti-PVS doctors who were not court-appointed be mentioned to balance those that Mike Schiavo is said to have hired. In that sense, Dave's edit is more stylistic and less vandalism. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alistair McMillan

  • AlistairMcMillan (talk · contribs)
    • Vandalizing Star Trek starship related pages. Removing information on false grounds and merging multiple pages without discussion and removing information in the process. Alyeska 02:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Try talking to him and let him know how you see his edits. Shanes 02:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • We've been discussing these edits for weeks now... Talk:Prometheus class starship and Talk:Nebula class starship. AlistairMcMillan 02:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I have tried talking sense into Alistair but he has made unilateral decisions and outright changed and deleted information without logic or reason. He merged the Klingon ship pages into one large page and deleted a great deal of individual information in the process. This was done without any discussion or input from the rest of the comunity. Alyeska 03:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Discussions wherein your opinion was opposed by that of everybody else in the talk page. Iceberg3k 03:25, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution --Alan Au 03:54, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • Not possible Alistair refuses to compromise on any issue. According to him he is 100% correct. As I have already stated he has made unilateral decisions without discussion with the community and constantly ignores valid criticisms while making red herring statements and appeals to ignorance. Alyeska 03:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • "Everyone else" being Alyeska, Iceberg3k and some of their buddies from the spacebattles.net forums. There are a number of regular editors who contribute to the Trek related articles, not a single one of them got involved either way. The only people who opposed my edits were spacebattles.net members. AlistairMcMillan 05:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • To be more clear, this appears (to my untrained eye) to be a difference of opinion rather than a clear case of malicious vandalism. Therefore, I'm going to recommend that one or both of you follow the Wikipedia:Conflict_resolution procedure, as continued discussion here is unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome and simply clutters up the WP:ViP page. --Alan Au 05:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I agree with Alan Au - it appears to be a dispute over whether to include material from non-TV Star Trek sources in Wikipedia. I have suggested a compromise version of the text, and would recommend that people post any objections to the compromise in the talk page of the Prometheus class ships. Bluap 15:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

65.93.88.251

81.155.214.135 and Jimbo79

May 12, 2005

Shade1

12.216.156.240

161.97.164.112

165.21.154.13

  • 165.21.154.13 (talk · contribs)
    • This user is vandalising Rev. Kong Hee. The most egregious edit I've seen is this one where the user adds the protection tag. I spent a few minutes trying to decide why it was protected before I figured out what he had done. The article might be a canidate for VfD, but that does not excuse the vandalism. Wikibofh 20:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP address or username

  • 216.159.98.230 (talk · contribs)
    • Some 50 edits, almost all of which were vandalism: Profanity, blanking, introduction of small errors. Continues despite warning. Rl 19:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

69.151.16.14

72.10.96.132

199.176.226.97

Pending deIetion script

  • Pending deIetion script (talk · contribs)
    • Is acting as a bot (note: it's a capital i in his name, not an l!) and making many pages redirect to Penis, while hiding from RCP with summaries like Deleted EuroCity Was marked with {{pending deletion}}). An admin rollback would be very helpful here, since there are quite many such edits by now! — Pt (T) 15:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12.223.28.68

203.26.206.130

168.190.200.38

  • 168.190.200.38 (talk · contribs)
    • Has been writing a series of offensive, vanity and gibberish articles. Placed a warning on the talk page, but already has a history of being warned, it seems. --Mitsukai 13:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

210.213.151.74

  • 210.213.151.74 (talk · contribs)
    • This user has twice vandalized the short story article page by removing all formatting (or inserting weird formatting) and deleting the majority of the text. Myself and another user have reverted the pages. I left a message on their talk page. Since I'm a new member, I'm not totally clear on how to handle vandalism issues like this. Thanks for any help. --Alabamaboy 13:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

217.33.82.4

  • 217.33.82.4 (talk · contribs)
    • This user (in fact, multiple IP address in this range, read the user talk page) was found vandalizing again. May I suggest a permanent ban?
    • Blocked for 48hrs with invitation to discuss the problem (this IP is used by a school). Will watch the IP. Phils 13:45, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24.60.128.48 (talk · contribs)

  • This user has returned to reinsert the same nonsense into Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends related articles. They do this every few months, never discuss anything on the talk page, and ignore all other editors and just reinsert the same rubish time and time again. See their contribution history and talk page. No other user has ever edited from this IP address so I suggest a permanent ban. Thryduulf 09:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SqueakBox

He has destroyed the articles Zapatero's years as an opposition leader, Zapatero and the Local and Regional Elections of 2003, Zapatero and the 2004 General Election, Zapatero's domestic policy and Zapatero's foreign policy. He has substituted its text by a REDIRECT statement to the main article José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero to hamper its recovery and has removed from the it the links to them to avoid honest users accessing them.

    • He has destroyed the talk page of the article removing a lot of comments still active (See the changes made on May 11 on history page).

Comments: I think he was right in doing so. The articles that you've mentioned do not merit separate existence. -- Sundar (talk · contribs) 09:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

205.227.165.11

  • 205.227.165.11 (talk · contribs)
    • This user is on a pro-scientology pov crusade and has been quite prolific -- it's taken a while for anyone to report him/her. Also, (s)he removes copyright violation tags. --Zantastik 07:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4.242.192.149

4.242.192.149 (talk · contribs) Changing people's birthdates. Suggest blocking ASAP because these are hard to detect. Gzuckier 06:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've warned them. While this subtle vandalism is harder to detect, it's probably just another newbie test.-gadfium 06:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User: Yuber

  • Repeatedly vandalizing Saudi Arabia; making POV edits to a the section Religious Police despite the section in question having been agreed upon by consensus following a dispute lockdown.
This was an unsigned report by User:KaintheScion. It is not the first time he has accused users of "vandalism" for making edits that he disagrees with. This is not acceptable, and it makes it more difficult for the VIP page to serve its intended purpose. Firebug 04:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like a POV dispute not vandalism, --SqueakBox 04:37, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
It is. There's a revert war so I've protected the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:50, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yuber is throwing in the same POV garbage that was REJECTED in the discussion page as part of dispute resolution in an earlier revert-war. And I see no 'signed' reports anywhere on this page. Is there a standard for signing reports, or are you just making crap up as you go along? KaintheScion
I repeat: this is NOT a POV dispute. The POV dispute was resolved as of the last version by Petaholmes (see here) after Yuber started the LAST revert war on the Saudi Arabia page, but Yuber continues to try to push misinformation into the article anyways. This is acting in bad form and counts as Sneaky Vandalism (introducing misinformation) under the rules listed on the vandalism page. KaintheScion
There is no evidenve of vandalism. Things one disagrees with cannot be considered vandalism, --SqueakBox 05:15, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Trying to reintroduce false information that was the subject of a previous dispute resolution is vandalism, no matter times you stick your head under the sand. KaintheScion

210.8.54.35

205.188.116.7

  • 205.188.116.7 (talk · contribs)
    • has been vandalizing User Talk:205.188.116.13 and other user talk pages of IPs in the same series, including putting Candidate for Speedy Deletion templates on talk pages and blanking discussion. Others IPs in same series have used same Modus Operandi;may be the same individual.
IP whois results:
  • OrgName: America Online Inc
  • NetRange: 205.188.0.0 - 205.188.255.255
WCFrancis 02:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I second that assumption about them all being the same individual. The timing of the vandalism by each IP address in the series can't be a mere coincidence. (Take that from someone who spent quite a bit of time helping to clean up after them.) --Chanting Fox 03:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

68.91.209.32

  • 68.91.209.32 (talk · contribs)
    • Replaced the Freak page with an picture of Bill Clinton. Did the exact same edit earlier under a slightly different IP address.

24.54.208.177

  • Tell me about it... I've reverted this guy's work quite a few times already... --Chanting Fox 02:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

67.183.13.188

All three of these are names or usernames of well-known posters on the Something Awful forums.

210.8.54.35

67.11.223.60

69.230.205.52

May 11, 2005

User:172.200.1.70

User:24.53.166.113

  • Keeps changing Colacanth to a few vague sentences insulting geologists. (It should be a redirect to the proper spelling, Coelacanth).
  • I left a warning on his/her user talk page; he responded by redirecting the user talk page to Talk:Cow. Weird. FreplySpang (talk) 22:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article: gamesharkPro

  • An article consisting solely of edits that are vanity, patent nonsense, and goatse picture links. The edits are coming from several anon. users, and the rapidity of the edits suggests either a concerted effort by these users or the use of a dynamic IP address. --Chanting Fox 22:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duckypedia

65.160.148.200

Michaelbluejay

  • Michaelbluejay (talk · contribs)
    • This user continuously inserts disparaging and false material about the person who founded and the persons who now study and teach the philosophy Aesthetic Realism in a description of this philosophy. The insertions are are certainly off topic, and equally certainly these attacks are designed to promote his website, his point of view, and that of a few other very angry people, including Ellen Mali of Evergreen, Colorado, and her son, Adam Mali, a restauranteur, and some anonymous individuals whose practice is to write smears without sigining any names. At any rate, their purpose is to bully--by means of distortions and lies--and to convince other people, smoothly, that they are right. I hope the Wikipedians who are responsible for higher level edits are good listeners and are aware of their flattery of the "higher ups," their desire to appeal to them, while abusing whomever they wish. You will notice that self-justification (taking the form of "they hurt me") when they write "eloquently" about the evils of people whose reputations they are trying to injure.
    • I am willing and able to refute all the abuse written and promulgated by Michealbluejay and his (few) cohorts, anonymous or otherwise. The tone of rage and desire to shock which impels so much on his website, michealbluejay.com/x, ought to be a tip-off as to its purpose. Bullying is chosen over truth. He has reproduced a "hatchet job" news article on these pages (I can take up every sentence in it and show why) from the Baltimore Jewish Times, which is a carefully constructed piece of fiction under the thin disguise of a "balanced" account. Read it and you will see.

As I say, I believe that in an open discussion I can show why I call Bluejay's unscrupulous inserts vandalism, to the satisfaction of a fair audience. --Aperey 19:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Even if his opinions are radically different from yours, or even if they are outright wrong, they do not look like vandalism to the untrained eye - mine. This appears to be a conflict on the topic and at most may be worthy of protecting the page. It is not appropriate to bring it here. - Tεxτurε 19:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steinsky

  • Steinsky (talk · contribs)
    • User keeps removing what he labels "irrelevant" discussion from Talk:Meme. While the discussion may have appeared to not be related, it does, and this user has no business obliterating the talk. Also, he said he "archived" one month's worth of discussion, but it's nowhere to be found, and the amount removed was too minuscule for an archive. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 15:46, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Response: this is abuse of vandalism page, Stevietheman did not attempt to engage in dialogue or justify his use of the term "vandalism" before posting here. When there is a genuine debate over edits crying vandalism against those one disagrees with doesn't aid one's cause. Joe D (t) 15:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • P.S., the archived talk page is in the existing page archive, it's not hard to find where it was moved to. This wasn't discussed with me either.
        • It's not standard practice to discuss vandalism with vandalizers. However, I will admit that what happened was an appearance of vandalism: Moving archived material to an unannounced location, and ripping out talk claimed to be "irrelevant" when it was relevant enough. It was not my intention to abuse this page in any way, but instead conduct due diligence to protect the interests of the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! Talk | Work 17:43, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
          • "It's not standard practice to discuss vandalism with vandalizers." This is not only irrelevant, since this was a content dispute which didn't even look like vandalism, but it's incorrect, it is standard practice, have you ever seen {{test}} or similar? Joe D (t) 00:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

199.178.207.10

  • 199.178.207.10 (talk · contribs)
    • Occasional but persistent vandal since Oct 2002. Has been warned several times looking at the talk page, but seems to come back every so often. All of his 50 odd edits are vandalism as far as I can tell. nick 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12.223.244.3

Zapatancas

here and here. He has previously been blocked for vandalising my user page under the sockpuppet SquealingPig, vbut it obviously hasn't deterred him, --SqueakBox 14:51, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

208.39.151.150

195.144.131.12

196.25.160.250

62.171.194.41

  • 62.171.194.41 (talk · contribs)
    • Blocked in December for vandalism but has continued to vandalise pages after his/her block.

165.82.96.113

67.42.151.230

User: Yuber

64.81.69.94

  • Template:70.18.237.17 Tom G. Palmer
    • Posting under IP "64.81.69.94" the poster has repeatedly inserted a false "quotation" into the biographical entry for "Tom Palmer" [alleging that I have claimed credit for the collapse of the Soviet Empire: "By his own account, through these activities (along with conducting workshops and delivering lectures), he has "secured the liberty" of the people of the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania."]; when the erroneous claim is removed, the poster replaces it and has done so five times from April 30 to May 11, 2005;

219.93.174.110

Also as 219.93.174.106 (talk · contribs), but they seem to have tired of it. Both addresses appear to have been used by many editors in the past but with a high proportion of vandalism; maybe a high school.-gadfium 02:53, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

144.134.71.247

69.177.143.29

May 10, 2005

64.12.117.13

  • 64.12.117.13 (talk · contribs)
    • Anon AOL IP address. Continues blanking his/her "User_talk" page, and those of other AOL IP addresses, following specific warnings not to continue doing this. All the "User_talk" pages in question had numerous comments and warnings about vandalism, etc. I had already mentioned this here following such occurrences on May 9, after which Postdlf issued a specific warning. Same person possibly also using 64.12.116.197 (talk · contribs) and 64.12.116.11 (talk · contribs) (both AOL). Could probably be considered a long-term vandal. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michaelbluejay

  • Michaelbluejay (talk · contribs)
    • Repeated vandalism by Bluejay (owner of web pages michaelbluejay.com/x). One attack after another.
      • The last example is, “20:04, 10 May 2005 (Cultists censored mention that Siegel killed himself. I added it back.)”

The attacks in this entry "Aesthetic Realism," have been repeated and particularly unsavory. --Aperey 23:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of the Wilderness

Freedom2005

  • Freedom2005 (talk · contribs)
    • Possibly misguided youngster creating article after article with less than a single sentence each that often don't make sense. Not vandalism, per se, but probably just misguided enthusiasm. Keep watch. - Tεxτurε 21:50, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Examples:
      • 16:42, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Energy ball (energy) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:35, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Cactus jack (postcards from buster) (jack) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:34, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) The 4 coins (coins) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:32, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Harry osbourne (harry) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:31, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Norman Osbourne (osbourne) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:30, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Murder at the vicarage (marple) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:29, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Crown city (crown city) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:27, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) If i only had a heart (heart) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:26, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Donkey kong bongas (bongos) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:25, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Golden egg (gold egg) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:24, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Kilik (kilik) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:19, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Lionel luther (Luther) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:18, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Love (tennis) (love tennis) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:17, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Walter pigieon (walter) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:14, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Sippy cup (cup) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:13, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Bendy straw (straw) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:12, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Platform 9 3/4 (platform) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:11, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Mr. beans car (bean car) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:10, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Weeping willows (weeping) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:08, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Ethan strimling (ethan) (top) [rollback]
      • 16:06, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Strawberry bank (Bank) (top) [rollback]
      • 15:57, 10 May 2005 (hist) (New) Pirates Cove (pirates cove) (top) [rollback]
    • No better today. :-( --Tabor 20:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

205.188.117.137

  • 205.188.117.137 (talk · contribs)
    • User and other assorted anonymous ip addresses all edit the same exact pages related to homosexuality and insert POVs and then engage in edit wars with actual Wikipedians, refusing to discuss changes and instead only making vague attacks on talk pages without citation of anything. I believe the ip addresses are the same person as well as the new user Septuagint who has only one edit to make a reversion during one of their edit wars. I am not sure if this qualifies, but it should be investigated for possible disruption of Wikipedia, POV and violation of three revert rule. Users Angr, Haiduc and I are getting tired having to deal with these AOLs for the past couple of months. A user also needs to revert the Homosexuality and Christianity article back to the version Angr, Haiduc and I have agreed is NPOV. I have already used my three reverts today dealing with this mess. Apollomelos 21:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

156.108.125.149

144.122.251.206

206.131.30.1

User:JMBeII

206.82.16.34

  • 206.82.16.34 (talk · contribs)
    • Inserted this user test. Normally wouldn't be a problem, but a quick check of this anon's contrib and talk pages show a habit of vandalism. I would recommend a longer term ban. --Deathphoenix 20:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

68.9.35.14

User:Michaelbluejay

--66.114.86.135 17:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

204.108.148.12


64.12.116.12

User:Rovoam and his anon IPs

([39]), "I like stuffed Turkey too!" [40] or "rv changes made by User:Tabib, who has been BANNED from all articles in Wikipedia by me" [41]

    • The person is under revert limitation and personal attack parole by ArbCom [42], so he should be blocked not only for vandalisms but also for personal attacks on me and on other editors who have Turkic background.
    • ps. previously I reported about his actions in WP:ANI too. --Tabib 07:38, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

May 9, 2005

162.127.67.157

1993, 2000

205.188.116.12

(probably) Bexley, Ohio, Federal_Communications_Commission, 1988, XYY, History of Georgia

205.188.116.12

2000

205.188.116.7

Talk:Homo habilis, Set (mythology), U, Purim

24.128.133.130

212.120.166.226

SocklordX

[43].

203.62.10.3

Tparker393 (prob. 159.169.57.3)


212.100.250.207

69.209.229.48

69.209.229.48 (talk · contributions)

  • Inserted goatse and lemonparty links into articles. -- Netoholic @ 16:23, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

63.208.17.115

165.247.195.217

Willy on Wheels WRX

62.6.149.17


167.4.1.38

212.108.232.206

195.144.131.12

71.105.104.45

210.8.54.34

165.228.131.11

May 8, 2005

User:TheoCIarke

65.10.37.127

He's been blocked for 24 hours by RickK. --Chanting Fox 22:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

213.216.199.18

68.47.30.101

68.255.22.254

  • 68.255.22.254 (talk · contribs)
    • Repeatedly vandalized Jeung San Do related article. Previously this user used 69.208.161.94 and 206.242.13.210 ip address, but after vandalism report, this user changed attach Jeung San Do article with coarse language and sexual expression. Please warn/block this ip address. It is highly suspicious that above all three ip addresses are from the same user. [[User: DaoSeeker|DaoSeeker 16:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)]]Reply[reply]

Grace Note

  • Grace Note (talk · contribs)
    • User has repeatedly vandalised Schapelle Corby. Grace Note has removed the link to the official Schapelle Corby family authorised website 3 times because s/he does not like the content of the official site. The Corby family authorised site is a valid piece of information for an encyclopaedic entry about S. Corby. -- 211.30.134.147 (talk · contribs) 09:52, May 8, 2005 (UTC) diff
I just restored the link (before above notice was posted), but would not characterize Grace Note's edits as vandalism; this is a difference of opinion over content. See: Talk:Schapelle Corby. — Davenbelle 10:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

May 7, 2005

24.76.130.145

128.223.210.150

  • 128.223.210.150 (talk · contribs)
    • Continuously modifying Venezuela page to give it an anti-American slant. However, I suspect something has been going on for the page for quite some time, so can someone give it a read for neutrality? --Mitsukai 04:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Venezuela has been the target of quite a few POV-vandalisms lately, not merely by this user. --Whimemsz 22:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

205.188.116.203

24.61.93.192

Cantus

  • Cantus (talk · contribs)
    • doing the exact same vandalism to biography articles. Doing many edits a minute.
      • I'm not sure that's vandalism. I left a note with Cantus, asking him why he's making the strange edit to so many articles. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 02:43, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
        • With the several edits a minute, I think it might be a bot gone wild. --Deathphoenix 04:09, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24.25.222.84

User:RDsmith4

24.141.84.45

68.93.187.154

169.229.90.99


May 6, 2005

67.138.223.214

82.96.100.100

DrippingInk

  • DrippingInk (talk · contribs)
    • This user has, using his account and various IP addresses, been persistently changing titles, numbers, etc., from Wikipededia style to his own preference; this has included two cut-and-paste page moves, and breaking of 3RR. He refuses to stop, and has taken not only to personal abuse, but to blanking my User page. I'm too involved to take action myself, but I'd be grateful if someone could step in and at least try to get him to calm down. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:39, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note: has also refused to discuss and expressed dislike to our rules saying he won't abide by our wikistyle. Mgm|(talk) 11:21, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

205.188.117.71

205.188.117.71 (talk · contribs) vandalized my user page. I have arrived.

WCFrancis 06:04, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

200.85.218.105

200.85.218.105 (talk · contribs) is a Chilean advertizer who keeps filling up Morphix and templates with drug ads. Ignores my comments. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now vandalizing my user page. Block. Looks like a South American narcotic dealer or something like that. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:44, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours (my first block, whee) since he didn't stop upon message on his talk page and then proceeded to vandalize your user page and talk page because of your message. Cburnett 05:59, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
Anyways, isn't it past midnight in Chile? Someone vandalizing Wikipedia in the middle of the night would probably be selling drugs or doing something up to no good. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24.213.93.139

24.213.93.139 (talk · contribs) continues to vandalize Marc Lemire by adding random content. User has since been blocked, now posting as Marcel Rodent (talk · contribs) --Viriditas | Talk 05:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

81.196.252.57

66.25.61.8

  • 66.25.61.8 (talk · contribs) adding advertising repeatedly to Baby shower page, multiple times today and for the last several days. Same advertisment placed multiple times per week for several weeks.

207.215.43.165 =

66.176.237.255 =

Reported by 160.39.194.215 , May 7th 00:41 (UTC)

User: ChantingFox

Yep, somebody is impersonating me. Found that my user page had been redirected to "Douche" by this user, and he's copied my userpage and talk page as well. Requesting block of this user please. --Chanting Fox 20:57, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


156.63.253.3

Reported by 69.231.203.128 (talk · contribs). -- WCFrancis 19:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

70.81.66.65

Multiple Users

Multiple users engaging in concerted vandalism campaign to erase all substance from the Islamofascism article after their VfD attempt failed.

Respectfully request Admins lock the article to either the 16:54. 6 May 2005 reversion of jpgordon's vandalism or else the 04:08. 3 May 2005 version (prior to User:Grace Note's initial vandalism).

It has been so reported. This is getting quite irritating watching admins slide in and use their powers not to moderate but to enforce a political viewpoint and ban people for doing the right thing and trying to stop Islamist vandalism.
User jpgordon has now abused his admin powers to protect his own vandalism.

THIS IS GETTING COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS.

The protection looks fione. Removed swear word, --SqueakBox 17:45, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Of course you'd say that Squeakbox, you're one of the vandals.
  • My revert on that article was upon seeing a sockpuppet for a 3RR-blocked editor continue the identical actions of the blocked editor -- as was my protection of the page. Take it to WP:RFC if you object. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:48, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not a sockpuppet, you moron. You're just a vandal, and you're probably Squeakbox's sockpuppet. There were certainly enough of them were throwing around reverts on that page.

How can an admin be my sockpuppet. Check contribs before making allegations that only serve to make you look ridiculous, --SqueakBox 18:20, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

204.186.146.250

User:Mel Etitis

"Admin" user Mel Etitis has been part of concerted vandalism campaign to erase the Islamofascism topic following a failed attempt to Vote-For-Deletion.

"Admin" user Mel Etitis has also banned user ElKabong under Three_revert_rule for FIXING this vandalism, despite vandalism falling out of the restrictions of said rule.

Abuse of Admin authority and Vandalism by an admin confirmed. This is a GREVIOUS violation of Admin authority: Mel Etitis was the admin who was doing the vandalizing and used admin authority in order to enforce a killing of an article AFTER Vote-For-Deletion had FAILED.

I can't see where Mel has vandalised. Please give us some diffs if this is a genuine complaint, --SqueakBox 16:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sqeakbox, you're another of the ones DOING THE VANDALIZING. Knock it off.
As you don't provide diffs as I asked I take it this is a spurious complaint. Withdraw your false accusations against me, please. i have vandalised nothing. You don't provide diiffs for me either. Are you blocked user ElKabong come back to haunt us? --SqueakBox 17:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Squeakbox, this is not a spurious complaint. You have at least two reversions on this topic to YOUR name, nevermind your possible sock puppets doing other reversions. Admin User:Mel Etitis deliberately banned a user who was reverting former vandalism.
Yes, he put in a "I'm not going to take it from either side" tagline but as the Islamist side is using a bunch of sock puppets to accomplish what they couldn't through a VfD, the result is that he's chosen a side. And so have you, apparently. Admins should never throw around bannings on a topic they are involved in, they should report it here so that it gets a PROPER look instead.
Kindly stop letting your power go to your head.
I have no power. Check my contribs before making spurious sockpuppet claims. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:129.7.35.205, --SqueakBox 17:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

168.9.212.7

  • User has vandalized Wikipedia:Introduction 3 times in 10 minutes including after a revert to this page: see: contributions

205.200.236.19

  • 205.200.236.19 (talk · contribs)
    • Editing comments like "That'll teach you to ban me..." makes it sound like he/she/it has been banned before. Do it again, and probably longer this time. // Liftarn 15:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm watching this user's contribution page until an admin blocks the IP. --BradBeattie 15:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:ClockworkSouI

  • ClockworkSouI (talk · contribs)
    • Impersonating legitimate user ClockworkSoul and vandalising a few pages. Last letter, change ell to eye. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Urgent!: As of now, this user still needs to be blocked! Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:38, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I have blocked this user. However I suspect he/she/they will reappear in other forms. I registered Quadeli and Quadeil, and then found the Quadeii was already taken. I blocked that account as well, but be on the lookout. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 15:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • IMPORTANT: User:Temporary is ClockworkSouI back, avoiding block.--Silversmith 15:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

63.161.87.216

69.249.18.226

70.27.63.7

May 5, 2005

J. D. Wales

66.81.131.164

66.81.131.164 (talk · contributions)

Continuing revert war on The Matrix - anonymous users adding paragraph on "Matrixism" despite extended discussion and lack of consensus; various users removing same paragraph. --MFNickster 01:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TruthCrusader

  • Continuous harassment & unwanted comments posted by this user to my talk page - this user followed me here from Usenet, where he has also been a long-time nuisance. Chadbryant 00:03, 6 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

206.242.13.210

  • 206.242.13.210 (talk · contribs)
    • Continuous vandalism of Jeung San Do related articles by changing certain words with coarse languages and sexual expression. This IP address must be blocked. I requested IP block on May 4, but it seeems it hasn't been blocked. Please block this IP. Thanks. [[User:DaoSeeker|DaoSeeker 22:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)]]Reply[reply]
      • This user hadn't even been warned. I've now done so. We don't block people for vandalism without giving them at least two warnings first, except in particularly extreme cases or where we believe it is a repeat offender.-gadfium 23:44, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

198.208.160.27

  • 198.208.160.27 (talk · contribs)
    • continuous vandalism of Clay Aiken article. Keeps deleting a sentence that he/she doesn't like. Has done so 15+ times in last couple of days. Was apparently blocked yesterday, but is back to vandalism today. Really needs some immediate attention.--MatthewUND 20:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

210.9.123.136

198.234.216.213

KapilTagore

  • KapilTagore (talk · contribs)
    • obscene and nasty labguage at my user page [46]. I will, not tolerate this. can he be blocked, as swearing to get one's way can never be tolerated, --SqueakBox 16:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC),

Current alerts

Use this syntax: 

====IP address or username====
* {{User|IP address or username}}
** DESCRIPTION

KapilTagore

  • {{User|KapilTagore====

KapilTagore

  • {{User|KapilTagore====
    • obscene and nasty labguage at my user page [47]. I will, not tolerate this. can he be blocked, as swearing to get one's way can never be tolerated, --SqueakBox 16:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC),**

obscene and nasty labguage at my user page [48]. I will, not tolerate this. can he be blocked, as swearing to get one's way can never be tolerated, --SqueakBox 16:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC),

May 5

KapilTagore

  • {{User|KapilTagore====
    • obscene and nasty labguage at my user page [49]. I will, not tolerate this. can he be blocked, as swearing to get one's way can never be tolerated, --SqueakBox 16:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC),


  • {{User|KapilTagore====
    • obscene and nasty labguage at my user page [50]. I will, not tolerate this. can he be blocked, as swearing to get one's way can never be tolerated, --SqueakBox 16:31, May 5, 2005 (UTC),

209.158.139.250

151.188.0.231

216.194.35.135

167.206.128.199


207.156.196.242

  • 207.156.196.242 (talk · contribs)
    • Persistant vandal. Has had several "last warnings", which should be followed through. — Asbestos | Talk 12:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • This user has a long string of "contributions" involving insertions of the same name into a variety of dubious contexts. I think I got the last one s/he made. 金 (Kim) 17:03, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

168.8.208.3

  • 168.8.208.3 (talk · contribs)
    • Seems to do nothing but vandalize pages. Let's block him.
    • Agreed. I'm watching his contributions and reverting until an Admin blocks his IP. --BradBeattie

May 4

24.222.207.183

209.86.18.168

-WCFrancis 07:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

203.63.234.130

203.30.252.66

199.89.234.122

216.229.176.68

24.62.46.52

207.200.116.132

165.139.188.10

66.11.70.70


216.194.35.135

167.206.128.199

68.36.105.247

209.11.48.2

209.202.75.50

213.38.159.71

Just vandalised Barcode reader. Apparently warned before and due for a block!--Rjstott 10:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

66.215.40.17

217.68.115.28

155.35.46.12

142.151.164.238

210.8.110.34

  • 210.8.110.34 (talk · contribs)
    • Recent serial vandalism:
      • 22:39, 3 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Helladic
      • 22:28, 3 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Helladic
      • 22:25, 3 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Helladic
      • 22:02, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Jew
      • 21:58, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Pope
      • 21:56, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Al-Qaeda
      • 21:55, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Al-Qaeda
— B.Bryant 04:51, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

68.222.14.202

130.245.210.230

206.242.13.210 and 69.208.161.94


24.98.137.120

217.44.32.2

70.32.226.245

  • 70.32.226.245 (talk · contribs)===
    • Vandalized the Collins completely. I am unsure as to how much damage was done because it was the first time I visited the page, but I thought I should mention somthing.
      • Thanks the vandalism has been fixed. Paul August ☎ 01:24, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

198.74.20.75

128.135.222.242

May 3

211.30.31.205

  • 211.30.31.205 (talk · contribs)
    • Adding spam links to Acuvue and other articles. - RoyBoy 800 23:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I've reverted him, and posted him a spam warning. Though it's not a clear case. It could be claimed that they are somewhat informative and expands on the articles. But RoyBoy didn't like them, and I didn't like them either. So I reverted... Shanes 23:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


207.224.177.252

  • 207.224.177.252 (talk · contribs)
    • A shared school computer which has been repeatedly used to vandalise pages. Apology recieved from another user of the machine. Needs to be watched . Lumos3 13:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Edit history [57] shows a ton of vandalism, I would like to see a block. ObsidianOrder 23:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

169.241.10.83

195.93.21.72

68.254.180.3

205.188.117.130

69.37.226.232

Nengli02

-- Longhair | Talk 11:16, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Already blocked for 24h. Lupo 11:18, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

128.2.170.20

User:Wikipedia is Nazism

80.3.64.11

May 2

143.43.224.198

213.40.3.65

  • 213.40.3.65 (talk · contribs)
    • Repeatedly adding hoax articles aboutr non-existent "Simpsons" episodes and spin-offs. Warnings date back to last August when this same IP, presumably the same guy, was adding nonsense about "King Of The Hill." He already has one bogus article on VfD called Pollard and Friends. Same anon has been busy adding fake episode synopses. - Lucky 6.9 05:23, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GeneralEndicott

Very inflammatory user page, --SqueakBox 03:40, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Threatens that THE VANDAL TANKS WILL SOON BEGIN ATTACKING ARTICLES! for one thing. FreplySpang (talk) 03:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How comforting. Has also created several nonsense pages such as Wikipedia Marines. --Whimemsz 03:44, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Erm. I see they've been redirected. Good. --Whimemsz 03:45, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Articles like Wikipedia Army and Wikipedia Navy which I have redirected to Army etc, --SqueakBox 03:45, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
This colorful character has been around for some time. I've dealt with him in the past. – ClockworkSoul 03:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

24.244.210.190

  • 24.244.210.190 (talk · contribs)
    • The user has already been reported for vandalisms a few months ago, but they've resumed their vandalism (mainly just blanking a page and adding a picture of a dildo; they vandalized this page, the George W. Bush article, the Pope article, and others). They've been warned before. (I'm not sure if this should go here or not, so forgive me if I screwed up somewhere). --Whimemsz 03:15, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
      • I blocked them for 48 hours. Not sure if they've been blocked before, but they've got a history of this sort of vandalism and plenty of warnings. I gave them a test3 and blocked when they ignored that. Maybe they were waiting for a test4.-gadfium 05:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

200.35.213.192

Pretty threatening behaviour like this at Venezuela should not be ignored, --SqueakBox 01:00, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • See also [61] and [62]. The user also has plenty of random, less scary vandalism (for example, [63]). --Whimemsz 02:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

69.174.129.33

JoeM = Moral Clarity

  • [[User:JoeM = Moral Clarity|JoeM = Moral Clarity]] ([[User talk:JoeM = Moral Clarity|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/JoeM = Moral Clarity|contributions]])

Been chasing him... saw him create his user page... his name spelled trouble. Sure enough, I've done a few reverts already. I had to revert Jihad back to Firebug's reversion, and that's the most recent action on my part. A block would be a good idea IMHO. --Chanting Fox 23:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brian1888

  • Brian1888 (talk · contribs)
  • This person changed the external link on the Rangers F.C. website to Rangers' official website to a link which makes all sorts of strange things happen to your computer. This quite nasty, more serious than normal vandalism. PatGallacher 22:59, 2005 May 2 (UTC)

Zivinbudas

--Witkacy 21:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

129.67.43.240

- *129.67.43.240 (talk · contribs) - ** Vandalized Mischa Barton. I don't know if he has vandalized other articles. Carioca 21:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

80.186.117.142

151.37.82.103

209.172.129.213

  • 209.172.129.213 (talk · contribs)
    • 12:22, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Chokladboll
    • 12:20, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Chokladboll
    • 12:10, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Chokladboll
    • 13:18, 12 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Vincent van Gogh
    • 13:18, 12 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Vincent van Gogh
    • 13:14, 12 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Vincent van Gogh
    • 13:14, 12 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Vincent van Gogh
    • 13:32, 11 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Carcassonne
    • 13:32, 11 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Carcassonne
    • 13:31, 11 Apr 2005 (hist) (diff) Carcassonne
    • 14:04, 18 Oct 2002 (hist) (diff) Pyroxene
    • 13:56, 18 Oct 2002 (hist) (diff) Worms (computer game)
  • This guy goes back a long way, starting with simple insertion of typographical errors, moving up through creation of nonsense articles, and landing today on completely inappropriate language in repeated attempts to vandalize Chokladboll. I'm surprised that his vandalism history goes back this far, frankly, since it's just an IP address and not an actual username. Apparently he pays good money for a static IP so he can pull stuff like this. =) --Jemiller226 18:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

209.175.103.100

  • 209.175.103.100 (talk · contribs)
    • 10:05, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) The Rolling Stones, Now!
    • 10:02, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Mick Jagger (→Today)
    • 09:54, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) The Rolling Stones (→Early history: 1961-1967)
    • 09:43, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Mick Jagger (→Biography)
— B.Bryant 19:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

202.156.2.18

  • 202.156.2.18 (talk · contribs)
    • 11:02, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Battle of Thermopylae
    • 10:42, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) José Mourinho
    • 10:28, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Fulham F.C.
    • 10:17, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Isabella Leong
    • 10:11, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Isabella Leong
    • 10:09, 2 May 2005 (hist) (diff) Isabella Leong
— B.Bryant 19:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:147.31.4.47

User:209.71.11.137

User:220.233.64.218

User: 202.7.202.2

User:134.53.181.238

Repeated vandalism of Abraham Lincoln. Adam 03:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • User stopped after warnings. Will not block for now. Mgm|(talk) 09:30, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

User:208.243.31.2

May 1

User:Xíong

  • Xíong (talk · contribs)
    • vandalized two pages, apparently trying to impersonate Xiong (talk · contribs) (Coincidence is less likely since this is at least not a correct Chinese spelling). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Xiong — Sebastian (talk) 23:48, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
    • Um, FWIW (which may not be much) -- leaving aside the point that there is no such thing as Chinese spelling -- this is the correct transliteration of my Chinese name in pinyin; the accent indicates the rising tone. Why didn't I think of that? Delete him quick, so I can make him my sock. — Xiong熊talk* 04:09, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
      • (cc to User_talk:Xiong) Yeah, it's a much better pinyin spelling because of the tone mark, but it's too bad someone already made that account, because once an account is made, it cannot be "deleted" (due to limitations details of GFDL and its requirements for tracking contributions). I think the most you can do is make User:Xíong redirect to your User:Xiong page, but that might not be advisable, because I don't think you'd want to be associated with the contributions of this vandal user. --Deathphoenix 15:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:63.228.87.208

  • 63.228.87.208 (talk · contribs)
    • He is repeatedly changing Nintendo Adventure Books. He first messed with the first book's title, then did it again after I fixed it. He then changed it to a title that looked convincing, then changed it to another language. He is a friend of mine on AIM and is just trying to anger me. He said he isn't going to stop. Revned 05:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I have blocked the IP for a limited amount of time. Kingturtle 05:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • He's doing it again. His IP got unblocked and he changed the titles to a different language again.. Revned 18:17, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

203.147.0.42, 203.147.0.44, 203.147.0.9

80.227.56.42=

This user has vandalized numerous pages. (See his/her "contributions".) The latest is the Homosexuality article.金 (Kim) 15:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

4.239.117.52

  • 4.239.117.52 (talk · contribs)
    • Vandalized Ecuador on April 29; Denigrating Ecuador and Ecuadorians. User has been warned by 2nd time. The last 15 days has vandalize the ecuadorian page 3 times. IPs used: 4.239.33.121; 4.239.117.52; 4.239.117.131; 4.239.36.220; 4.239.33.95. IP address assigned to dialup-4.239.117.52.Dial1.Philadelphia1.Level3.net

69.199.246.84

219.93.174.109

219.93.174.101

Vandalized Swastika and Ivory-billed Woodpecker. Him (or this IP) been blocked before. Solver 13:48, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User Zivinbudas/85.206.195.159

Vandalized article on Confederation, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Vilnius, Lithuania --Witkacy 13:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All three above users engaged in an edit war spread accross the articles cited. They have already been warned. I invite them to solve their conflicts on the talk pages of the articles or on their user talk pages. Phils 13:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
85.206.195.159 and Zivinbudas (and Antituteišas) is the same user. He removed big parts of articles see Vilnius, and Lithuania he also claims that the PLC was a confederation see talk: [65] (already discussed) It was not an edit war - i just reverted his vandalism--Witkacy 14:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:68.23.45.16

  • 68.23.45.16 (talk · contribs)
    • Spammed a bunch of pages with commercial external links. Can someone roll back, please? Rl 12:18, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • No further activity, but the link spam is still there. In one article (Nintendo), there was another change already which was not a revert. For the other articles, the spammer is still on top. Can someone roll this back before other edits make it harder? Rl 20:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I have taken care of it myself. Rl 18:43, 2 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:24.141.250.102

User:24.141.44.232

User:Broken Segue

IUser:69.110.54.244

Can someone please figure out something to do about this? thanks, Kingturtle 03:35, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've given them a warning about the personal attack, and I'll block them if they do it again.-gadfium 04:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:J. Donal Wales

Jimbo Prince of Wales

April 30

Hipi Zhdripi

  • Hipi Zhdripi (talk · contribs)
    • I think that what this user is doing is considered vandalism. He keeps going after practically any page in any way related to Kosovo and altering them as if Kosovo is an independend UNMIK country. Please check "discussion" between him and me on his talk page. If he is actually not a vandal, then please tell me how to deal with what he is doing. Dejan Cabrilo 22:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Jimbo_Prince_of_Wales

24.107.7.165

MrSpam


213.42.2.22

211.31.77.168

212.58.199.xxx, John Nockswell, 203.185.208.168

--Heah 10:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

    • and apparently previously, two new names/ips added. --Heah 10:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

210.55.80.97

  • 210.55.80.97 (talk · contribs)
    • Vandalised Transformers series. His edit summary says "rv vandalism", but that is misleading, as he is the one who vandalised it, the previous revision was all OK. — JIP | Talk 08:40, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

220.253.117.193

Long string of vandalism, including my user page after I told him politely to stop. Please see [66]. —chris.lawson (talk) 07:10, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continuing half an hour later, with no end in sight. Vandalised pages now include:

  • Josef Pilsudski
  • Igloo
  • Brent Bozell
  • Dwayne Hickman
  • This page (which I have removed with this edit)
  • David Lee Roth
  • Al Gore

etc. I've reverted everything thus far. —chris.lawson (talk) 07:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • (User:Phils's note. The following by IP:220.253.117.193) Come on, these are legit! What do you know about Van Halen anyway? And this page? I'm allowed my say, aren't I? Take a chill pill, dude - HappyCat
  • I'm watching this IP. However, I find your linking him/her to a GNAA troll site to be childish at best, chris.lawson. Phils 09:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

69.229.213.148

68.88.253.83

Getzolt

  • Getzolt (talk · contribs)
    • spamming a large number of pages with commercial external links. Can someone do a global rollback of his changes? Feco 02:14, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Done. Thanks. Shanes 02:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

142.161.81.200

172.201.189.247

April 29

Wikipedia Is Communism!

Moved back but an admin needs to put the history back and investigate --SqueakBox 22:06, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

There is no Pope Benedict XVI. urgent attention please, --SqueakBox 22:21, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Um, he's Pope John Paul II's successor... so he is real... or is that not the point of your statement? Master Thief Garrett 23:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Squeak, I see you've been vacationing for the last ten days or so.  :) - Lucky 6.9 23:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What i meant is that the article had disappeared completely; the work of WC. See my User page. --SqueakBox 23:57, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

72.20.133.4

199.212.250.96

129.21.107.1

70.114.9.102

At it again, a block is probably in order, they're always coming from the same IP address. Sockatume 01:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've noticed a few vandalized pages by this guy over the last few days. I agree a block is probably appropriate. Mattlary 02:34, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Kyle.Mullaney

  • Kyle.Mullaney (talk · contribs)
    • The user is reversing Heretic category tags on many articles. Traditionally heretic figures are being removed from the category and popes and traditional catholic figures (including the Catholic Church) are being tagged with the Heretic category. Is there some larger issue behind this change that I haven't found in talk pages? - Tεxτurε 19:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

24.2.182.96

User:Susvolans

  • User:Susvolans
    • This user is systematically moving entries like: Grendon, Northamptonshire to Grendon and the destroying the ability to move the articles back by making a history edit. These towns and villages have been carefully tagged with their county so as to dismbiguate them and make the description more precise. Can these entries be reversed? as we can't now go back on what he has done. He has so far done about two dozen Brookie:A glow in the dark 16:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can't figure out how to revert him, and I'm afraid to move the pages back using the move feauture, I guess it might screw things like history up completely. Solver 17:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm don't think this is vandalism at all and quite frankly is unfair to User:Susvolans. How many places do you imagine there are called Easton Maudit that will require disambiguation? Mrsteviec 19:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair point on this small village - although I have not checked what there is in the US, but the point he has systematically changed all of the clarifying names that I had set up (it looked like he was working down my contributions page)- from England and even Australia - where a local resident there had requested that we move "Snowtown" to "Snowtown, South Australia" - he clearly didn't look at the discussion page where this had been requested - and just moved it back from where it had started from. There are various Daventry's, Corby's etc. This was a systematic change - rather than a reasoned move. Northampton which was part of my scheme has about 10 places of that name in the US + the Australian place as well. Brookie:A glow in the dark 19:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Assume good faith. You asked Susvolans about these moves on eir talk page [68], then eight minutes later charged em with vandalism here. After waiting about two hours (during which the user was not active [69]), you left an additional message stating that you were reverting them [70]. (I haven't looked to see whether you've actually rolled back the moves.) Speed is not an issue in this case; nothing is lost by giving the other editor a chance to respond before acting. Kelly Martin 19:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

200.222.72.18

169.227.254.3

203.147.0.x

67.2.15.38

195.188.141.14x

83.30.13.208

165.139.18.248=



24.126.17.155

  • 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs)
    • Repeatedly blanking/removing/reverting different sections of Pakistan. After first few acts, messages were left in the IP's talk page, requesting the person to refrain from such acts. But 24.126.17.155 deleted a large part of the article today. The user has also been invited for discussion in Pakistan's talk page, but has not responded at all. A temporary ban is requested. --Ragib 03:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Violation of Three-revert rule, 3+ reverts on 28 April. --Ragib 05:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • PS: Just for clarification, I am not for or against whatever the user is writing. I am not siding with the user or anyone else on the topic. I am only objecting to the user's practice of not discussing anything in the discussion page, and ignoring other's call for discussion, and even deleting any reference to the user's edits from the Talk page. If the user had justified the reason of the deletes properly over the last few days, no problem/reverts would occur. --Ragib 06:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Added by Whiteking - Cann't be called Vandalism really.
  • User Whiteking (24.126.17.155?) reverted the Pakistan pages to a version more than 150 edits old. Quantiphile 13:18, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Fatpiggy

198.74.20.77

68.36.43.166

  • 68.36.43.166 (talk · contribs)
    • Repeatedly cuts and pastes copyvios from WCBS, specifically at WCBS-FM. Today, he not only pasted the info yet again, he reverted it back to the copyvio after it was tagged and bagged! The IP resolves to Comcast Cable if this helps. - Lucky 6.9 00:49, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


24.226.54.179

203.116.61.131

  • 203.116.61.131 (talk · contribs)
    • Added vulgar nonsense to Ben Nighthorse Campbell. I wouldn't have reported him, but there are already several admonitions on his talk page for past vandalism, dating back more than a year. --BDD 02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • From looking at the past editing pattern, I would say this is likely an IP address used by a school in Singapore, and we're seeing more than one user of it. Since the address is only used every few days, any short block would likely not be seen at all, and any longer block would potentially affect an innocent user. We can't do much beyond rollback edits in this case.-gadfium 02:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • That's generous of you. There was no such voice of reason the two times my school IP was banned for the same reason. And that did affect an innocent user - me, in particular. I'm not saying I disagree; I would much rather users be presumed innocent until proven guilty instead of the other way around. Better that we wipe up seven cases of vandalism than block out a single legitimate user. Still, I would rather have a standard either way than subjective inconsistency. Haven't there been formal discussions on this sort of thing? --BDD 04:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

209.135.123.8

April 28

128.61.79.26

198.236.13.33

205.196.188.100

207.157.136.2

168.8.171.101

67.50.10.234

207.63.143.71

  • 207.63.143.71 (talk · contribs)
    • Removed all content from World and replaced with, "This is god. do not even try to put this page back up." Has previous history of vandalism, mostly profanity. Does anyone know an easy way to revert back to a previous version? -- Glen Finney 17:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


81.178.122.197


199.190.225.45

62.171.198.37

217.206.230.2

208.198.210.253

213.249.155.237

212.219.82.35

  • 212.219.82.35 (talk · contribs)
    • Vandalised wind farm. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I have now administered a test3 template ("Please stop"). We'll see if he listens. (That was Sjakkalle as well)
      • Test4 administered, ("This is your final warning"), but as a non-admin, I fear that's an empty threat. Admins, just block him if he stirs up more trouble. Sjakkalle 11:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • I'll be keeping an eye (or two) on him. Phils 11:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wonderalp

81.208.74.183

A lousy spammer http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=81.208.74.183 Jcr2 08:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

209.7.50.7

Has been vandalising Marlon Brando Matt 19:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dado

  • Dado (talk · contribs)
    • Banja_Luka page and its discussion. User:Dado consenquently is spreading propaganda about recent war in Bosnia and Hercegovina. He use unclosed trials as his source, what I think is unexceptable.
    • This has nothing to do with vandalism. Dado is obviously willing to discuss and bring factual elements forward. Please resolve your disputes on the talk page and do not use this page for anythng else than blatant and massive vandalism which you cannot fix yourself. There is a paragraph on the top of this page aout what should not be reported here, please mind it. Also, please sign your posting with four tilds. Thank you. Rama 10:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

66.71.201.2

User:62.171.198.36

Has also vandalised in the past eg. Relational database--Silversmith 11:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:205.188.116.134

  • This user has apparently been warned before about making nonsensical updates, and now the IP is associated with the deletion of comments at the Jolene Sugarbaker talk page. (This article as well as Jason Saffer are currently under repeated vandalism attacks due to conflict with the subject.) At any rate, I'm not sure how this person's IP ties in with the other vandal in question, but I've restored the comments in a reversion with an addition. Pacian 21:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:210.193.223.65

  • 210.193.223.65 (talk · contribs)
  • This user is vandalizing Gospel of Mark with utter nonsense. I've tried to revert him but he keeps going. Kill his account -- Valentinian 02:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Ttwaring and I are trying to stop this jerk. He's vandalized the page 20 times! I've checked his history, this is apparently not the only page he's trashed! -- Valentinian 02:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've warned them and they seem to have stopped once they saw the warning. I'll watch for the next little while and block if necessary.-gadfium 02:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • He just vandalized it again right now. His entire history is filled with stupid, malicious vandalism-- please block him now. Emiao 01:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blocked for seven days - see talk page for more --Vamp:Willow 17:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:61.69.12.17

Keeps creating List of countries that can be considered the worst. Orange Goblin 01:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=13744692"