Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for investigation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Duozmo (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 4 November 2005 (added 82.45.118.19). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Shortcut

To update this page, purge the cache. For the old version of this page, see /Old version.

For blatant vandalism within the last few hours, please see Administrator intervention against vandalism. This page is for reporting vandalism for which an ongoing response is required. This primarily includes multiple sockpuppets, pages currently being heavily vandalised, users that need to be monitored, open proxies, and vandalism which requires study on the part of an administrator before responding. Accounts that have only been used for vandalism (with no recent activity) should also be reported on this page, so that an administrator can look through their edits. Please make sure to read the first two sections before using this page.

Shortcut

This page is intended to request administrator investigation of certain types of vandalism only. Do not use this page until you read the policies, guidelines, and procedures. For most vandalism, see Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Alerts that do not belong on this page will be removed immediately, without response, and without warning.

Current alerts

IP addresses

Please report vandals who are operating under anonymous IP addresses under the appropriate severity level, at the top. N0YKG 13:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IP Severe

Above three (3) IP addresses repeatedly adding false info to List of artists who reached number one on the Hot 100 (US) page (keeps adding totals to KClarkson and and adding BStreetBoys to the list), each time using different IP. -- eo 03:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Warned. Report again if he continues. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has no contribution history at all. Did you mistype? · Katefan0(scribble) 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the IP was being used last night to create nonsense articles. When I checked, there was one article left, which I deleted under WP:CSD. Looks like either this has stopped or someone's sitting around watching him and deleting any other articles. :) We can probably monitor this for a day or so and then archive. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only has one edit today. Please only use this page to report persistent vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has quit for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back again on 80.1.176.18 - only quit because it was night-time in the United Kingdom. Article needs reverting again. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 09:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted and blocked for 24 hrs.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Back again on 80.1.180.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Article needs reverting again. Request to protect page lodged yesterday. Redvers ★ Hello ★ Doings 10:32, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has quit for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's stopped for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


IP Moderate

Only warned once today and that didn't include a block warning. I've issued one now. If the vandalism continues please report here again. Please remember that vandals must be properly warned (including warning that continuing their behavior can mean a block) before reporting here. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they've quit. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They've quit. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he quit after the block warning. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:17, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked by Sjakkalle for 24 hours. Thanks. Pak21 11:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I overlooked the block log -- user was blocked for 6 months by Brian0918 earlier today. MCB 04:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours. Nasty. Looks like this is his or her third time to the principal's office. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This IP has only made one edit in more than a week. This page is for reporting persistent vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
edits returned Oct 31 20:00, Nov 1 18:50 J\/\/estbrook       04:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Geni blocked. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't quite figure this out; recent edits to Confuscianism: [1]. Looks more like clueless newbie testing or reverting to (much) older version. But there's clearer vandalism along the way. Last edit was 2005-10-27 13:11:52. Will ban again if vandalism occurs after this tstamp; want to make sure I'm not blocking another user who just inherited this IP. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]



IP Low

Has quit. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This person hasn't even edited for two days. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Has long since quit. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's quit for now. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last vandalized at 2005-10-26 15:32:46. I'm concerned that he seems happy making one vandalism every few days. 24 hour blocks aren't going to do much against that. I'd say at next vandalism he should be {{test4}}'ed, blocked 24 hours at the next vandalism, and blocked twice as long for each additional vandalism after that. Eventually we can at least punt him into the next century. :) Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 21:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This user has only edited twice and only been warned once! Did you not read the procedure above, where it says, "Only if vandalism continues, add user to list."? This page is for vandalism in progress. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 20:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Registered Users

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

RU Severe

::I think Curps has blocked permanently. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now he's using sodium bicarbonate to exchange notes with another student in a chemistry lab! Mamawrites & listens 17:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked indefinitely by Sjakkalle. 18:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


RU Moderate

Please don't report content disputes here. This is only for vandalism. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Lots of vandalism. Blocked indefinitely. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like he's working in good faith, but doesn't quite understand policies and consensus. There is currently an RFC going on about this user, which will decide how to handle him or bring it up to a higher process. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RU Low

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral --Irpen 21:55, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's reported at administrators' noticeboard, why did you need to report it here? Also, why did you not follow the procedure at the top of the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 22:52:54 (UTC)


Possible Sockpuppets

Current date is October 4, 2024; place new alerts on top.

Details can be seen at Talk:Iraqi_insurgency#Revert_war.
This is an ongoing and high-priority situation. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please note
This was originally at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but have added it here due to the vandal's large number of pseudonyms:
ProhibitOnions 16:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Protected. Please copy this report to Vandalism in progress so that the usernames can be checked and, if necessary, blocked. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ProhibitOnions 17:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This user has a long history of improper sock puppetry with a very clear edit pattern and admittedly shared IPs. He is prolific and makes many good edits, but also many less-good ones. I had previously blocked many of the usernames when he began using them in deletions, and after leaving several warnings. The problem seems to have grown worse recently. See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#155.84.57.253/24.0.91.81/Shran/et al.. -Willmcw 06:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've now blocked all of the listed usernames except user:KnightsOfMalta CantStandYa (talk · contribs). -Willmcw 07:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked him for 24 hours for persistent vandalism. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 13:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, having read through the recent revert war, this looks like an ordinary content dispute. The claim by ProhibitOnions that his opponents are writing "nonsense" and vandalizing is just false. They are reverting to a version of the article that leaves it uncertain whether the story of Kennedy's alleged goof is true or false. Whereas the version ProhibitOnions prefers comes down decisively that the story is false. I think on the facts of the matter, ProhibitOnions is probably correct, but disagreeing with him is not vandalism. I think Tony Sidaway jumped the gun when he protected the page. (But ProhibitOnions is correct that some of those reverting away from his version are writing misleading edit summaries.) --Nate Ladd 23:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nathan, this is not a simple matter of disagreement. This person has repeatedly changed the article, each time adding different nonsense phrasing that asserts something that is demonstrably false. (It is not simply a weaker prior version of the text, although it is usually based on one.) No, the vandal has never discussed the topic on the talk page. Yes, the vandal uses misleading edit summaries. Apart from creating numerous sock puppets, he has now created a user name that is visually similar to mine (Prohibit0nions vs. ProhibitOnions) and used identical edit summaries to mine ("Reverted to consensus version, vandal warned"). Sorry, this is malicious vandalism, there's no other way to describe it. ProhibitOnions 19:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation&oldid=27298971"