This page is an archive of past discussions for the period December 2005 (index). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 18 years ago134 comments92 people in discussion
Pages
IP addresses
IP Severe
November 2005
204.193.6.90(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) IP belongs to a school and has constantly vandalized this site in over 500 different instances with little or no positive contributions, I am requesting permanent banning of this IP from editing wikipedia in order to maintain the quality of the site.
I just read this guy's vandalism; it's quite possibly the most hateful and sick thing I have ever read. We need to imidiatly ban this guy. (If we haven't already; I'm not sure how to se if a guy got banned) Tobyk777 06:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Vandal is now in violation of three revert rule. Durova 20:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Reported the IP group and history to AOL (126 warnings, 18 blocks). Suspect a Wikipedia editor who originally used a static address and his actual name as the source of most of the trouble. Will gladly provide details. Durova 21:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
For the record, the spurious charge of plagiarism made by 205.188.116.11 is answered here. Durova 22:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
These are related, they are from Royal Liberty School and Hampton School, London. Together, they vandalized A LOT of different articles today and in the last few days. I think I've listed all of them, now I'll go through the talk pages to warn Wikipedians that they are schools' IPs, then I'll check their edits. Many of them have already been blocked previously, but they keep vandalizing, even now as I'm writing. 212.85.15.88's vandalism was previously reported by Zora on November 1, so I've merged the two reports. Mushroom 15:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I've moved this report to the top of this section because they're at it again today. I noticed vandalism from User:212.85.15.66 and User:212.85.15.83 particularly. It looks from their talk pages as if this is a long-term problem. Is a longer-term block appropriate? Stephen Turner 12:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, several other of these addresses have been vandalising today too. Stephen Turner 13:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Annoying, but they all appear to have quit for the moment. Thanks for the good work. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
They'd stopped because it was after the end of the school day in the UK. They've started again today. These are childish but persistent vandals. They vandalise several articles every day, and judging by their talk pages this has been going on for several weeks. Stephen Turner 10:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
That would be a technical solution to a social problem, the approach never works. Did anyone consider calling or emailing Someone In Charge? Pilatus 18:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Hampton School has an email address for their staff at staff@hampton.richmond.sch.uk. Is there a form letter that Wikipedia recommends for use?--Roland 06:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I have just checked more IPs from this range. I have gone as far as about 62.171.194.120, and these addresses don't seem to be active. I have created User:Mike_Rosoft/vandalism to track them. - Mike Rosoft 15:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be more talk about these addresses here. Stephen Turner 15:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Vandalised my page again, nothing has been done about this yet. Can someone please spare a few second to block this ip? Thanks, Dsol 19:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
84.148.115.246(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) On some sort of campaign to rid Wikipedia of anything he feels "glorifies" Adolf Hitler, particularly photos. Entire 84.148.x.x netblock is involved, so blocking individual IPs is unlikely to have any effect. Has already caused the Adolf Hitler page to be locked down once, and returned as soon as it was unlocked.--chris.lawson 02:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Hans has moved on to 84.148.91.200 and has been given test4. If he is not blocked, I suspect the page will be protected again. —HorsePunchKid→龜2005-10-22 05:31:38Z
This is getting really ridiculous. A quick glance at the article's edit history will show that Hans has been continuously disruptive of this article for the past week, and has not even begun to let up after being asked repeatedly to cease his disruptive behaviour. The 84.148.x.x netblock needs to be blocked from editing for a few days (even if only for a few hours at a time, when Hans is most likely to be editing) to get the message across.--chris.lawson 05:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
147.26.148.42(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) Going to block him for 48 hours. He's involved in a dispute on the Moldovan language page. Most of his posts have been of the "Ban this user!" variety. Basically just disruptive. He attempted to post a block request against Node_ue, but even that was basically just a character assassination for no reason. He complained because Node_ue removed the anon's request on ViP but actually it was in the wrong place...twice. Anyway...blocking for 48 hours. Bad character. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 13:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
67.86.32.131(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) Adding silly "quote" subheads where they do not need to be, continues to needlessly edit templates; all of which indicate a refusal to abide by vandalism warnings he had been swamped by during the previous months. Although what he is doing is not that serious, it does not give him the right to do so.Encyclopedist (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Someone has given this guy {{test3}} and they're still at it. Christalk back 21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
205.188.116.10(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) Has run up the maximum number of warnings; still sporadically vandalizing. Clearly the IP number is also used (not only in principle, but also right now) by constructive AOL users. (I suppose I ought not to wonder out loud: Why don't intelligent people simply use alternatives to AOL?) -- Hoary 15:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
71.112.115.22(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) - possible vandalism. Basically around one change per minute to pages. I'm listing the user here as a possible vandal because I've noted that they replaced Nobel Prize in Physics with Nobel Prize in one instance (that I reverted) and then on a more recent edit replaced Nobel Prize with Nobel Prize in Physics on another article. I'm worried that they will do a bunch of subtle vandalism that will be hard to catch just by myself. User has one semi-warning from a day or two ago suggesting that they put edit summaries which apparently been ignored... --Syrthiss 03:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
And carrying on making destructive changes to year pages after having been reprimanded once. -- Smjg 08:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to call that "clueless newbieism." Looks like he's making productive edits to the year articles at the moment. It would be nice if he would use edit summaries. Think I'll try adding an encouragement on his talk page. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 18:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I've warned both of these IP addresses that they have 24 hours to confirm they are not bots or they will be blocked. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 20:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
Looks like I'm not the first to notice that these two are probably one and the same person, just messing about from a different place each time. -- Smjg 10:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
blocked indefinitely (amusingly enough, this account was last used exactly one year ago; it seems that MXM didn't realize it existed and hit on that idea independently.) DS 17:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
This is why users need to create any names that are slightly different to avoid being impersonated to begin with. I created Eddie Segoura (with a space) and My name in all lowercase so nobody can make or use those duplicates. -- Eddie
That is a lie! I have not done one thing wrong since I was unblocked! I am being treated unfairly for nothing, do not block me unless I deserve it, which I do not. Thank you very much. Rafterman 03:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't deserve it?!!! Ha Here are two quotes from this guy's talk page "I'm an anti-semite" and "I was doing good for awhile and then I saw category:Jewish Wikipedians and I just went off" This guy makes death threats, vandalism, and a major anti-semite. Oh by the way... I'm JewishTobyk777 02:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I see no vandalism since the 11th, which is presumably when he was last blocked. Sherurcij 07:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Five further vandalistic edits since the above listing. -- JimR 03:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Krelian 88(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) Constantly reverting legit edits on the Xenosaga pages and deleting talk pages. This may not be vandalism, but he continues to attack my userpage and write nonsense on my talk page. I gave him a notice to go to Espanol Wikipedia if he can't "hablo Espanol" but all things point to him being a vandal. He even commented on one of my warnings. Deckiller 01:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Jayjg(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·nuke contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) RfC procedures state: "All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page." Jayjg engages in a revert war on an RfC against me (one that he certified/endorsed), reinserting threaded comments in direct violation of RfC procedures. 19:40, 2 November 200517:55, 3 November 200514:59, 3 November 2005. As it happens, that last edit shows Jayjg removing my endorsement of an outside comment to the talk page. This qualifies as vandalism.. Now, Jayjg claims on my talk page that he thought my post was just another threaded comment. If it was, then it is interesting that the other two times he reverted me, he reinserted threaded comments to the article against RfC procedures. [3][4]. But the one and only time he removes what he says he thought was a "threaded comment" was when it was my comment. And my comment also happens to be an endorsement of an outside comment by Vizcarra, and messing with someone's vote qualifies as vandalism. Note the endorsement he removed starts with an objection to a point I don't agree with, and ends with "I endorse your statement otherwise". That Jayjg is an admin and a member of the arbitration committee means that ignorance is no excuse. He knows policy. He knew exactly what he was doing. What will be interesting will be whether the fact that he is an admin and a member of arbcom has any bearing on whether policy is enforced neutrally, fairly, and evenly here, or whether who you are somehow affects judgment on what you do. He engaged in an edit war, disrupted RfC procedures, and vandalized my vote/endorsement of an outside comment. For a complete description of everything that happened, see this. FuelWagon 04:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
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? —the preceding unsigned comment is byJdavidb (talk • contribs) 2005-10-31 22:52:54
You have been permanently blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy because this account has been used only for vandalism. If you would like to contest this block, please contact me or another administrator. // Pathoschild 16:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
01:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
