User:BD2412/Archive - Vandalism

Archives: Articles-1st/Deletion-1st-2d/Law-1st-2d-3d-4th

Misc.-1st-2d-3d/RfA-1st-2d-3d-4th/Tools-1st-2nd/Vandalism

I have archived my various vandalism-related talk page discussions, particularly requests to deal with vandals, on this page.

[edit] Vandalism User:81.202.222.30

This user is continuing to vandalise as we speak despite warning. He needs final warning then a block if he persists. Thanks.--File Éireann 21:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll look into it - I've nominated his most recently vandalised article for deletion, at any rate. BD2412 T 21:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• You beat me to nominating it by about 5 seconds! You can speedy delete them yourself now.Thank you!--File Éireann 21:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Could you help?

Prodego ^talk 13:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope so too, but doubt it, that IPs been vandalising since 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Naomi's Fancy on wheels

Just created. Perhaps you might wish to block.--File Éireann 21:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well, let's have a look... Naomi's Fancy on wheels (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Sure it's not Naomi's Fancy on Wheels (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)?
• Its already been deleted--File Éireann 21:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• (User creation log); 21:30 . . Naomi's Fancy on wheels (Talk) (New user (Talk | contribs | block))--File Éireann 21:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weeeell, then it's doubly blocked now. :-) BD2412 T 21:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Raging vandal

User:Evinem is running amok among wikipedia articles. I think he needs a final warning and a block.--File Éireann 22:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC) I'll take a peek here... Evinem (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Seems to have stopped making edits - only two left, now that his nonsense articles are deleted. I'll check back later. :-) BD2412 T 22:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Now User:Poppppppp is on the loose.--File Éireann 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal blocking

BD2412 is hereby awarded the Vandal Whacking Stick for blocking and reverting vandals (and often beating me to it).

!מזל טוב

from Izehar

What would we do without you to block all the vandals? Before you, we'd have to wait for ages before they were blocked; forcing non-admins such as myself to follow them around reverting them until someone would block them. Izehar (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Here, take an award:

[edit] Sorry to bother you (again)

I created a page for common assault and seem to have run into a false category problem. Obviously, common assault should not be a category in its own right. David91 03:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Help

I saw you become an admin, and I saw your name on my watch list so I picked you for help :). Can you give me some advice on what to do? On 2005 Sydney Race Riots, User:Flying fox is editing, reverting, etc and summarizing that he's reverting my edits. I have no clue as to why, as they aren't my edits. The only edits I've made are moving references to the reference section and tagging the appropriate content with a link to the reference. I haven't added any original content to the article. I don't know what's up with this guy. --Elliskev 02:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That'll work. Thanks. --Elliskev 02:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Aoclery

Would you mind launching an investigation of this chaps highly unusual edits. I've already had a bit of a debate with him and I've nominated another of his articles for deletion today. Basically, most of his articles have to go. Hes put a huge amount of work into them. Unfortunately, they don't appear to belong in this encyclopaedia.--File Éireann 22:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Off to the party, will check later! BD2412 T 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember to check out User:Aoclery--File Éireann 15:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Aoclery (talk • contribs • page moves • block • block log)

[edit] You have a fan

Seems like a particular IP likes you. :P He's out of here, but you must be doing a good job... Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• But... but... how did he know that!?! BD2412 T 01:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • o_O... Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandal Help

There is an unregistered user who is constantly vandalizing the Evansville, Indiana page to include a vanity link to his website. The user in question is Evansvilleboneyard and the website in question is Evansville Boneyard. Despite consistent removal by a number of contirbutors, he/she continues to add it back to the Evansville page with such things as "widely read", etc. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest it is encyclopedia worthy and the user should be warned and/or banned. We could really use your help in removing these pointless links and keeping this guy from adding them back.--YHoshua 03:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LegalMatch

You beat me to User talk:67.119.122.102, the guy adding LegalMatch spam. If I'd seen your note first I might have held off, but in fact I had already reverted his history. No great loss IMHO. If you disagree I'm happy to go back and undo, though AndyJones 22:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked again

My IP address is 205.188.117.13. username:Mike Nobody.

The IP address has been blocked by BD2412.

The reason given is:

A few good edits mixed in with raucous vandalism - not sure what's going on, but blocking just the same - post a note on your user page if you have an explanation.

You can email BD2412 or one of the other administrators to discuss the block. You may also edit your user talk page if you wish. If you believe that our blocking policy was violated, you may discuss the block publicly on the WikiEN-l mailing list. Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

I want to continue working on my Userpage. I was in the process of adding pics to my page and relevant articles (Star Trek References in Futurama, Saavik, etc.) Could you please unblock me, I haven't vandalised anything, just an AOL user who got blocked too.--Mike Nobody 21:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I have removed this block as blocks on AOL accounts should be limited to very short durations because their proxy system causes many people to share the same IPs. Dragons flight 21:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks - I could not find the IP on the block list - guess you got there first! BD2412 T 21:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MediaWiki talk:ipboptions

Please see my reply as to why 31 hours should stay :) --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocks

20:45, 19 December 2005 BD2412 blocked "User:213.244.194.183" with an expiry time of indefinite (Follows m.o. of repeat vandal BangBang.)

I'm pretty sure you know it, but blocking IPs indefinitely should not be done unless they're open proxies. Just wanted to know what's going on. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• I left a note on the user's page instructing them to email me if I am in error - however, this vandal is following the exact pattern of an earlier repeat vandal who changed "radio stations" to "statio radions" repeatedly. I'll unblock it quickly if there is reason to. BD2412 T 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, that's still not enough for an indefinite. The only time you can really indefinitely block IPs is for an open proxy. Even if they follow patterns of a blocked user, you need to warn and then block for (usually) 24 hours or 31 hours for an IP. I shortened the block to 24 hours. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, now I know - and knowing is half the battle! BD2412 T 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless you have some sort of indication that the IP is a repeat offender, in which case, you can gradually increase the duration of the blocks. Ideally, no more than a month will do. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I've looked over my blocks and unblocked all IPs that I had thrown indefinite blocks against, and one that I had blocked for a month for blanking a page with "communism". BD2412 T 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • That's the other thing. Need to warn users. Not always, but 90% of the time. The only time I don't is if it's an obvious sockpuppet, like the Wheels! vandals or if we're getting nailed by a sock attack. But otherwise, I'd bookmark this page. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • And I was much nicer about it than the admin who told me!! :-) Nothing will get you into trouble faster than blocks. Btw, 31 hours is ok too. It's become kind of a way to make it longer than 24 without overdoing it. And another informal convention is that if you think it might be a dynamic IP, you usually need to limit it even further...to 3 hours. What will really annoy you is the schools. Because you will get emails from kids saying "I'm blocked! Why do you do this to us!!!". :-D Anyway, so 24/31 hours isn't absolute but it's a good rule of thumb. If it's obvious that it's a static IP and not dynamic, then it's permissible to go beyond 24/31 hours. How can you tell? #1 clue is if they are hitting the same article or sets or articles each time they vandalize. You'll get used to it. Just expect to be yelled at a few times along the way. It's inevitable for new admins. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Not to worry, I was getting yelled at loooong before I was an admin! ;-) BD2412 T 04:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Me too! If you look at my talk page, you will see that I'm still yelled at. It never really ends. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You're about to be yelled at again, so be prepared. I've just unblocked user:202.180.83.6, which you seem to have blocked for two days despite the message on the user talk page saying that since this IP is used by a large number of editors, incuding at least one admin (me) it should only be blocked for 15 minutes at a time, and that you should give me warning first! Grrrrr! Grutness...wha? 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry about that - in my defense, it was only a 31 hour block... and the vandalism was really annoying. BD2412 T 13:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] no problem!

That's happened to me more than once myself, especially with those high-speed persistent vandal types. (Unfortunately that IP range has a bunch of legitimate users, else I'd range-block it!) Antandrus (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dakota Fanning protected

I have protected Dakota Fanning for the time being, and will maintain it in that status for a few hours. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you :) RadioKirk 21:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Block?

Why was I blocked previously? I went to come on here the other day & it gave me a message that I had been blocked? I would have emailed you but those who I share my computer with do not want to be spammed. I even tried my friend's account to try to message you on here, but his account would not work either. So why were both me & my friend blocked after doing nothing wrong? I checked the block list of when it said I'd been blocked & my name was not on there. I do not want people getting the wrong idea & thinking I'm a vandal. Thanks Spawn Man 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• Probably you have a dynamic IP address, and someone else with access to that same address was blocked as a vandal - I surely have not blocked any user by your name, and I apologize for any inconvenience you've encountered. BD2412 T 00:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No problemo. Congrats on your RFA by the way.... Spawn Man 00:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Btw :)

You said you wanted to unprotect The PLAGUE. I have a feeling you didn't know how to unprotect a deletedpage since it was still protected when I saw it. :) You just delete the page. Darn newbie admin! :) --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 01:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• D'oh!!! Mindslip. Fixed. BD2412 T 01:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new user that may cause some problems...

Greetings. I just wanted to inform you, as an admin, about a new user, HQCentral that may be worth keeping an eye on. First of all, he posted an attack on my talk page for tagging an article for cleanup and, furthermore, here is an early version of his user page. I posted a polite welcome on his talk page regarding some of our rules on civility, but I think that a note from an admin might have a little more teeth with him. Anyways, just wanted to give you a heads up, and keep up the excellent work! Youngamerican 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I read up on policy regarding such users, and if he causes any more disruptions, I will deal with it through the appropriate channels. Cheers. Youngamerican 01:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ipbotoptions

Already there. Thanks for the heads-up, though (by the way, take a look at the latest revision to the page if you haven't already ;-)). Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• grin* Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:70.161.231.89

I changed this vandal's talk page from full protection to semi-protected. For anon talk pages, a semi-protect is sufficient to prevent them from blanking it, while allowing other users to post warnings. I hope you don't mind! Owen× ☎ 16:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not at all - but what other warnings would be required while the user is blocked, and can not make bad edits to warn of? BD2412 T 17:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mayhem

A revert war on Louisiana Baptist University is totally out of control. Everyone has started using anon IP's so I'm not sure who is really involved. I think the page should be protected to force this to the talk page. Could you take a look at the page history, thanks. David D. (Talk) 06:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK never mind I see RoyBoy has just put the page under protection. David D. (Talk) 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

Hey BDA, being kind of inexperienced, I was hoping you could look at what I did with the user Sanoker- I described it at the bottom of WP:AN/I. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have the diffs. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

So do you think 24 hours would be appropriate in this particular case? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup - if he comes back and vandalizes again, spring a longer one on him. Indefinite bans are like the death penalty, reserved for the unredeemable (e.g. certain persons on wheels and the like). BD2412 T 05:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I've seen indefinite blocks like that, and picking a particular administrator seemed especially malicious. I didn't abuse powers, did I? CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 05:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"Abuse" would have been not looking for a second opinion. BD2412 T 05:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It's OK

I admit it looks exactly like vandalic nonsense, and there was no way to tell ahead of time that I wanted it. 68.39.174.238 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

216.70.13.130 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) linkspam Prodego ^talk 22:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Thanks for the tip. BD2412 T 22:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Prodego ^talk 22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, anyways

I appreciate that you looked into my block. I realize that when I email an admin they may not be able to get to my request for awhile. Thank you. No Guru 05:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Checkuser

As a big vandal fighter, I am seeing what I can do to get checkuser access to help me tackle sockpuppets and help out with the backlog. Any help/advice would be appreciated.Gator (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that it's possible, except for those in ArbCom - not sure bureaucrats have it, even. I support your efforts, tho, as I think a somewhat broader array of admins should have that useful ability. BD2412 T 14:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indef

Indef block Nikto parcheesy (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Prodego ^talk 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Been blocked - four times over!

00:12, 28 March 2006 Pathoschild blocked "Nikto parcheesy (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (Rapid vandalism)

00:11, 28 March 2006 Curps blocked "Nikto parcheesy (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism)

00:11, 28 March 2006 CLW blocked "Nikto parcheesy (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite ({{indefblockeduser}})

00:11, 28 March 2006 Sango123 blocked "Nikto parcheesy (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (abusive sockpuppet)

Cheers! BD2412 T 00:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yea, lol, seconds after I told you. Prodego ^talk 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

This is crazy, 2 high profile vandals at once, we're at wikidefcon 2. Prodego ^talk 00:29, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reformado = Zephram Stark

Yes. Good eye. CheckUser confirms, of course. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Would you please consider a block on this user: [1] for repeated vandalism to Bill Clinton today? Kukini 14:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. BD2412 T 15:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you much! Kukini 17:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another vandal

Hi BD, I think this user, 206.176.100.20 is a vandal. If you can help please do so. --Eastlaw 04:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More blocks

More IP blocks over a month. This time Natalinasmpf. See User_talk:Natalinasmpf#User:169.244.143.115, I would appreciate your assistance again. Thanks for you help, Prodego ^talk 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a better idea, actually - we should ask the developers to change the program so that it is simply not possible to place an indefinite block on an IP. BD2412 T 19:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't work, since you do indef block open proxies, remember ;-). Prodego ^talk 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

D'oh! BD2412 T 20:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More indef IP blocks

Another, this one is tricky. This user seems to have been unilaterally sysoped by Danny and has only 168 edits. User:AlisonW. See her block log. Prodego ^talk 18:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response on her talk page. Cheers! BD2412 T 19:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Wilkes

You don't seem to be aware of it but Ted Wilkes has been banned from editing Wikipedia. He was banned in mid March for 1 year by the Arbitration Committee. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, no I did not notice that - I was simply looking to help folks (and a fairly large batch of them, at that) to be aware of the need to archive. Cheers! bd2412 T 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] doppelgänger indef block request

BD, when you get a chance, can you permablock this account? Thanks.--Kchase 01:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user page now redir's to my actual one. I changed my sig. Thanks.--Kchase T 02:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Redirect protected, as well. bd2412 T 03:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Hey, stranger, maybe you can solve a mystery. I just made an edit to revert a "test" by an anon at IP 146.129.250.105 in the above referenced article. On the article page, I can see that the offending characters are no longer there, and my watchlist shows that I made the edit. However, when I pull up the history on the article -- the edit doesn't show up at all. It shows the last edit as having been made by IP 146.129.250.105, as though I never made the edit. Any idea what would cause that discrepancy? Yours, Famspear 20:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I got out of Wikipedia, closed my browser, reopened it, cleared my cache in the browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer), then got back into Wikipedia, and the problem seems to be gone. Weird. Famspear 21:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent vandalism

This user has been vandalizing Mertens v. Hewitt Associates. He has already been warned once. Should I do anything more? --Eastlaw 23:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry it took me a while to get back to you. Seems the problem stopped right away - good work! bd2412 T 18:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)