Wikibooks:Vandalism in progress/Archive2

128.239.178.116 ( talk | email | contribs )

128.239.178.116 vandalized about a dozen high-traffic pages, replacing all the content with one sentence, repeated hundreds of times. They also created new pages filled with the same stuff, apparently from editing 'red links'. All entries now reverted or tagged for deletion. --Everlong 11:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this one. I've given him a one-day block as a warning, and that can be extended in the future, as there is going to be a history now for this user in the block logs alone that can be extended if there is a sign of continued abuse. --Rob Horning 12:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

65.191.180.58 ( talk | email | contribs )

This IP address has two suspicious-looking edits at [1] and [2]. However, I do not know enough about the Harry Potter series to know whether they really count as vandalism. Someone who knows Harry Potter better than me needs to look at these. --JMRyan ^T E C 18:45, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I have asked Muggles guy Matt to look at these. --JMRyan ^T E C 19:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've taken care of them. These were really just poor content additions to the pages. I might label one as vandalism since it was just random incorrect information, but the other was purely bad placement of a fact in the books. I don't think the user meant any harm. -Matt 19:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

70.29.54.17 ( talk | email | contribs )

Three vandalisms on 18 March 2006 and two on 4 April 2006 (all reverted). --JMRyan ^T E C 19:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for three days at the moment. It can be increased if additional problems persist. --Rob Horning 12:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Kantilissack ( talk | email | contribs ) and JarlaxelArtemis Is A Banned User On Wheels ( talk | email | contribs )

Typical Wheely on Wheels sockpuppets, both need to be banned. --German Men92 01:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

They are already banned: [3][4]

However, the autoblocker only bans their IP address for 24 hours at most, and then only if the user accesses the wiki while logged in after being banned. So this vandal might return under other usernames. --Kernigh 03:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

J-OTLX4 ( talk | email | contribs )

Same person as above. --German Men92 12:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:WoW

IPs and new user accounts created this Template:WoW, and started creating annoying seven-byte user pages containing {WoW}} for some of our recent vandals. Most of the Wikipedia links on this template are nonfunctional.

It might be okay to have a page with a list of vandals, but I think that this memorial to sockpuppets is unnecessary... though I am not sure whether this is the vandal promoting itself. I suggest that we delete all "{WoW}}" pages and either delete the template, or change the template to a box "do not use this template!". --Kernigh 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: Apparently the template is a copy of Wikipedia:Template:WoW, and they use it over 1500 user pages. I am quite surprised that any wiki would have such a large array of vandal sockpuppets, and can understand better why we have such a template. Do we want to keep this template? --Kernigh 02:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep the template but also give it a full protect - it's the kind of thing that's prone to attract vandalism and it's fully protected on Wikipedia too. It might also be a good idea to report the accounts here (under the "Inter-Wiki Appearances" section).

I was very tempted to delete this on sight. It seems to serve no useful purpose (most of those listed are blocked indefinitely anyway). Do we really want a tribute page to WoW (other than the move log, which is already tainted by page-move vandalism)? IMHO, not unless we want to glorify that type of vandalism, Jguk 05:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking sort of the same thing, about this being more of a tribute to a vandal than anything else. The comments about this user eventually getting tired of doing this, however, I don't see happening in this situation. This has been a persistant attack against many Wikimedia projects, and potentially even projects outside of Wikimedia arenas as well. It has been suspected that he was one of the reasons why the Los Angeles Times shut down their reader "letters to the editor" wiki, because he came in and overwhelmed the nascient group of administrators who didn't know how to handle an idiot like this. I suppose that is something to brag about, and he is trying to do the same elsewhere. The point I'm making... I would support deleting this template, however, as well as all such markups on the pages of vandals. Keep them red-shirt users if possible. A formal template would be needed for other kinds of problem users such as the John Siegenthaler situation or somebody who has gone into repeated editing wars and needed to be banned for reasons outside of pure vandalism. Otherwise, treat these accounts as the anon user they really should be compared to. --Rob Horning 15:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

82.211.102.138 ( talk | email | contribs )

Blanked many highly visible pages, see contribs. I reverted anything that wasn't "top" but if someone could double-check I'd appreciate it. Xerol Oplan 14:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

220.233.92.170 ( talk | email | contribs )

Seven vandalisms to a single page in 10 minutes. It looks like this character tried to slip under the radar by spreading a significant blanking over the seven edits. --JMRyan ^T E C 18:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

These edits seem relatively mild. I left this user a message on his talk page. If the vandalism continues, I will block him. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 22:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape/Guides/Item Price

This page was vandalised on 28 April 2006 from 82.0.0.0/8 addresses in the United Kingdom. It was later reverted by other IP addresses. This follows previous vandalism on 13 April, 11 April, 10 April, 9 April, and 24 March.

This page is unusual because it is edited frequently, mostly by not-logged in users who adjust prices. --Kernigh 08:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Catsarecool ( talk | email | contribs )

Replacing content with images of cats. --haginძaz 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for a year for vandalism, Jguk 06:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

151.188.16.12 ( talk | email | contribs )

Replaced the entire content of the front page from the Remote Viewing book to "Stupid and Fake".

He did alot more then that. I have blocked him for 1 month for repeat vandalism. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

82.198.250.2 ( talk | email | contribs )

Found a couple of offensive edits, in the Aztecs section of the wikijunior book on ancient civiliations, replaced the content of what were there buildings like to "F**king big"

He only had one recorded edit. I left a warning on his user talk page. If he comes back, I will block him. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 01:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Was i wrong to report it? --ryanlerch(talk)

No you did a good job. Alot of the time people will come in and make a single "test edit" just to see how things work. In general, policy states that we should be tolerant of new users, and therefore I won't pursue the matter very far. However, Now we have a record of vandalistic tendancies, and if he acts on it again, we can ban him. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 01:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

85.99.251.51 ( talk | email | contribs )

Deleted all the contents of Book of the month. I reverted it as best as I could. Keytotime 01:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting the problem. I left a warning on the user talk page. if he vandalizes any more, I will block him. Let me know if you have any other issues. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 01:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

67.184.189.188 ( talk | email | contribs )

Vandalism of Wikijunior pages.--Konstable 02:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

72.140.92.213 ( talk | email | contribs )

Vandalism of Modern_Physics:Ideal_Gas. Already been reverted. Keytotime 13:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

65.115.220.89 ( talk | email | contribs )

This user has today disrupted Wikijunior. It has previously vandalise Wikipedia. After being blocked, someone (most likely the same user), used an open proxy, which had been blocked on Wikipedia yesterday, to post a message alleging that I was engaging in administrator abuse on the staff lounge. Watch out - I guess we may get some more open proxies helpfully identified for us soon, Jguk 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, 65.115.220.89 ( talk | email | contribs ) is an open proxy too. I'm blocking both infinitely. Maybe we'll need to do all on this list, Jguk 20:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Now all blocked, Jguk 12:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

wtf?

[5], omg, the ip, 213.223.187.131 did a wierd edit, kinda l00ks liek a vandalism, at least he had left evedence! LOL! 66.169.1.14 13:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

69.244.147.233 ( talk | email | contribs )

Vandalism of Hexpixel Code. I Reverted the change Keytotime 01:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 day.... if this ip shows repeated vandalism that can be extended. --Rob Horning 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

85.107.37.139 ( talk | email | contribs )

On A Background of European History in the European History wikibook, the user added the following:

"European History Sponsor: DVDRemoteHack.com - Convert your existing dvd player into a multiregional player in seconds. Play any DVD from any region."

User had only a single edit, and hasn't been back since. If this spam continues, I'll block the IP. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 18:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

24.109.206.88 ( talk | email | contribs )

Getting a guy (for girls)/Situations DettoAltrimenti 04:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)`s

I did a 1-day block on this user, to be a "speed bump" and warning. Repeated vandalism of course can go much longer. BTW, if you look at the user contribution log, this appears to be some fallout from the anti-video game books, and is a homegrown vandal, rather than one from Wikipedia. --Rob Horning 12:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Nerina PaIlot, User:Haunfaer

The first user linkspammed staff lounge. I warned her, and removed the spam. The second user (who I assume to be a sockpuppet), replaced the vandalism. I am going to block both of them for linkspamming, and sockpuppeting in bad faith. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)