Jump to content

Wikipedia:Abuse response/129.15.127.231

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

129.15.127.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Abuse Response
Report Status
IP Address129.15.127.231
ContributionsContributions
Page MovesPage moves
Block LogBlock log
Contribution HistoryContribution history
StatusRejected
Requestorʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢
Date19:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)



Requester comments

There has been a long-standing issue with an IP originating from University of Oklahoma. A student at the university has been, since Don Valley Parkway was the TFA on August 31, repeatedly changed Canadian spelling to American and breaking interlanguage links which use unicode characters. Despite numerous warning, blocking of half a dozen+ IPs beginning with 129.15., attempts to contact the user, and the semi-protection of 4 (and counting) Ontario highway articles: Ontario Highway 401, Ontario Highway 407, Don Valley Parkway, Ontario Highway 6. Queen Elizabeth Way, Ontario Highway 17, Ontario Highway 400, and Ontario Highway 69 are the current target and may be subject to protection eventually. I wish blocking the individual IP would help, but they are back within an hour under a new IP, doing the exact same thing. I'm hoping that the IT department could be contacted with the IPs so that they may figure out which student is breaking their internet access agreement.

Discussion

Discussion transcluded from talk page Due to the nature of this case, I figured rangeblocking would be impractical and unsustainable - after all, this is a 65k range. Also, semi-protection is just overkill. But we can't just sit back and let someone have their way with multiple articles.

So, after a bit of testing, and with the cooperation of the University of Oklahoma's IT department, I successfully implemented the filter, and it successfully disallowed their test edit to Ontario Highway 407. With the filter's help, we can screen this range for offending edits (right now, it looks for spelling conversions from Canadian to American) while helpful edits come through.

The downside is that there may be a false-positive from time to time, but I'll continue working on ways to limit those results.

Also, according to the UoO IT folks, e-mailing their security department with a list of offending IP addresses and editing times should be able to narrow down the MAC addresses used for vandalism. m.o.p 20:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big intertwined list, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks a lot for help with this bugger. It's almost a shame to not be able to see the students reaction when they realize "uh oh" :) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's safe to assume they won't be happy when campus security knocks on their doors. m.o.p 21:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Took a bit of time, but here it is:
Date		Time (UTC)	IP		Article
August 31	09:05		129.15.131.184	Don Valley Parkway
August 31	12:46		129.15.31.219	Don Valley Parkway
August 31	13:42		129.15.31.219	Don Valley Parkway
August 31	17:07		129.15.31.219	Don Valley Parkway
August 31	17:24		129.15.31.219	Don Valley Parkway
August 31	17:31		129.15.31.219	Don Valley Parkway
			
September 1	08:34		129.15.131.95	Don Valley Parkway
September 1	09:27		129.15.131.184	Don Valley Parkway
September 1	15:52		129.15.127.63	Don Valley Parkway
September 1	16:04		129.15.127.63	Don Valley Parkway
			
September 2	14:39		129.15.31.191	Don Valley Parkway
September 2	15:25		129.15.31.191	Don Valley Parkway
			
September 10	21:46		129.15.131.184	Don Valley Parkway
September 10	21:48		129.15.131.184	Don Valley Parkway
			
September 11	15:20		129.15.127.49	Don Valley Parkway
			
September 12	13:22		129.15.31.191	Don Valley Parkway
September 12	13:48		129.15.31.191	Don Valley Parkway
September 12	15:26		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 401
September 12	19:05		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 401
			
September 13	12:50		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 401
September 13	14:45		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 401
September 13	17:12		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 401
September 13	17:51		129.15.127.71	Ontario Highway 401
September 13	17:59		129.15.127.71	Ontario Highway 401
September 13	18:11		129.15.127.71	Ontario Highway 401
			
September 18	10:36		129.15.30.240	Ontario Highway 407
			
September 23	14:25		129.15.31.194	Ontario Highway 407
			
September 24	15:45		129.15.131.185	Ontario Highway 407
			
September 28	20:08		129.15.127.67	Ontario Highway 407
September 28	22:22		129.15.131.185	Ontario Highway 407
			
			
September 29	09:19		129.15.131.185	Ontario Highway 407
September 29	09:30		129.15.131.185	Don Valley Parkway
September 29	13:37		129.15.127.67	Ontario Highway 6
			
September 30	10:19		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 69
September 30	10:21		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 17
September 30	10:23		129.15.127.231	Ontario Highway 400
September 30	10:26		129.15.127.231	Queen Elizabeth Way

-- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reject

I have rejected the case at the base that the IP wasn't blocked for 1 year. You may relist after. I hope it's fine. I will be investigating about the rangeblock, and I suggest an SPI for the IPs. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 21:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't make any sense to ban a university IP address for over a year when they have hundreds or thousands of IP addresses. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could call IAR on that. It is pretty useless. I will still like to see an SPI though. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 00:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In case you're not sure, Floydian, Ebe123 is talking about sockpuppet investigations. m.o.p 02:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this has gotten out of hand...

I was the person behind these edits. It was stupid of me, and I let it get way out of hand. I would like to apologize to Floydian for putting him through this. I've been going through a lot of stress in my life (outside of Wikipedia) lately, and I sort of got a bit overly frustrated. That however doesn't excuse what I did. If you want to ban me or take this to the sockpuppet investigations page to prove it was me, that's fine. Whatever you do, I will not do this again. However, getting the university involved in this is overkill, and I would appreciate it if you did not do this. - Algorerhythms (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs a good kick in the ass...
I honestly don't know if that list has been passed off to the IT department yet. I'd have no remorse at this point if it did, however. This was very immature behaviour (I'm assuming a retaliation for I-68), and perhaps having the IT department figure out the best course of action is appropriate considering that you put the rest of your school under fire by doing this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that I've already been in contact with the UoO IT department, and they were very adamant when they said we should turn over this list - apparently, the campus' internet is pretty strict when it comes to things like this.
So, now the question that needs to be asked (and because we can't simply let people walk away after vandalizing, frustrated or not) is what we're going to do with you. m.o.p 01:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, all. What I have to say really carries no weight here as I have done nothing to help combat this users vandalism, however I do think if possible we should recontact the IT department and urge leniency (tell them we have the culprit on our end and we are satisfied with that). Because, while what was done is inexcusable, meatspace justice can be extremely heavy handed about things they do not properly understand. JORGENEV 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Jorgenev here. All the disruptive edits have been reverted; it's not going to happen again—I'd been inclined to let it go at this point. There's too great a risk of the university being overly punitive, in my view. Nonetheless, ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ and m.o.p can take credit for the hard work they put into sorting this out, and protecting the encyclopedia. Thank you both. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 17:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with urging leniency. I wouldn't want somebody's professional life put in jeopardy because of an annoying, but minor lapse in judgment. Anything else is punitive, not remediatory. However, that said, I can't stand idly after two months of vexatious behaviour. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks like it's your lucky day, Algoreythms. We'll hold off on submitting this to the campus authority, but you'll face a few new rules:
          • Zero-revert rule on road articles and spelling issues (with the exception of common, blatant vandalism)
          • Block-on-sight policy if you're ever caught doing this again
        • On top of that, we'll submit a sockpuppet investigation for historical purposes. You won't get blocked, and you're welcome to stay a constructive member of the project, but, please - if you ever feel the need to relieve some stress or frustration, take a break from Wikipedia. Watch your favourite TV show. Knit. Take a walk by the beach. Don't make the lives of others harder. Sound good? m.o.p 20:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Registry information



Abuse summary


No abuse summary entered. 






Contact summary


No contact history entered. 








Case history





Investigated by:





Contacted by:
Investigator




Closed on:





Disposition:










Case log:
This abuse report has been rejected. Rejected.  Note on talk page.  ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 21:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]









Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Abuse_response/129.15.127.231&oldid=1085483590"