Wikipedia:Abuse response/76.178.67.45

Add links
Page protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Discussion User has multiple vandalism over a period of time. Has already been blocked twicethree times. Some vandalism edits are hard to catch, because vandal merely replaces name of one actor with another -- almost always Ryan O'Hara. The Ryan O'Hara article is a bio that is also up for AFD and has been vandalized numerous times by this same IP. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the vandal is Ryan O'Hara. Jauerback 00:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the Ryan O'Hara article appears to be legit and will stay. I'm still guessing that this vandal's name is indeed Ryan O'Hara, but not the one with a Wikipedia article. Jauerback 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vandal is obviously the same person as these two blocked users:
Jauerback 14:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be another IP instance of the vandal:

Accept for investigation on 76.178.67.45. It has activity recent enough to be useful in a report. --Darkwind (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Registry Information


Contact information:

abuse AT rr.com

Initial Report

This IP address has been blocked 3 times (the block log shows 4x, but that is due to an adjustment of block parameters). Upon closer investigation of the IP's talk page, the user was trying to create an article about a different Ryan O'Hara who is a auto racing driver, and didn't know how to do so. Based on that fact, I'm now rejecting this report per the IP was apparently acting in good faith.

Abuse Summary

76.178.67.45

 User was acting in good faith per comments on their talk page. --Darkwind (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I completely disagree with you. How does this explain the editor's reasoning on replacing links to actors (who were actually in the movie) with links to Ryan O'Hara (who is supposedly a race car driver)? This has been the majority of their disruptive edits. Jauerback 20:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm assuming that you're not done with the investigation, because this wasn't the reported IP, only what I believe is another instance of it. Jauerback 20:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't agree that what the user did was necessarily constructive, but at least some of it was apparently good faith, and that's enough to say that we should, as a community, take more time to educate this contributor rather than reporting their misdeeds to their ISP. It's entirely possible that the user decided to stop with the intentional disruption and actually make the second Ryan O'Hara article, but doing so was still disruptive. I haven't really taken enough time to examine each and every one of their diffs to find if that's the case, but my next paragraph explains why.
Abuse reports can be more punitive in nature than any other form of vandalism control here at Wikipedia, and as a course of last resort it should not be taken lightly. Because this is apparently this user's home ISP (not a school, workplace, etc.) this report could cause this person to lose their Internet access account, possibly including the attendant loss of their e-mail address and personal website if hosted by the ISP (and thus a portion, if not all, of their online identity). Think of what would happen to you if you were forced to change your home ISP. If there's even a glimmer of hope that the user can be reformed, an abuse report will not be made to the ISP.
If this were the user's school, for example, then I'd have much less of an issue with proceeding with the report, because the worst that could happen is a loss of net access from school, or possibly an academic reprimand. A place of work, I'm more leery of, since misuse of the Internet is grounds for termination at many companies, and I wouldn't want to get anyone fired if there's the hope they were acting in good faith; and the same goes for the home ISP.
Also, the original IP has no activity recent enough to report. An ISP is generally not going to take action on items over 30 days old unless there are legal issues involved (death threats, terrorism, etc., which is obviously not the case.) --Darkwind (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that explanation I can understand and will accept. I didn't realize the full implications of what could happen if the abuse report went through. Jauerback 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


DELETE THIS NOW

OK I PROMISED YOU I WOULD NEVER DO THIS AGAIN SO PLEASE GET RID OF WHAT INTERNET SERVICE I USE ITS AN INVASION OF MY PRIVACY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rollerracer (talk • contribs) 00:10, September 22, 2007

I'm sorry, this information needs to remain as part of the permanent record for the Abuse Reports project. The ISP that's associated with an IP address is public information (see WHOIS); but nobody knows what IP address is associated with a Wikipedia username unless you tell them (under normal circumstances). If you hadn't messed with this page, nobody would have known that this IP address was associated with your username; so any revelation of private information is unfortunately your own fault. --Darkwind (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Abuse_response/76.178.67.45&oldid=821281922"