User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse/May-June2006

I notice Timl2k4 has recently been approved to use this tool. He just reverted one of my edits as vandalism when it is clearly not vandalism. Is that sufficient reason to remove him from the access list? --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems ) 01:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems you and he are having a bit of a tiff . I don't really see any evidence that he has been abusing the tool or has otherwise demonstrated himself to be untrustworthy. This appears to just be a content dispute--if it evolves into a situation where he violates WP:3RR (especially if he uses VandalProof to do so) or where any kind of action is taken against him, please let me know on this page immediately and I will remove his access. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

--St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Someone edited St. Louis Park, Minnesota, simply reverting an immediately prior edit and menitioning that VandalProof was used. The edit that got reverted was a list of schools in St. Louis Park. It wasn't really the best edit, but it is relevant and the information in it was accurate. It was very obviously not vandalism. Michael Hardy 20:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding this edit, I tend to agree that it was not vandalism, but I'm going to assume good faith here and say it was an honest mistake by . At worst, he was inentionally using VP to remove disputed content that does not meet WP:VAND, for which the tool honestly should not be used, though so long as it is not used to make a point or to wage an edit war, I wouldn't call it abuse. Thanks for your message, but I don't see a need to take any form of action against Cholmes75. AmiDaniel (Talk) 20:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Second that logic. Nice thinking AmiDaniel. Eagle (talk) (desk) 15:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. we need to come up with something to archive old "abuse" reports. I say 10 days after the last post on each report. Frankly I don't want to see this pile up like the bug reports:-).Eagle (talk) (desk) 15:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

(no VP user involved) I have been vandalized over 10 times by Hermione1980
Can you please block him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BW313 (talk • contribs).
 * Was this vandalism done using VandalProof. If not, please use AIV. Computerjoe 's talk 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I speedied Harper Ave,Detroit five times and warned the creator about recreating articles; reverted to a redirect that made more sense on another one of his creations; deleted another one of his articles (I think); I'm a she, by the way; and I have no clue why he posted here, of all places. I've never even heard of VandalProof. H e rmione1980 19:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problems Computerjoe 's talk 19:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: NO VP USER INVOLVED, this is a case of a user reporting problems to the wrong location. Eagle talk 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate change reverted by VandalProof user
I redirected CAD to CAD (disambiguation), but it was immediately reverted by User:ILovePlankton using VandalProof. That page was simply a less-comprehensive version of the latter page, and the redirection was totally in keeping with the sentiments expressed on its talk page. ILovePlankton should not be so trigger-happy. 86.40.156.73 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * taken from AmiDaniels TalkPage and brought to a more relevent location. Eagle talk 23:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note, this appears to be a simple mistake, as a VandalProof mod, I see no need to remove ILovePlankton from the list.Eagle talk 00:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Eagle. This edit could quite easily be mistaken as vandalism, as no edit sumamry was provided and it appears, on first glance, to be page blanking. Please use edit summaries in the future, and if your edits are reverted in the future, please contact the user, and only report abuse if it is something that should result in a user's usage permission being removed. (As an aside, I really should put a big box at the top of this page indicating what should/should not be reported here.) Thanks for your concerns, but I don't see any reason to take action here. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Zpb52 is making questionable edits with VandalProof, see (see [], [], [], [], [], [], [], []). (List compiled by freakofnurture, syndicated here by me). Stifle (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree the edits are of rather great concern. I find that this user generally does very good work--I even supported him in his RfA; however, I do think that he is having quite a few problems using the tool. On his recent RfA, he stated that he was "using a bugged version of VandalProof," though he also added, "I'll take [ User:Freakofnature's] advice to slow down on VandalProof." I certainly don't think he's trying intentionally to be disruptive, but if he continues to have similar problems, it may be necessary to ask him to stop using the tool, which would be quite unfortunate. I'm going to ask him to comment on these diffs, as his responses on his RfA don't seem to really address the issue (if there are bugs I need to sort out, I would like to know that. Likewise, if this is human error, there may be something I can do to make things more clear), and I'm also going to ask that he leave a note whenever he has similar problems in the future. Again, I'd like to state that I believe his actions are in clearly good-faith, and I feel the above edits were just accidental, accidents that I would like to avoid in the future. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The bugged version was when it was not reverting the edits when I would click the Rollback buttons, and it was also not leaving anything on edit summaries when warning the users. I don't know how most of those edits listed above happened, except that perhaps I was going too quickly and not paying attention to which username was listed as the "current revision" name. I have slowed down, I am being more careful, and I intend to curtail stuff like this happening. Sorry again. Please do not keep me from using VandalProof. I like the program, but it has a high learning curve, and some of my errant edits were from not knowing the program well enough, and some of them were just simple carelessness. --Zpb52 19:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be wise to give the Help Page a once over. What exactly is your problem, is something missing in the help pages or disscussion as to your "buggy" version of VandalProof. Please help us out here. Thanks. I highly advise that you be more careful with this software... Remember it is not a race to revert, an extra second does not hurt. The software is designed to prevent disruption, not create it. Eagle talk 21:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problems are gone. I redownloaded the program and now it works fine. I am also being more careful with it. Please stop hounding me on this. The issue is dead. --Zpb52 22:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, as long as problems are gone, then that is all that matters. Is there anything missing from instructions ect. that could help other users? It would be nice to be able to reduce the 'learning curve' as much as possible. Any help you can give in this area would be appreciated. Thankyou Eagle talk 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

He just did it again -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 03:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did...and I have requested a feature to AmiDaniel that would prevent this. Do believe that all of my edits are in good faith. --Zpb52 03:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I am still assuming good faith. -- GeorgeMoney T&middot;C 03:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree if that is the only problem, well I guess you will have to remove my privaliges too:-(, It took me about 12 postings onto AIV to figure out what was going wrong, and why I was causing the problems. Lucky for me, I was able to revert my changes before anyone noticed. Nice feature request, I agree that would be useful as well.Eagle talk 20:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Golden Dawn tradition
Dear Sir:

Your VandalProof application is being used in an edit war on the article "Golden Dawn tradition".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_Dawn_tradition&action=history

Strangely, the user name "YankSox" declared the use of VandalProof, but all the edits being produced by it appear to be coming from a anonymous user.

At one point (about six months ago) the matter was submitted to the Mediation Cabal for ajudication, but shortly after that the edit abuse ended. It has recently started up again, and I have requested Mediation again.

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-01-11_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn

Please advise me as to how this matter can be settled.

Thank you, Joseph Max JMax555 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * has made two reverts on the article, . I would certainly call these content dispute reversions, and not vandalism reversions; however, I would like to add that it appears YankSox was attempting to revert to the last revision by JMax555 but did not understand how to do that correctly. He has never been blocked. Furthermore, his other edits made using VandalProof appear legitimate--I only wish he would revert all edits by the on-top contributor, rather than simply the last edit. I'm going to ask him and others to comment on the matter before making a decision one way or the other. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for the mistake that occured, I was indeed trying to JMax555's edits. I thought I had gained solid judgement of the program, however, I just made a complete mistake. I am sorry for this and will be willing to accept any repercussions. Yanksox 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response, Yanksox. I agree that these were just simple mistakes and thus do not intend to remove your usage permission. If it were to become a pattern of behavior, which I think you've indicated it will not, then I would see a reason to take action, but not under the current circumstances. Just try to be a bit more careful in the future. Other than a few mistakes, the rest of your contributions have been very valuable, and I appreciate all of the work you do in reverting vandalism and in other aspects of Wikipedia. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)