Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archive 2

Sandbox discussion from project page

DrZoidberg, Honeycake and Kyrin

• They're scaring away the newbies with childish reverting in the Sandbox. Zoidy is a nut, Honeycake is convinced he's Defender of the Faith, and Kyrin is just along for the ride. None of this is against policy, but it's certainly not polite. Someone please slap them all gently on the wrist, and block them if the gentle slapping has no effect. The sandbox is not a revert box. 82.92.119.11 17:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Um, we were just playing in the sandbox! Sorry, I guess... :-( DrZoidberg 17:58, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK - here's my side. Firstly, a newbie would not get scared away: if they're a newbie they wouldn't know about the edit history so they wouldn't know about the reversion war. See User talk:DrZoidberg for my explanation of things, and various bits on User talk:Honeycake (you may have to look at the archives). I am notifying the other users of this, and will ask them to also put their side of things.--[[User:Honeycake|Honeycake (please reply on my talkpage!!)]] 18:00, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geez, I didn't think I'd cause a nuclear meltdown over a game of hangman! DrZoidberg 18:02, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I had read the history between DrZoidberg and Honeycake on their Talk pages and had a feeling that things in the sandbox would carry on until the game was finished. I simply was trying to finish the puzzle such that the revision war would end... Wouldn't be nice if all wars could be brought to an end just by solving a simple Hangman puzzle? I'm new here and look forward to contributing in future, but I feel I was just acting as a sort of facilitator in this dispute. --Kyrin 18:17, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Hey, I was just having a game of Hangman! Honeycake was forcibly trying to stop the game! Besides, isn't the sandbox the correct place for edits that don't belong anywhere else? DrZoidberg 18:12, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't do anything forcibly over the Internet. Also, if the s/box has free editing, then I am allowed to revert and blank it (except for the header) if I want. Anyway, the hangman would make it look, to a newbie, as if it was "take part in the game or don't edit the page" and...it's not.--[[User:Honeycake|Honeycake (please reply on my talkpage!!)]] 18:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, I get it... You don't like Hangman... Well, nobody's forcibly making you read the sandbox... DrZoidberg 18:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a need for a 'Games' or 'Play' section in order to have somewhere that can be used for this purpose without using the Sandbox for it. Kyrin 18:22, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

That would rule! A virtual wiki playground!! DrZoidberg 18:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For interest sake DrZoidberg, I believe you could setup a sandbox you can play in at will (and use for hangman, etc) anywhere you like as a sub-section of your own page in the User namespace, DrZoidberg's SandBox for example. Enjoy your own sandbox and do with it as you please, and I'm pretty sure nobody will go and clear it on you... --[[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\^talk]] 15:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

"Welcome to Wikipedia, a free-content encyclopedia in many languages that anyone can edit. In this English edition, started in January 2001, we are working on 6,827,342 articles. Visit our Community Portal to find out how you can edit an article, or experiment in the sandbox." I suggest you all start focusing on the first, and less on the latter. Now I'm convinced I should have listed it on Wikipedia:Clueless newbies instead. My bad. G'night y'all; I wish you a productive editing session. :-) 82.92.119.11 18:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For completeness: after this exchange, this page has been vandalized numerous times by someone with an incredible talent (obsession?) for creating sockpuppets. I now really wish I hadn't brought it up here at all. Valuable lesson. Let the Sandbox take care of its own. Sheesh. 82.92.119.11 21:37, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Who has created what sockpuppets and is defacing which page? It would be helpful to have exmples in order to understand whom you are accusing and what you are accusing them of doing. --[[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\^talk]] 21:46, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Obviously, I cannot accuse anybody of doing things that hide their identity, and personally I couldn't care less if any actual contributor is responsible. For all I know, it was an "interested third party" who thought it would be really cute to vandalize. (And vandalizing did happen; per the edit history). The admins seem to have taken care of it, for the moment (or maybe the sockpuppeteer just got bored). I guess some people really don't have anything better to do than vandalizing pages for reporting vandalism. I'm sure there's a deep statement in there somewhere, but I don't feel like getting it out. :-) 82.92.119.11 21:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, now that I've seen the [[1]] page I see what you were getting at, I appear to have missed those entries entirely (my last comment on there was added just after "it" stopped). Oh, and I've editted your post that confused me to include a link to "this page" you refer to in case anyone else wonders which page you're referring to. --[[User:Kyrin|Kyrin\^talk]] 15:31, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

Apology for error

About an hour ago, I attempted to report an act of vandalism on the Louis Riel page, in the "Current Alerts" section. Unfortunately, as I was doing this I accidentally deleted an important section of the "Vandalism in progress" main page -- possibly accounting for some of the confusion which other users have been experiencing in the last hour.

I believed that I've fixed the situation now. Please note that this was the result of a misinterpretation on my part, and not a deliberate act of vandalism. I apologize for any inconvenience that my actions may have caused. (Please also note that it took me almost an hour to discover what had gone wrong, and how to resolve it.) CJCurrie 02:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Deleted template while reporting a vandal. Stupid me. Sorry about that. Thanks to User:Mateo SA for restoring template. --Eddi 06:32, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

172.190.78.239

• 172.190.78.239 [2] Obvious sock-puppet - that just now started a revert war at Ann Coulter then somehow was able to lock the page and remove the NPOV notice after that too!

I am trying to post this, but seem to be having trouble

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 01:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ancient talk at talk:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS

Old comments

In the "how to remove undesired changes" section of Wikipedia:VANDALISM IN PROGRESS, it says: "click "View" for a previous version." Am I missing something, or is there no "View" button in the History page? Stec 04:50 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

Those instructions refer to an older version of the software; now the date/time itself is the link, there's not a separate "view" link. I've updated the instructions, make sure they make sense. --Brion 05:02 Sep 20, 2002 (UTC)

---

Just an observation: Why is it that all our vandals appear to be unimaginative juvenile twerps? Could it be that there are far more subtle vandals peppering Wikipedia with difficult-to-spot trolls that just don't get caught? Is Ed Poor one of those trolls? We probably wouldn't be able to cope with this class of vandals... thank god ours are so unsophisticated. Graft

(Decided you weren't kidding about Ed?) Most of anything is unimaginative. The ones that are too subtle to notice are probably there — but also probably rare. — Toby 09:09 Oct 18, 2002 (UTC)

---

lagggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg-who else gets lag? Lir 17:08 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

We're all getting it. Switch on the "show minor changes" to see why. -- Derek Ross

how? Lir 17:14 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

In your preferences, maybe? --isis 17:19 Oct 24, 2002 (UTC)

So whats the word on this lag? Anyone gonna fix the server? 129.186.80.131 13:53 Oct 28, 2002 (UTC)

Updates on the progress should be at wikitech-l; check there. (BTW, this isn't really the place to talk about it, since it shows up all caps in Special:Recentchanges; I'd suggest the Wikipedia:Village pump.) — Toby 16:23 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Moved discussion

• Lack of neutrality in the Jewish articles to Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress.

---

inetnum:      194.117.128.0 - 194.117.159.255
netname:      UK-CABLEINET-960227
descr:        ALLOCATED BLOCK
descr:        Provider Local Registry
descr:        Telewest Cable Internet
country:      GB
admin-c:      TWIP1-RIPE
tech-c:       TWIP1-RIPE
status:       ALLOCATED PA
notify:       ripe@telewest.net
mnt-by:       RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT
mnt-lower:    AS5462-MNT
mnt-routes:   AS5462-MNT
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 19960228
changed:      billing@ripe.net 19960624
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 19980916
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 19981110
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 19990417
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20001019
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20020220
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20020422

changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20020423
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20020613
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20020624
changed:      hostmaster@ripe.net 20020723
source:       RIPE

route:        194.117.128.0/19
descr:        Telewest Broadband
descr:        UK Broadband ISP
origin:       AS5462
notify:       ripe@telewest.net
mnt-by:       AS5462-MNT
remarks:      report abuse to abuse@blueyonder.co.uk
remarks:      All reports via other channels will be ignored.
changed:      ripe-admin@blueyonder.co.uk 20020709
source:       RIPE

role:         Telewest Broadband IP Network Services
address:      Genesis Business Park
address:      Albert Drive
address:      Woking
address:      Surrey UK
address:      GU21 5RW
e-mail:       ripe@telewest.net
admin-c:      JH15424-RIPE
admin-c:      MG645-RIPE
admin-c:      SB5110-RIPE
admin-c:      JT3229-RIPE
admin-c:      IH249-RIPE
tech-c:       AH15306-RIPE
nic-hdl:      TWIP1-RIPE
notify:       ripe@telewest.net

mnt-by:       as5462-mnt
changed:      jim.haffey@telewest.net 20020704
source:       RIPE

The vandal seems to come from a shared network behind a router

---

All the talk on the Vandalism in Progress page is counterproductive. Don't you think that the page should be limited to messages like "Help! 127.0.0.1 is vandalizing the article on kumquats!" ;) and such? Discussion is what talk pages are for. I don't usually check the vandalism in progress link when it pops up on recent changes, since it's usually not VIP, it's discussion about vandalism. This negates the whole reason for having the page. -- Merphant

Good point. I'm with you on this one. --Dante Alighieri

---

Just dreaming. It would be nice if any IP or user listed on the VIP page with a contribs link would show-up as a bolded IP or user name in Recent Changes. --mav

Or how about a Watchlist of Users, which could serve both for personal favorites and troublemakers? Ortolan88

Yes a personal "Watch this user" feature would be nice too. But my above comment would put certain users on everyone's "Watch this user" list. --mav

---

Are new entries on ViP meant to be at the top or bottom of the list? We seem to be adding at both ends at the moment, it's a bit random! How about a note on the page, or if it's already there, a bigger one? :) Nevilley 08:44 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)

To the top. Contrary to talk pages ;-) ----FvdP

---

I'm confused about this page (but then I'm easily confused!) I wanted to add 203.37.199.12 - vandalising Loch Ness monster, but couldn't see where it was supposed to go. Then I saw it already on the page, but thought that the box it is in means the IP is already blocked. So now I'm confused (OK, the large dose of medication I've just taken might have something to do with this I admit ;) Advice welcome (unless it's stop taking the tablets, that would not be a good idea!)-- sannse 23:55 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

This page is simply to alert other Wikipedians that vandalism is taking place. IP numbers can only be blocked by Wikipedia:Administrators; this happens only in the case of persistant vandals. Usually, it's best to simply revert the vandalised pages back to their previous state. -- Stephen Gilbert 00:04 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Usually I do that, but this one is persistent, and I'm getting more woozy by the second so I can't stay around much longer to help. So I just wanted to point rudely at him so someone would keep an eye out if needed. The format of the page as it is seems a bit confusing. Maybe it needs a clearer "Put alerts here" section. sannse 00:17 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. I haven't looked at this page in a while, and it seems pretty confusing to me... -- Stephen Gilbert

The new page layout is very confusing. I'd damned if I know where I'm supposed to put vandalisim alerts now. This page, more than any other, needs to be first-glance obvious. (No - don't tell me where to put any alert notices - then just one person knows - change the layout of the page so that everybody can see for themselves. Tannin 03:04 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

I agree, I can't make any sense of the new structure, it seems very complex. I'm reformatting the page to make it similar to the old layout. The Anome 09:11 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

And you are doing just fine. There may well be good reasons for the new (now reverted) layout that need to be looked at and attended to by way of further modification, but the important thing is that I (and, I presume, other contributors as well) now know where to put a vandalisim alert. That has to be #1 priority. Thanks! Tannin 09:20 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that's much clearer. Thanks Anome.

It think the idea was to make this page a lot shorter and the status of alerts clearer. I wonder if it would be worth asking people to sign and date their entries. Most people do anyway and that gives a clearer idea of how likely it is that there is still a problem. Moving old alerts off this page as quickly as possible would help to keep it simple and manageable.

Just a few thoughts -- sannse 09:47 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

---

Question: It would require a revision to the Wiki software, but why not include an option so that anyone can look up the IP address of any Wikipedia username? Or would that be considered too risky for the users in general?

Further thoughts: IP address lookup would almost certainly put a serious drain on the Wikipedia server connection. -- Modemac

One of the major benefits of having a user account is to obscure your IP. Thereore only a select few people should be able to see that and they should have to promise to keep this information confidential. Anon's on Wikipedia are actually less anonymous than logged in users. Anybody can do a IP whois to find out which ISP you use, the metropolitan area you are in and if they are sneaky they can find out who you exactly are by tricking a tech at your ISP to hand over this information. I don't know about the load issue. --mav

I have published the IP addresses of the machines that I use on my own user page. This is pecause I sometimes don't realise that I'm not logged on and I can therefore track my own postings by referring to these addresses. It's easy to find out your own IP address (if you don't already know) by making an anonymous posting to your own user page. This also means that others can trace my anonymous postings, which I happen not to mind at all, in the interests of openness. Matt Stan 12:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

---

I've read a few places about reporting persistent vandals (e.g. Michael and that racist guy) to their ISPs.

I think this is a good idea, (although the typical ISP would just ignore the report, even with evidence). Even better if they were at a school or university, because they tend to take this sort of stuff more seriously.

Some alternatives, including making a page of recurrent vandals with their IPs and all the information wikipedians can get on them, probably violate too many civil rights. Any thoughts on reporting them? Has this been done? -- Tristanb 05:36 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Perhaps when vandals arrive, an administrator should set Wikipedia to show advertisments, with lots of popups and stuff, for the vandals.

Then everyone should insult the vandals, so they vandalize lots and lots of pages.

Once they have loaded enough advertisments, to significantly help fund wikipedia with the advertising money, while vandalising the articles, an administrator could then ban them, and then use a mass revert option to revert all the articles they vandalised.

Next time wikipedia needs more funding, just insult the vandals, and mock them, letting them know how easy it was to revert everything, so they get mad and try again, generating more advertising money for wikipedia. كسيپ Cyp 07:04 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No offense, but I don't think that insulting the vandals would do much good. Eventually, if we just clean up thier mess without creating too much of a fuss about it, I'm sure they will get bored. Everyone is just fueling the fire by creating a huge uproar about it. ManicGypsy

Vandal Limbo

Ok, how about this one, in the same spirit as the above: when a user/IP is identified as a hard and proven vandal, s/he is not banned but rather sent into vandal limbo. The vandal limbo (VL) would be a new feature of the software, a new mode for the Wikipedia software. When a user is tagged as being in VL, all his/her changes are only visible to him/her, based on IP address, not on cookies (cookies can be forced clear).

No sign of being in VL should be apparent, the user should be tricked into thinking that's the real world, not limbo. I bet they'd get pretty annoyed when they discovered that all of their "well thought", "nicely crafted", "guaranteed to generate huge annoyance" vandalism is visible to themselves, and themselves alone... I must emphasize this proposal is targeted at the people well known to only produce vandalism, and no sort of useful contributions (well, vandals). The results of their work must obviously be stored somewhere on the server (as to be shown to them), and it should also be accessible to all Wikipedians, so if things like this happen again, that user's work can be objectively reviewed at a later time. I can provide a programming conceptual draft on request, I have been thinking about this for my own site, and I have it all pretty well laid out in my mind. (This feature wouldn't tax the database too hard, but it could be a bitch to program, depending on how Wikipedia is currently laid out software-wise.) -- Gutza 09:35, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think a problem with this approach may be the openness of Wikipedia. If I were a vandal and I was under consideration for having this treatment then there would have to be a discussion somewhere ultimately ending in someone writing OK, I've put Ams80 in vandal limbo which would be as visible to me as to anyone else. The only person who is arguably not answerable to the 'community' is Jimbo Wales but I imagine there would be grumbling if he enforced something like this without discussing it. Also, I think most of our vandals are used to people rising to them/reverting them/trying to help them and under your proposed system (I think) all their edits would go without comment which would probably alert them to their status and provide us with only very temporary respite before they create a new account.

I'm not trying to discourage you, I'd love a solution to the vandal issue, and I'm sorry if I've misunderstood your plan, if I have perhaps you could expand on it a little. Cheers -- Ams80 10:09, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

In the virtual vandal limbo, there could be automatic reversion with simulated comments from imaginary people annoyed at the vandals, and simulated posts on the simulated vandalism in progress page, in order to stop them from getting suspicious. Ксйп Cyp 15:34, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Nope, you haven't misunderstood, but a few clarifications on my part should be in order:

• The page with the "Limo log" would be frozen for you at the exact moment you enter limbo. Therefore you couldn't see you're listed there. Basically the whole mechanism is based on such freezes for those in limbo, so there wouldn't be any extra coding for this, just declaring the "Limbo log" page as a special page should suffice.
• "I think most of our vandals are used to..." Yes, I've thought of that too. But there are two cases where this doesn't apply:
  • For new vandals, who don't know what's going on it would be a lovely way to discourage them;
  • On slow days, I expect even nasty vandals get away with it a few hours -- which ideally means they can waste a few hours thinking they got away with it, only to find out later that they wasted them.

The thing I like about this idea is basically FUD: you never know for sure if and when you entered VL. You can keep editing as much as you want, and after, say, six hours, you can guarantee you're in VL. But you never know exactly when it happened, you never know exactly when to stop. Limbo, man! :) -- Gutza 10:26, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It promise to be a cure worse than the illness. What's needed is a week's (or so) quarantaine for proposed edits, and the implementation of a (more or less elaborate) disaproval system.
-- Ruhrjung 10:56, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

As a proposal for actual vandals, as in "pure vandalism", this might make some sense. Sysops already block IP addresses without needing Jimbo's approval, and without needing to discuss it first - (see dealing with vandalism. However, I think an auto-timeout of IP blocks is more important.

Obviously, as a proposal for "hard banned" users, it's really bad. In any case, banned users are typically banned for trolling, edit warring, and failing to work with others, rather than for vandalism per se. Martin 14:03, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Vandal banning

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 02003.

I don't know what normal procedure is for banning people, but user:203.59.48.208 appears to deserve it richly. -Smack 18:06 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Should be taken to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. I will ban this user. --Jiang 18:22 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

has already been blocked a few hours ago--Jiang

---

I have removed this from the main page as it isn't actually reporting vandalism:

• User:Pizza Puzzle ("you can't stop my vandalism spree") is back. See [3]. --Wik 16:07, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
  • And what has he vandalised? Pizza Puzzle was never officially banned, although if you accept that he is Adam, he is now unbanned. See [4]. Angela 17:37, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)
    • I'm just saying he has been a self-admitted vandal before, so watch out. I don't know if he vandalized anything today, but I don't believe such people suddenly become real contributors. They're just making fools of those gullible people who give any vandal a second, third, and thousandth chance. --Wik 18:00, Sep 19, 2003 (UTC)

If he actually vandalises anything, feel free to list it here, but otherwise, this doesn't belong on the page. --Camembert

---

Is it possible to recode the Wiki core to disallow IP style user names from editing pages, requiring a user to be logged in to edit, and requiring user names be associated with valid, verified email addresses excluding those from public email servers such as yahoo, etc? I think this would cut down alot on the vandalism as vandals who where banned would not be able to just drop link reconnect and start vandalizing again. -- AnthonyQBachler

Yes, it would be. Question is, do we want to do this? I expect the consensus will be no. Vandalism is not an overwhelming problem, which it would have to be to justify this. Morwen 14:07, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, just a suggestion, since it would affect legitimate contributors minimally, and only at signup. Im not sure if the core is written in C or what, so I dont have a good idea as to the complexity of adding the feature.

There are far more legitimate contributions from IP addresses than vandalisms. Most of them have chosen not to create a user for whatever reason of their own, and your proposal would drive some of them off. Complexity is not an issue at all. Morwen 14:15, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most new people start off contributing anonymously. If you had to get an account before you made your first edit, you might not bother. Angela 19:21, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

What happened to the outline thingie? I miss being able to click on "current alerts". Now I gotta scroll, and I'm too lazy... --Uncle Ed 20:16, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Ed, I removed it. I thought it was annoying that I had to scroll down past so much stuff before getting to any actual content. Maybe I should use the toc to get to the first section but I have a silly tendency to just see it as an annoying list of stuff that needs scrolling past, but as that's probably just me, I've put it back. Angela 21:37, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Angela. Ironically, we are both annoyed by the same thing but have different approaches on how to eliminate that same annoyance. :-) --Uncle Ed 16:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

This is a rhetorical, irrelevant question, but... can you get banned for vandalizing your own user page? :-P

In theory - yes you could. Angela 03:26, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

I hope no-one minds my unilaterally putting in a little "quicklinks" bar for some of the more recent vandals. I figure it makes it a touch quicker for folks to talk to the users or to see their contribs. If I've overstepped myself, please revert the page to maxiumus' edit. I also left the boilerplate (reproduced below) in a comment just before "current events" incase anyone else wants to put one in.

([[User:X]] | [[User talk:X|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/X|contributions]])

Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 22:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sort by IP/User Name

I would like to suggest that anonymous vandals be listed in IP order. This would make it much easier to spot whether a "new" vandal was already on the list, and would also group possibly-related vandals together. Named vandals (crazy people?) could be split off and named in alphabetical order, unless it proves possible to discern the IP of a named account. Phil 10:34, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Bad idea. The purpose of this page is to alert the community of current vandals working right now. However, sorting expired alerts via IP seems to make some sense. --mav 11:33, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist (purely for prurient interest ATM) which allows me to pull up the most recent edit(s). Also surely the Page History shows this easily, provided everyone enters a meaningful summary (OK, well they do on my planet :-). Also having people timestamp their entries should help keep track of when the vandalism is/was taking place (again with the different planet :-). I'm thinking in terms of making it easier to add an alert without duplication, and noticing clusters of IP numbers. Besides, when do you judge an alert to be "expired"? Shouldn't the info should be moved to a different article once the vandalism is no longer in progress? Phil 16:59, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Still a bad idea. The timeliness of the alerts is their main value. Thus newest alerts go to the top. --mav 23:27, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about keep the alerts in chronological order for a day (or two), but sort the older entries alphabetically. This allows current alerts to remain at the top, whilst makes the older listings more useful than they currently are. Angela. 14:32, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Haven't got one of those round tuits yet, so no sorting. A question occurred to me: is there a historical record of all the IP addresses which have given trouble? Maybe there should be such so we can see if there's any sort of pattern. I assume there's a table somewhere of all the blocked IPs but what about those which didn't necessarily get to be banned? --Phil 10:05, Feb 13, 2004 (UTC)

Only in the page history. The list of blocked ones is at Wikipedia:Block log. Angela. 01:26, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Just a question - how do people notice vandalism so well? I mean, sometimes I would view an allegedly vandalized version of a page and see nothing wrong. Can anyone give me hints on recognizing if a page has been vandalized in such a manner? - User:Ixfd64, 10:42 PDT, March 13, 2004

edit: I mean, before the version comparison eature was implemented. -- USer:Ixfd64

I think a lot of the discoveries are by people whom have a vested interest in the page so they are very familiar with it. Others are likely discovered through the "Recent Changes" page, where users just scrutinize pages where the edit was done by an anonymous IP address with no summary. --zandperl 13:57, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Photo Vandals?

I know that we frequently have problems with vandals messing around with the text of an article. Does anyone know of a case where a vandal tried to muck around with photos on the Wikipedia? Say, for example, uploading an obscene image in place of a normal photo? David Newton 22:24, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Uploads are limited to logged in users. Vandals (for the most part) don't take the time to register. The answer to your question is (as far as I know) - no. →Raul654 22:26, Mar 18, 2004 (UTC)

A while back a user replaced the portrait on George W. Bush with one from a website that had pictures comparing Bush to a monkey (that is, an unflattering pose). It didn't last very long. -- VV 22:55, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Tracking vandalism

I have a suggestions and lacking a good place to propose it I want to throw it here. I think anyone reverting or deleting vandalism should add that article name to the user's talk page (not as a link, though). It occurred to me that since deleted pages do not appear in a user's contribution list we cannot tell that this user has caused X number of pages to be deleted as junk/vandalism. So when I go to add a {{msg:test}} or a warning on vandalism I can't always tell how much vandalism this person has done. - Texture 23:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm not actually arguing against you here, but I find that you can tell from the number of comments on their talk page. If I go to put a test msg on someone's page and they already have one, I up the ante to "Please stop adding nonsense articles. It will be considered vandalism and you can be prevented from editing." So then the next guy to clean up after this person can say "Your actions are vandalism. Stop or you will be banned" followed by "This is your last warning. Stop vandalizing articles or I will ban you." IMO, a custodian doesn't have to see a string of vandalized articles to ban someone. A pattern of escalating warnings plus one vandalism is enough. moink 23:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've used a similar pattern. I can't tell, however, how many others do the same thing. I've seen some who created multiple articles that were deleted or reverted and their talk pages remained uncreated. Perhaps it is just a matter of having every warning added rather than specific entries of the infractions. - Texture 00:03, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Policy suggestions

From the village pump

I have two suggestions:

• Implement edit-throttling
• Limit IP bans to 1 hour

One hour IP bans and edit-throttling are sufficient to counter bot attacks (vandal bots, spam bots, etc.), while they will not be of any use against humans. This is deliberate.

Permanent IP bans (and long term IP bans) are a form of censorship. They go against the Wiki way, and I believe that they are starting to have damaging effects on the GFDL text corpus. The measures suggested above should be enough to stop vandals. It is important not to extend these actions into the realm of political censorship.

Please at least attempt to implement my suggestions. Do it gradually. Slowly unblock blocked IPs, just a few at a time, and see if the world explodes. Censorship will choke the GFDL text corpus. Please, freedom of speech is important.

I don't know where you are getting your information, but we don't permanently ban IP address. Sysops can manually block IP addresses, but those expire after 24 hours (although the sysop can choose to make it longer - to my knowledge, no sysop has ever banned an IP address indefinitely). The only exception is that we have a proxy blocker, which blocks open proxies. Those proxies are periodically rescanned to see if they have since been closed. If they are, they unblocked. →Raul654 16:13, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

That is not correct, Raul—a number of IP ranges and individual IPs are indefinitely blocked for various reasons. I assume he got his information from Special:Ipblocklist, which is of course always current and accurate. Mkweise 16:20, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I just counted. There are around 9 (give or take) ranges or addresses that are permanently blocked. I think this is a being blown out of proportion. →Raul654 16:26, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

I beg to differ. We have some extreme vandals who come back time and again and enjoy disrupting things. See User:Bird, who enjoys massive vandalism as an anon user. RickK 23:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Layout

I am not sure if this is the right place to ask, but would it not be easier if this page and for example Requests for adminship had a layout like that of Vote for deletion such that every nomination could be kept as an entry of the watchlist? I certainly would not want this whole page on my watchlist since it is so frequently edited but placing a particular nomination on the watchlist would facilitate following. Get-back-world-respect 20:48, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Voting on the experiment. There are a lot of people who don't like the new VfD layout. They might be even more opposed if this was done to more than just the VfD page. Also, I'm not sure it's helpful for vandalism in progress to be split into multiple pages. Often there are very few comments on each vandal anyway, so it wouldn't be worth putting each one separately on your watchlist. Angela. 22:12, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

There is a 25-14 majority for the new layout. Most do not complain that it was worse than before but that it still is not optimal. If no one comments on a vandal it will not show up on the watch list and do no harm. But checking back every one and then if someone else commented on someone is really a pain in the neck. Get-back-world-respect 00:38, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

It could potentially do harm as a bigger watchlist is more of a strain on the server. Larger watchlists also have a different default cut-off point, so adding pages to it for no reason could lead you to having a cut off of 12 hours when you didn't want that. Angela. 20:19, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

How do I get removed?

What is the process for removal of names from this list. I see a couple instances of improper listings, myself being one of them ;) I think this page needs a more bvious process for solving such misuses. Sam Spade 22:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If you are sure someone is no longer an issue, just remove them, but please do not remove yourself. Asking on this talk page should be enough to convince someone to remove you, which I've just done. Angela. 06:59, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

How long do these alerts need to be here?

The TOC itself is extremely long. RickK 18:11, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ugh, look at the TOC more closely. The page has been duplicated. -- Cyrius|✎ 19:15, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unless somebody has objections, I'm going to delete all alerts more than one month old. RickK 05:07, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

That's probably fine. After a month no one remembers what they were for anyway. Although archiving might be better in case someone comes back and we need evidence. Dori | Talk 12:11, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

Archive, definitely - David Gerard 12:54, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, archive. RickK 22:43, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy with either - deleting or archiving. I don't think it's likely the same vandal would come back after a month, and there is always the page history (which is now searchable if you export it first) if they do. Angela. 06:35, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I just archived everything prior to May 1. RickK 06:37, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

Vip template

I made a little template which could replace the not so nice looking *([[User:a.b.c.d]] | [[User talk:a.b.c.d|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/a.b.c.d|contributions]]) part with {{Vip|user=a.b.c.d}}. What do you think? --Conti 13:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I added the template now, as there seems to be no objections and I don't can come up with a reason for not to add it. :-) --Conti 16:26, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• There's a bug that prevents the mediawiki software from expanding a particular template more than five times on the same page. So, the first five times {{Vip|user=whoever}} appears, it works, but all subsequent uses do not work. People could work around it using {{subst:Vip|user=whoever}}, or perhaps the bug could be fixed. —AlanBarrett 10:17, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

{{subst:...}} does not do what we want either, because it does a literal substitution, without replacing {{{...}}} parameters. —AlanBarrett 11:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Abuse contacts" dead link in article

I can't find a page with that phrase in its name. Maybe someone familiar with recent changes can fix it. Robin Patterson 22:19, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is such a page yet. I expect someone linked it in the hope it would be written. :) Angela. 01:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Group by day of insertion

I'm proposing that entries be grouped under the day on which they were inserted for several reasons:

• easier to move to archive
• easier to copyedit a day's worth if necessary
• easier to spot the correct place to add new entries: some recent entries were added to the bottom of the list

If no-one violently objects, I'll take a look at some of the older entries to see how much work might be involved. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:58, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like a good idea. Angela. 23:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree too theresa knott 08:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is now underway. In the course of doing it, I have discovered that a fair few days' worth have been duplicated. Hopefully when I've finished this little sub-project, it will be easier to merge the duplications together. --Phil | Talk 14:00, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Google-watch?

How is google-watch.com a tool for finding info on IP addresses? Could this link itself be an act of vandalism? Rob Speer 08:26, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

The Google-watch link lets you check IPs that you paste into the box on that page. I don't think it was added as vandalism. Angela. 13:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the respective link to point ARIN's whois which searches owner of IP address entered. Google-watch.com link was no longer working, due to script removal or renaming on their site. However it'd be even better to have the link open in a new window instead of the active one. Dunno how to do that in wikipedia. Could someone advise?

Duplicate subtitles

It seems like the last 5 subtitles are the same as the first 5. Shouldn't the duplicates be delteted? Pils 13:09, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Now fixed. --Zigger 14:09, 2004 Jul 18 (UTC)

Old history

Does anyone know why ViP has no edit history prior to May 27, 2004? And where that history might be now? Snowspinner 21:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

It was moved to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/History so vandals can move this page about without slowing the database down too much. A few other pages with very large histories were moved for the same reason, such as VfD. Angela. 14:39, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism of 'Vandalism in progress'?

"Note that this page is only for vandalism" sounds as if it were inviting the viewer to vandalise the page--kind of like the sandbox--perhaps it could be worded differently?

Any way we can refactor the page so that there isn't two pages of preamble before we get to the current alerts?

See section header - this page appears to have a nasty case of boilerplatitis. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Boilerplatitis? Perhaps that should redirect to m:instruction creep. :) I've removed 500 words. Is it better now? Angela. 18:15, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Ah I should've known we already have the terminology :). I personally think it is a dramatic improvement, thank you for doing it. Hope others agree! Pcb21| Pete 19:58, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Huge TOC

The TOC on the WP:VIP page is simply huge. On my box, it fills 11-12 pages. How about using __NOTOC__? Or at least using __TOC__ to move it elsewhere, like for instance, the bottom of the page?

cesarb 21:10, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Having problem

I am having a problem with this person 80.133.47.46. He goes around and edits many articles without logging in.

He has changed "White terror" in the Glossary of the Weimar Republic several times. Another editor and myself have both corrected this. He continues to change the name of it. I don't know who 80.133.47.46. I have my suspicions. I think he is an administrator too. I believe that if this person is making this many edits and is really vandalizing sites I think that he needs a talking to, he needs to sign in, and he needs to start acting professionally. This person has also vandalized Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. I believe this person jumps around uses several different names and creates new accounts all the time. Some new account named Pehrs corrected the vandalism in von Kuehnelt. I believe that the person who vandalized von Kuehnelt article came back, created a new account and then corrected the vandalism. If Pehrs is a proper administrator, I would think that the name would be blue and information of the person would be on the user page. I would think that a proper administrator would correct and stop the vandalism. This should not be happening and by an administrator no less. Please help.WHEELER 00:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Edit" links on project page don't work right

No, they don't. They're kind of skewed in relation to the entry they're to the right of, and not in a way that's easy to decode, either. What's going on? Bishonen 22:16, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reformed vandals (I hope)

I listed (User:164.4.31.79 | talk | contributions) and a couple of his schoolfriends on a vandalism spree, and after getting admonitory messages from David Remahl and me they have promised to desist. I think they probably will, since we've shown we know a lot about them, but I'm not sure. I'll leave them on the list for a while (a few days?), unless anybody objects. Bishonen 22:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible Michael sighting

User:69.111.161.32 may be Michael editing anonymously. I already reverted a few dates that he incorrectly changed on album pages. These are articles that Michael has touched in the past. Rhobite 15:05, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, not again. After everyone went through hell and high water to give this guy a second chance. I don't know anything about albums, but I'll be watching Special:Contributions/User:69.111.161.32 more closely today (assuming that's the only IP.) --Ardonik.talk() 15:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

See also User:205.188.117.7, an apparently run-of-the-mill vandal who blanked Iron Curtain, but a brief look at their contributions revealed this: [5] [6]. I have no idea whether these edits were correct or not, but a change of date by one year made by someone who has vandalised elsewhere makes me suspicious. I reverted these, but someone may wish to check for similar edits by this user. The IP is in AOL's range, making me even more suspicious. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Note that Michael has not edited with his probationary User:Mike Garcia account since early September. --Michael Snow 20:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Repeatedly vandalised articles

I think we need some way of keeping track of what articles are experiencing heavy vandalism, so that we can alert Wikipedians to keep an eye on them. For instance, I wouldn't have known that George W. Bush was being vandalised virtually hourly if I hadn't seen it reverted so often in Recent Changes. Specifically flagging articles as being vandal targets should encourage people to watch them. "Many eyes make all bugs [or vandal attacks] shallow", so to speak. I've added a "repeatedly vandalised articles" section to VIP as an experiment - hopefully it'll prove useful. -- ChrisO 18:09, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

At Angela's suggestion, I've refactored User:Fuzheado/MostVandalizedPages as a new admin page, Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages, to serve the same purpose. -- ChrisO 18:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New template for convenience and reduced page size

Since most if not all entries on this page have a header with a format like this

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

I created a template for these that allow you to save time and also reduces the page size:

{{Vandal|10.20.30.40}}

I hope everyone'll find it useful. :) -- Schnee 20:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Your Template:Vandal won't work, due to the limit of no more than 5 expansions of the same template on each page. Previous attempts to do the same thing include Template:User and Template:Vip. —AlanBarrett 22:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • It'll work if you subst: it. Just have {{subst:vandal|IP}} as the template at the top of the alerts section, and tell peaople to use that, we should be fine. Right? --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have 2 vandals on my IP. Help!

(Mirrored on Wikipedia:Village Pump)
User:Bobberton and User:Kuetipo use one of the same IP addresses as I do. This is because we live in the same house, because we are related. I seem to be the only one given to constructive edits, and I am fairly sure the other two are eventually going to get banned based on my conversations with them IRL. When they do get banned, I do not want to go with them, so I would like to know if there is any way to distance myself from them so that the IP we share is not banned, or that I am in some way still able to access the Wiki. Thank you!Suntiger 23:59, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well, you seem in the unique position of confronting vandals in the flesh and tell them what we think of their contributions! dab 14:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DrachenFyre

(moved from article page)

Twice removed the top right image from the featured page Felix the cat, with no explanation. Prior history shows many edits to Power Rangers and other anime that seem reasonable. Hu 17:25, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

• (User:DrachenFyre | talk | contributions)

Hu, I believe the reason was that the image had been replaced by goat se by an anonymous vandal. dab 17:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. DrachenFyre shouldn't be listed on VIP for that; he most likely just wanted to help keep an offensive image off of the front page. -- Schneelocke (cheeks clone) [[]] 18:16, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Still a mystery, I clear my cache and (for better or worse, mostly better) never see the goat se image, just the Felix playing guitar image. How has the reported substitution been accomplished?

see Talk:Main Page. dab 14:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis massive edit

Ancheta Wis removed a huge amount of material from the article. What's up with that? It was probably due for a pruning, but the material removed seems to include the useful introduction. The excision was done without explanation here or in comments, at least that I can find. Shouldn't some of it be restored and the rest archived? Hu 19:50, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Watching vandals?

Is there a way of adding a user's contributions page to my watchlist? I've noticed an occasional vandal. Special:Contributions/169.204.196.20 shows that this user has been active sporadically for over a year, not all his/her contributions are vandalism, but a watchful eye should definitely be kept on him/her. I'm not sure this user is active enough or harmful enough to be listed here on Vandalism in progress - are there any other options for dealing with this? --Woggly 12:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template

Is the template meant to be the way it is at the moment? I produced an entry using it and it was immediately changed to the old format. Sockatume, Talk 23:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, I get it now. Sockatume, Talk 00:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Question about Edit Wars

Hey all, I am not so experienced Wikipedian, and I can't find any article regarding the so-called Edit Wars, particularly about reporting the pages "affected" by Edit Wars. I only know one thing for sure - it says on the Vandalism in progress page to NOT post reports concerning the Edit Wars there. So my question is a pretty straight-forward one - I am interested on where to report these pages (if anywhere at all) ??

best regards

by Wayfarer-Talk on July 2, 2005 at 4:21 GMT

It depends on the circumstances. Reading the following may answer your question: Resolving disputes, Requests for arbitration, Three-revert rule. I have found in some edit wars, where there are conflicting points of view, simply rewording the conflicting part in order to reach a middle ground may be successful.

For example

• Joe contends A
• Bill contends B

Rewriting the section to state that "some people believe A, while others believe B" or something along those lines may help resolve the dispute. -- BMIComp (talk) 5 July 2005 00:49 (UTC)

Question

Does blocking an IP prevent users from viewing the site at all, or can they simply not edit? -- ClockworkSoul 22:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See MediaWiki:Blockedtext for the full version, but the short answer is that people can still read Wikipedia. - not logged in right now...

This is probably the wrong place, but someone's up to no good (68.185.2.134)

Sorry - trying to get the hang of it (and I didn't yet hit the FAQ). Anyhow, I was just reading about abuse and then tried to check out the Wikibooks site. It was easy enough to figure out that this user - 68.185.2.134 - has been deleting a lot of stuff. Right. Revert, anyone? Thanks. [soc] 19:57, 29 Apr 2005

Purpose?

What is the purpose of listing something here? What happens after a listing? Maurreen 07:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Many administrators have this page bookmarked, so it's a way to draw administrator attention to vandalism so they can take action. I find that a vandalism spree often stops as soon as I post a warning message to the user's talk page, so posting a message on their talk page early is also a good idea.-gadfium 07:51, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Long term alerts section

To reduce the size of this page, I moved the Long term alerts section to a subpage (Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts) and placed a template link to that subpage on the main Vandalism in progress page, in the form {{Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts}}. – Mateo SA | talk 17:36, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Potential Solution?

Uhm, you guys probably all notice that the VAST MAJORITY of vandalism that takes place on wikipedia is caused by users who don't have a login name.

This is one of the draw backs of the policy of all of the wiki projects as anyone with an internet connection is able to modify contents. These edits takes up a lot of storage space on the servers and create many, MANY unnecessary editions of all pages affected.

I understand why wiki has the policy that it has now, as not all users without a log in name contribute negatively to the projects, and that this way wiki will have the most input from the community as logging in can be a bit bother some when someone just want to change a typo or correct a punctuation.

So to get to the point i wanted to make, maybe imposing a restriction, or even a complete ban on users without an account will indeed help lessen the amount of vandalism on wiki before it even starts, that would save future server space, timed wasted by the vandaliser, time wasted on the editors here at wiki in correcting the problems, as well as reducing peak hour internet traffic jam here at wiki which sometimes gets to be quite annoying. LG-犬夜叉 09:16, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

See m:Talk:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. —Korath (Talk) 09:26, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

So we'd make vandals get user names, making them harder to spot. I don't see why this should reduce vandalism. Vandals are a very small percentage of overall traffic by the way, I doubt they've had much impact on recent overloads. --fvw* 09:58, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

Hum, I would say the opposite, i.e. that making the vandals getting user names would rather make them easier to spot.

best regards, Wayfarer

posted: July 2, 2005 at 3:05 GMT

Say what?

Does anyone know what is going on with this diff on the Felix the Cat page. It looks a bit like a Rot13 filter or something.

Its not exactly vandalism from User:82.32.38.159 because they reverted themselves, although this IP has a history of vandalism. -- Solipsist 19:50, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why was the header changed?

Why was it changed to subst thingy with way more ip pastings? - RoyBoy [∞] 03:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Netoholic did it on the 7th. I'm not sure why you say it needs way more IP pastings; Template:User and Template:Vandal are identical except for punctuation. Theoretically, anyway, the "subst" makes it a teeny bit more efficient, perhaps? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:54, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly, this is a "one-time use" template. There is no need for each listing to change in the future, and it adds unnecessary overhead to the system by having that template re-render each time the page is refreshed or edited. -- Netoholic @ 05:33, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Well the template commentary when editing looks like this...

==== IP ====

* [[User: IP| IP]] ([[User talk: IP|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/ IP|contributions]])

** DESCRIPTION

For every IP I would need to paste, right? I assume it is meant to be this:

==== IP ====

* {{subst:user|IP or username}}

** DESCRIPTION

But its in the nowiki display, and not repeated below in the commentary for easy pasting. - RoyBoy [∞] 07:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I know I can simply copy the display template prior to editing... it just jives with my previous method of pasting the vandal IP in the edit window then copying the commented template. - RoyBoy [∞] 18:03, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Extremely funny, thoughtful vandal

Have a look @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#Template:British_Royal_Family_-_IMPORTANT and Template:British_Royal_Family. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 08:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That picture

That is really one horrendously ugly picture. Can we get rid of it? RickK 21:05, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Its also too well thought out to be vandalism. Someone had a LOT of time, in daylight to paint that... Kiand 21:18, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But, is it art, or is it just an attempt by a nudnik at art?

How about this one instead? -- A D Monroe III 12:11, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about one with a big red STFU? -- AllyUnion (talk) 15:43, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, whatever, if I don't get any objections, I'm going to delete the picture tomorrow. RickK 06:22, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I get a vote, but I like the picture at right. Dave (talk) 00:55, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

• It's horrendous. It's ugly. But it's still art. The definition of "art" lies in the eyes of the beholder. → JarlaxleArtemis 02:47, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

ISP Sharing and Vandalism

A number of posts from a shared ISP network were made to Wikipedia by several contributors in good faith. The newbie posts did not receive warm greeting. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.126.173.124 for history. Users kindly request removal of User talk history regarding 24.126.173.124. Failing removal of User Talk from special page by an administrator, removal of all postings, including contributions made in good faith, is requested. Thank you. (User:24.126.173.124)

Surely you saw the notice on every editing screen saying that you release any contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License. You cannot demand that your contributions are to be removed. You can rest assured that they will be edited to conform to our standards.-gadfium 06:09, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Removal is kindly requested. Request administrator assistance only. Thank you. (User:24.126.173.124)

Sorry if you got some rough treatment. About your edits: It seems you mostly contributed to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, and also to Seasons & a Muse, Inc. and Breath of God. Assuming your contribution was not a copyright violation from [7], many other users have edited the article now, so it would be unfair to them to remove it all. From the legal point of view, the comment at the bottom of the edit window clearly states "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it". By hitting "Save Page" you released your text under the GFDL. The only way it can be deleted now is if the community here considers it non-notable and votes for its deletion. On a side note, if you get confused by sharing an User talk:24.126.173.124 page, you may consider getting a login for each user (if you wish to continue to contribute). Otherwise, your only option is to ignore Wikipedia. Hope this information is helpful to you. BTW, gadfium above IS an admin, as am I -- Chris 73 Talk 07:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Chris. Your kindness is appreciated. We're being advised not not to contribute any further. - T

Separate page for Current alerts?

Maybe the “Current alerts” section should have its own page. The Vandalism in progress page is for example 166 Kb at the moment, and if there is intensive vandalism in progress the big size could be a problem when it’s necessary with immediate action. I tried to report some vandalism some hours ago, but due to heavy server load the server didn’t respond when I tried to save. The creature managed to vandalise more than twenty articles before it got IP banned, and it got banned after I yelled in #en.wikipedia on irc. It would also make it easier for sysops to spot current vandalism which needs to be taken care of ASAP. -- Sunny256 02:26, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)

I also tried and tried to revert several vandalisms of it, but another person in the end did it. So, yes, separation would help. Either that, or pseudo-archive the past alerts somewhere else so the core ViP is only for current risks. After all the previous alerts are kind of in archive limbo anyway. Master Thief Garrett 03:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archived March 2005

I archived all the March 2005 entries on Vandalism in Progress, except the stuff that is below the interlanguage links. Andrew pmk 23:07, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archived first half of April 2005

I archive first 14 days of April 2005 into Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Archive200504 ([8]). The original page has 604 kB and its update failed way too often to be useable.

I would like to ask someone to link the new archive above into the VIP page like other older archives. Pavel Vozenilek 23:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the picture on the front page is pretty.

A simpler page for really current vandalism

I miss a page where a user can report current (as in occuring right now, not hours or days ago as many of the reports here are) in a really simple way. Just a page where users can post the ip or username of the vandal. The ip/username is really all that is needed in most cases. Everyone can then see their contributions and see what it's about.

As it is now I find it to complicated and timeconsuming to post a new listing. The page is confusingly huge and doing all the explaining with links to everything is too complicated for (often new) users who are watching repeted vandalism on some pages and just want admin attention to it right now.

It could be as simple as a basicly empty page where new IP's (nothing else) of vandals is added, preferably with the ip also in the edit summary. And when an admin sees the update in her watchlist, she handles it the usual way with warnings and maybe blockings. And then removes the ip from the list. It's all there in the history, anyway. So the list would be empty most of the time. Shanes 09:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is to trim or remove the Long Term Alerts section and just link the main VIP page to the Long Term Alerts page. If we trim the list, then all we have is just the name/ip of the vandal series (Willy on Wheels and Wikipedia is Communism, for example) and those names/ip's will be linked to their section in the long term alerts. Zscout370 (talk) 18:01, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and in order to simpify this page, I suggest that (1) the long term alerts page be linked, rather than transcluded, and (2) each individual current alert be bulleted, and not placed in its own section, to reduce the length of the TOC. Unless there's any strong objection, I think I'll go ahead and make these changes, since this page is really becoming unmanageable. — Dan | Talk 16:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry that me and others had to use this page to sort out the problems between myself, others and User:Hamidifar. I know it made the reporting of real vandals hard yesterday, which I do apologize for. However, based on this dicussion, I was wondering if others will want to mediate in it, unless what me and others stated pretty much is enough for yall to decide. Also, can someone remind the user to not place Personal Attacks and Threats against other users. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank the wikipedians for their patience, and ask for comments on the matter from any uninvolved users. Sockatume 20:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, do you think that if the user posts the same things again, can they be moved? We already removed it three or four times, but Hamidifar still keeps on adding it back in. The vote has been over for a few days now, and if any action against me or others were needed, it would have been done a few days ago. Can we put this subject to rest? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

removed image

I removed the image because it actually is quite a pretty piece of vandalism in that photo. I think it is counterproductive to place a piece of art up on page designed to fight vandalism. 20:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The vandalism we have do deal with is indeed rarely, if ever, this beautiful. But that's exactly why i liked the picture, and why i think it doesn't harm us. I sometimes used to be quick to lable someone as vandal, but the little picture reminded me to take a deep breath and stay clear of WikiHate. By "counterproductive", do you mean that it might encourage people to vandalize? I don't think so – the only inspiration people might get is to be a bit more creative than the most common types of vandalism. (See also meta:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles). — Sebastian (talk) 20:38, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

WP:VIP as a first-line response to vandals

I've posted a suggestion for a partial replacement of WP:VIP to The village pump as I thought it might get more exposure there. The views of ViP-loyalists are very much welcomed. --W(t) 18:09, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

Removing my name?

Seeing as how my entry on this page is a result of vadalism of my reporting another user as a vandal, would it be against regulations for me to remove it? -Robgea 18:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Apologies

I tried to update one entry and twice got back a warning that the server didn't answer. Now the revision history shows both edits went through. My attempts to see the diffs mostly time-out (plus what looked like a MySQL error and one note about the DB server shutting down), but it looks like I might have overwritten a previous edit by Alyeska, Revprez, or maybe even 24.47.98.133. Sorry, I certainly did not get a conflict warning. I may try to fix the mess — but I may well abstain because under the current conditions, chances are I'll make it worse. Rl 19:58, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Turns out my edit did remove Alyeska's text, and he already fixed it himself. Sorry, thanks, over and out. Rl 20:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Doubling of this page

Is it just me or does this page suffer from accidental doubling a hell of a lot? I think there's some sort of bug involved that's triggered by edit conflicts, although the huge size of the page and/or the number of headings might be involved as well. Anyway, I just fixed a duplication that happened on May 27 - yes, that is almost a week ago! (Page doubled on this edit - the duplicate header was removed on the next edit, but not the rest). Is there anything that can be done - perhaps splitting the page into day pages, or having a more vigorous archiving regime? Or a bot to check if the page size increases hugely overnight? Or anything? sjorford →•← 20:44, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having transcluded days seems like a good idea at first, but edits to the transcluded page wouldn't show up on peoples watchlists until they watched each day specifically - and that just isn't going to happen. The only way I can think to get around this would be to transclude pages older than today and have a bot move all comments made on the main page today to a new page and then transclude that page. We could then set a bot on an archiving regeime similar to what happens with VfD and CfD. Thryduulf 21:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just tried to correct that, but looking down the page, it's still a real mess. Sockatume 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ach, I just fixed it again - duplicated in this edit, again it's taken a week :( BTW, in case it doesn't show up well in the diff (the last one didn't), I've removed lines 1229-1894, which were duplicates of lines 548-1224. I assume there's a bugzilla report for this? sjorford →•← 16:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is. sjorford →•← 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It happened again, fixed again...Removed lines 1474-2688. i've also added an HTML comment at the top of the page, as what seems to happen quite often is that somebody will remove the duplicated header section, but not realise the rest of the page is duplicated too. sjorford →•← 11:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And again! Oh, the humanity... sjorford →•← 13:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Automata theory

Don't know if this is vandalism or a server error, but check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automata_theory

It has strange symbols and non of the wikipedia template.

Mootstormfront Being Vandalized Again

by an anon. The content the vandal is entering is both highly sexual and slanderous.

Slanderous one timers

A question this user User:HardyHeaven slandarized the CARM which made the adminstrators at CARM very upset and they are requestion the user to be banned. I STRONGLY doubt that user will ever in future case produce good edits. I can explain why among other things if needed. Thx. Falphin 16:20, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This seems like a POV issue. The user in question's edit to the page was a fairly ill-advised description of how the Atheist section was removed, which has since been deleted. The user's not made an attempt to re-add it since, so I'd not support a block, although of course that's up to the admins. I've since seeded a potentially NPOV version of said history. I'd be grateful if board members familiar with the actual changes and specific facts of the situation could add to it. Sockatume 16:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I personally intend to add to it but I'm not sure what I should add. CARM has views on just about every topic but I'm not sure what is most relevant since their is few articles similar to the topic. Falphin 19:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I would like to put a link to WP:AIV, which is related to WP:VIP, but I can't seem to edit the intro section (where it should go). I tried going to the template {{.../Intro}} and couldn't get to it. Thanks! Flcelloguy 20:12, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yay, people doing promo work. You probably want to edit this, don't know why it didn't work. I already added WP:AIV to the cautions and alternatives section a while back though, not sure if it needs further mention. --W(t) 11:00, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Major overhaul

Hi everyone. User:Kmccoy and I have chatted about completely overhauling WP:VIP and making it usable again. You may find the new design and layout here. Please comment; we would like to get this thing up and running soon. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Looks good, though it's hard to comment because a clean, fresh page will always look better than the old, full page. The Severe/Moderate/Low headings are open to interpretation, though. Something easier to do may be something like test1/test2/test3/test4 headings, with test4 containing a link to WP:AIV. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)

(Never mind, test# is pretty unusable. I'm aware of the definitions of Sever/Moderate/Low, but I still think it's open to interpretation --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 21:09 (UTC))

Yes, it's sort of pretty, I'll grant you that. But what exactly is the point? For everything that hasn't reached test4 yet, let's educate RC-patrollers how to warn. If they've reached test4, let's block them via WP:AIV (which I'm proud to say is doing rather well). The only currently useful scenarois for WP:VIP I can come up with are:

1. Documenting the behaviour of returning serious vandals (though let's be careful not to make vandal vanity pages)
2. Asking for people to pay attention to a user's contribution if you've been keeping an eye on them but have to go away from wikipedia.

Is all this added complexity really necessary? --W(t) June 28, 2005 23:34 (UTC)

Hmmm... Regardless of if this page itself is necessary, I think that this will make it much more organized. You (Talk) June 28, 2005 23:47 (UTC)

I am specifically leaning towards your first scenario of WP:VIP. I believe that we can put an IP/username up for a week after it has vandalized something, and check up on the contributions. If the user ends up being blocked for longer than a week, or is blocked repeatedly, then we move that one to long-term alerts. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 23:48 (UTC)

Now that we have some real results, it looks sort of complicated. I'm definitely leaning more towards test# type headings now (or at least, have everything under one heading and explicitly mark down the test level in that user's talk page). That is a lot easier to manage. --Deathphoenix 29 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)

We're gonna have to change this. When dealing with the large backlogs and not having each entry a section, updating and finding entries becomes a nightmare. Inter\^Echo 14:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

After having used the page for a couple of weeks, I've decided that the new version is more complex than I would have expected. The first challenge is getting contributors to categorize and sign entries, and the non-chronological layout of the page creates problems with archiving, maintenance, and identifying current problems. (i.e. I have to check seven sections to find "current" vandalism.) Anyhow, those are my comments regarding the new layout. --Alan Au 20:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reporting non-vandalism abuse

The new article has this to say:

Do not report any of the following here:

• Edit wars
• Incivility
• Personal attacks
• Clueless newbies (ie green users)
• Trolls

However, it does not say where to report such abusive behavior (Clueless newbies do not need reporting but guidance) The links go to articles explaining the items. Should there also be links to locations for reporting? WCFrancis 29 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Yes it does. Look further down towards Cautions and alternatives :-) Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 01:04 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't notice it. Maybe one list with another column for alternatives? --WCFrancis 29 June 2005 01:49 (UTC)

• Unless we should create a new section that deals with the above. I know there is an incident board we can post at, but it is mainly used for 3RR. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 01:13 (UTC)

In order

RFC (if serious) WP:AN/3RR if three revert rule is broken

RFC (if serious)

RFC (if serious)

dunno welcomeing committe perhaps?

depends on what they are doing.29 June 2005 01:44 (UTC)

• • Hmmm...that shows we need something that is lower than VIP, but what? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 01:52 (UTC)

Why. Best let users try and sovle thing amounst themselves before getting others involved.Geni 29 June 2005 01:56 (UTC)

Good point. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 29 June 2005 02:04 (UTC)

• Let me offer a specific example. This would seem to qualify mainly as an edit war rather than vandalism, but the user has acted in a way that seems difficult to deal with through any of the existing mechanisms. User:RMedford got it into his head that certain External links appearing on Tom Swift, Tom Swift, Jr., Tom Swift III, and Tom Swift IV should be deleted and replaced with a paragraph he wrote that only includes one of these links. Here's a sample of his edits. Other editors wanted these links included and reverted the deletion. So far, so good. However, RMedford would neither accept the consensus of other editors nor discuss the reasons for his disagreements. Instead, he just kept making the same edits over and over again, and having them reverted over and over again. When he was blocked from editing, he started making the same edits anonymously. Example When questioned on the Talk pages associated with these articles, he blanked the Talk pages. Example. Cleverly, this individual has figured out how to make edits sequentially from different IP addresses, so that there is no easy way to block him. Compare [9] and [10]; you will see similar edits made within a few minutes of each other, but from different IP addresses. This individual is obviously not interested in communicating with other editors (we've tried; he not only hasn't responded but has blanked the Talk pages, which is vandalism), so I don't think a request for mediation or RFC is going to do any good. What is the appropriate place to raise this, if not here? Russ Blau (talk) June 30, 2005 14:24 (UTC)

WP:RfAr? -- Penwhale 30 June 2005 16:19 (UTC)

RFC, I believe, unless this has been on going or an RFC will not work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 30 June 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Anonymous users

(As I am at the moment)

I am probably not the only one who doesn't bother to sign in if just correcting a typo or other inelegance, or adding a fragment of information that they happen to know.

Can "someone" do a calculation of what percentage of anonymous users do vandalism (and I know such requests almost always involve far more work than the requestor imagines).

Clearing

Can we adopt a policy similar to WP:RFPP? When a vandal is dealt with and is over a day or so old we can just delete it from the list. I see no reason to archive. They clutter up the situation and make it hard for admins to tell what is actionable and what is old (especially since new items aren't at the top of the page anymore). This link is Broken 1 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind switching to a more temporary system (i.e. deleting "resolved" entries) to reduce clutter, especially with the current out-of-order system. That said, archiving is relatively cheap. --Alan Au 07:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Contributors to BJAODN

What if the vandalism in question is simply a stunt for the quite enjoyable BJAODN? Then what? — Rickyrab | Talk 1 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

Greetings from the United Federation of Planets

I coded a bot that detects some/most of wikipedias vandalism cases. The bot posts vandalism cases live at #en.wikipedia.vandalism on freenode. All members of the counter-vandalism tam are welcome to "use" the bot. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 1 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Content Dispute

"Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Vandals the List of Irish-Americans by continuing to add Eddie Murphy to the list, despite not being an Irish-American. Vandalizing the page by adding Eddie Murphy is his only reason for editing the page. He has only added one other person to the list, and he just did that today. He is aware Eddie Murphy is not an Irish-American, but wants to sabotage the list. Lapsed Pacifist has also not edited Eddie Murphy's page to include anything about being Irish-American, he only edits the list. This is not a content dispute as Eddie Murphy is not an Irish-American. --> - 64.109.253.204

This is being removed from the page because it is being claimed as a content dispute. How can it be a content dispute? Eddie Murphy is not an Irish-American, this is a fact, Lapsed Pacifist keeps adding him to the list, despite this fact.

Can a content dispute be anything between whatever someone wants to make up and what the truth is?

64.109.253.204

It's a content dispute. Vandalism is typing FUCK FUCK FUCK in the george bush article. Disagreeing with you isn't vandalism, no matter how much you want it to be. Please stop abusing the VfD page. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 6, 2005 23:49 (UTC)

Adding false information to sabotage a list isn't vandalism? 64.109.253.204

You are not the final arbiter of what is true and what is false. You need to settle your disagreement on the talk page, or (failing that) using the mechanism described at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Not here. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 7, 2005 00:01 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist does not use the talk page since I have posted answers to questions he has asked.

Also, would it then be acceptable to add information about Eddie Murphy being Irish-American to Eddie Murphy's page?

This page isn't for conflict resolution. Read the page I linked above and do what it says. Posting here is pointless. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk July 7, 2005 00:06 (UTC)

This conflict is vandalism. 64.109.253.204

If this was being done to a different ethnic group, the person doing it would be banned, but because of prejudice towards Irish-Americans, nothing is being done. 64.109.253.204

• It is vandalism. This one is simple. By your rationale adding George W. Bush to Jews would be a content dispute. Doesn't pass the most basic of sanity tests. Wikibofh 7 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Now according to Lapsed Pacifist and Wikipedia, Ella Fitzgerald, Jimi Hendrix, Billie Holiday, Alex Haley, Ishmael Reed, and Alice Walker are Irish-Americans. 64.109.253.204

Trolls?

An anonymous user keeps, well, I consider it vandalizing various pages. However, his actions are borderline trolling, so I'm hesitant to post the report on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.

The details are as follows: The user is using IP 65.54.155.15 and other 65.54.xxx.xx IPs. His edits seem to be a mixture of random silliness (adding a "See also" for Hero on a page about an Israeli scientist), legitimate edits (correcting the spelling of "agnostic" in one article) and trolling. The latter comes in the form of his repeatedly editing pages such as Charlie Dog, Cartoon Network, and my own talk page to insist on the existence of a television show called Disco Dog. It appears this is the same user who was using IP 4.188.99.28 and related IPs a few months ago.

So how should I deal with this guy? And more generally, is this vandalism, and if it's trolling, where's the proper place to report it? BrianSmithson 8 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)

If you believe he is a newbie and doesn't know what he is doing, you may list him at Wikipedia:Clueless newbies, where "veterans" will attempt to help them and start a dialogue. Not sure if this case is a clueless newbie, though. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Despite, Disco Dog has been not deleted in the Scooby page, why does not anyone do it? They still don't care, and trying to punish users that are innocent, but they could not be.

Unsigned 65.54.xxx.xxx, etc.

Yup. That's the guy. Even provided his IP. BrianSmithson 00:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

While I tired creating Meet the Masters, which was aired on NBC before my time, only one website has it on Google, saying it was a classical music series, but I didn't find enough information on it.

Regards, 65.54.xxx.xxx

Just as an aside, I have confirmed that Meet the Masters is a legitimate series and I've expanded the article accordingly to try and head off the current VFD. 23skidoo 05:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Now back to the non-existent cartoon series. I still found more references on Charlie on Google, despite I found "Pup Named Charlie", (but nothing is said about the show), and this one called "Charlie's Angels", is NOT animated, and I am still confused with that title.

Also I when went to TV.com, which uses more information. I could not find any one of his cartoon series at all, but it has to got to be there, anyway.

65.54.xxx.xxx

Then where?

Do not report any of the following here:

• Edit wars
• Incivility
• Personal attacks
• Clueless newbies (ie green users)
• Trolls

Then where do we report each of these things? - Omegatron 13:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, someone going into anon mode (User:81.154.229.150) to cutnpaste move war gasoline, which has already reached consensus and been protected from moving. - Omegatron 13:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think most of these are for individual talk pages, then WP:RFC. However, page move warring against consensus as described, might be one for WP:AN/I. -- Solipsist 14:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Clueless newbies should be listed at Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. Just a note: there is a proposed Wikipedia:Bully page that may be relevant. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Question

I am not sure this counts as vandalism, but here is goes. There is a page, called History Videos. It was deleted twice by the VFD process. It has been speedied once already between the two votes. However, the creator of the page, User:Ian42, keeps on reposting the content despite the deletion. Where can I report this guy to? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

How long do reports stay active?

An anonymous user tried reporting me and other editors of railroad history articles as vandals (see WP:AN/I for more details), but I see that the report is still listed on this article. How long do these reports remain active? Is it 5 days as is normal for voting and discussions elsewhere? AdThanksVance. slambo 18:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, it's more than five days as the listing on the page right now was created on July 14, and it's very nearly now July 22 in my time zone. I ask again, how long do reports remain active? It's not explicitly noted on the article and nobody answered my question this week. Thanks. slambo 03:08, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Why is there no table of contents on this page?

I wanted to add a new entry to the "Low" category, but I had to scroll through several pages before getting there, because there is no table of contents that I could have clicked on to get there in one move. John Barleycorn 07:18, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think it was removed a while back, before the page got a makeover for the new MediaWiki version. Previously, I think each vandal got their own heading, which made for a ridiculously long TOC. I'm going to add it back in, since it seems quite reasonable now. —HorsePunchKid→龜 07:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, HorsePunchKid. John Barleycorn 07:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Accident

I was trying to add some vandals to the list, and accidentally created duplicate headings when my browser froze, can somone fix it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow. The page is now 780 kb and is 5 times as long as it should be. I think I might just try to revert it...

•Zhatt• 22:34, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

The last edit that did not have duplicates is here: [11]. It was put in more than ten hours ago. Should we revert to that version? James 22:49, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Just did. I don't know if it's going to stay that way, but it makes the page useable now. Took a while to find that unduplicated page myself with all the load time.

•Zhatt• 22:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to archive june now -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 21:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Revert again. Why dont people fix this when it happens?. Revert to [this edit]. Made by DJ Clayworth. We lost 5 hours woth of edits.
•Zhatt• 22:04, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

page too big!

Due to some bug, this page is now 3 MB in size. It's cuasing problems on my browser. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's just repeating the same sentence again and again. I was trying to fix it. I hope it's not caused by my firefox being stupid... Bobbybuilder 22:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I just found out that it's not caused from my edit. Althoght I wasn't able to help it back. Thanks a lot Stevey. Bobbybuilder 23:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

It is impossible for me to enter a vandal. In old times with one big list I was able to move older items into archive but I do not dare to touch it now. The one who invented this complex structure should take care of it. Pavel Vozenilek 17:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandal Vendetta

Certain AOL (who else?) user(s) are on a vendetta against me and are removing external links to my sites from Radio Boys, Grosset & Dunlap, Supermystery, Mildred Benson, Roy Rockwood, Clues Brothers, Casefiles, The Dana Girls, Hardy Boys Digest, Undercover Brothers, Harriet Adams, Ted Scott Flying Stories, Nancy Drew, Franklin W. Dixon, Rover Boys, Stratemeyer Syndicate, Tom Swift, Jr., Tom Swift, X Bar X Boys, Edward Stratemeyer, Hardy Boys, Tom Swift IV. This is doubly annoying as I was the originator of many of the Wikipages and my web pages provide additional in-depth information on these subjects. This has been going on for weeks. PLEASE HELP ME!--FWDixon 22:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Urgent help needed gathering evidence of vandalism

I am currently in discussions with Ozemail regarding persistent vandalism that has been occuring from the following IP addresses in their network:

• 203.166.96.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.236 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.96.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 203.166.99.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I need assistance with all the specific items of vandalism. I have setup a page to gather this evidence at User:Ta bu shi da yu/Ozemail.

I need all your help! Please use the format:

• 13:30, 5 August 2005
  • Added abusive text to Ta bu shi da yu user page

We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.

If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).

Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Archiving?

Is there a system in place for archiving the current version of this page, or should old posts just be removed periodically? --Canderson7 01:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Sort of. See the Category:Wikipedia_vandalism_archive page. I propose that the page be archived monthly, although at the rate this stuff adds up, it may need to be done more frequently. --Alan Au 07:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Stolen password

I don't know exactly how to report my problem since it doesn't seem to correspond to the procedures you have documented... It seems that someone has changed my password. I do know that on Friday a certain user was making some objectionable changes to one article I had worked on. Perhaps that user is responsible. In any event, I am User:Sophroniscus. I would like somehow to get my password back...

This certainly is unusual, and I don't think that there's an established procedure for this situation. Your best bet is probably to post your problem on WP:ANI. Someone there might be able to help you. --Canderson7 00:38, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Archive VIP

I would recommend wiping the entire page and starting a fresh. An archive could be created at VIP/Archive 1. The current page is of little use to anyone. Erwin Walsh 11:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Archived to Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Archive_3. Created Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Template. Now someone just has to wipe VIP and start a fresh, if and when necessary. Erwin Walsh

Good job! --Canderson7 23:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• See the Category:Wikipedia_vandalism_archive page. I propose that the page be archived monthly, although at the rate this stuff adds up, it may need to be done more frequently. --Alan Au 07:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Right then, so I was thinking I might take a crack at this, but I don't have the slightest idea where to begin. I'm wary of trying to cut & paste a chunk of the page since the edit history wouldn't go with it. Then again, (almost) all comments are signed. Suggestions on how to proceed? --Alan Au 04:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• First move the exisitng page to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Archive200509. Then edit Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress replacing the redirect with {{subst:Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Template}} . This will preserve the history in the right place and set up a fully functional new page. --Canderson7 12:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Note: When you move the page you should probably leave the talk page where it is. It should be archived seperately. (I'd do all this myself, but as you expressed a desire to take a crack at it I'm not going to barge in). --Canderson7 12:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, I'll give it a try. --Alan Au 09:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Wait, scratch that, I just noticed that you suggest a page move, except that the WP:ViP page can't actually be moved, hence the wavering about whether or not to cut & paste.  :( --Alan Au 09:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry. As an admin I can still see the page move tab so I didn't realize that WP:VIP had been protected against moves (certainly a good idea). In this case I would suggest a copy and paste move. This seems to be what has been done for all the past archives, and I suppose that it is the accepted proccess for archiving VIP. Sorry again about the confusion. --Canderson7 11:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Added "ip" and "ru" to disambiguate subsection titles

I have added IP and RU (registered user) to the Severe, Moderate and Low subsection titles under Current alerts. I noticed that referencing a link to "severe" under Registered users resolved to "severe" under IP addresses instead. -- Sitearm | Talk 17:50, 2005 August 25 (UTC)

Adam Carr has vandalized the Israel page

I utilized the proper procedure for a page deletion, Mr. Carr has decided to ignore the voting procedures and vandalize a deletion process created according to Wikipedia protocols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.35.130 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 August 2005

• Although you are welcome to contribute anonymously, keep in mind that anonymous edits are subject to more scrutiny, and an explanation is needed before those edits are accepted by the community. In this particular case, it appeared to be a bad faith POV nomination for deletion, which many consider to be vandalism. --Alan Au 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Breaking News Watch

I created this page in my user space to serve as a noticeboard for articles that require extraordinary scrutiny to remove vandalism, due to their high notability and public interest. The scope for these articles needs to be quite narrow for it to work, so only events like Hurricane Katrina, the July 7 London bombings and 2005 Indian Ocean Tsunami should be listed here. Anyone wishes to go help out setting it up and running it? If enough users sign up, it should be moved to the main Wikipedia namespace, but let's see how it goes first... --Titoxd 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing Help page vandalised.

Hello I noticed that the 'Editing Help' page has been vandalised so that it says only FUCK YOU. (Charming!) I'm afraid I don't know where or how I'm supposed to report this. Please could someone else do it for me?

Thanks,

82.71.5.74 12:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)K.T. 13.09.05