Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archives/2005/09

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warning This is a discussion archive created in September 2005, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.

Contents

[edit] Sandbox discussion from project page

[edit] DrZoidberg, Gabriel Webber and Kyrin

  • They're scaring away the newbies with childish reverting in the Sandbox. Zoidy is a nut, Gabriel 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:Gabriel Webber (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:Gabriel Webber|Gabriel (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 Gabriel 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! Gabriel 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:Gabriel Webber|Gabriel (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 1,727,830 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?
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)

[edit] 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 [2], 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Archived first half of April 2005

I archive first 14 days of April 2005 into Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Archive200504 ([3]). 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.


[edit] Mootstormfront Being Vandalized Again

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [4] and [5]; 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Content Dispute

"Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · logs · 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

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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: [6]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:


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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_investigation_Archives_2005_09_cc29.html"