![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
" 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 6,842,841 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Nope, you haven't misunderstood, but a few clarifications on my part should be in order:
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)
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 0 2003.
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)
I have removed this from the main page as it isn't actually reporting vandalism:
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
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)
This is a rhetorical, irrelevant question, but... can you get banned for vandalizing your own user page? :-P
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.
Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 22:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 have two suggestions:
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 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)
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)
The TOC itself is extremely long. Rick K 18:11, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Unless somebody has objections, I'm going to delete all alerts more than one month old. Rick K 05:07, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, archive. Rick K 22:43, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 proposing that entries be grouped under the day on which they were inserted for several reasons:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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?
See section header - this page appears to have a nasty case of boilerplatitis. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Note that Michael has not edited with his probationary User:Mike Garcia account since early September. -- Michael Snow 20:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
Since most if not all entries on this page have a header with a format like this
I created a template for these that allow you to save time and also reduces the page size:
I hope everyone'll find it useful. :) -- Schnee 20:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Does blocking an IP prevent users from viewing the site at all, or can they simply not edit? -- Clockwork Soul 22:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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
What is the purpose of listing something here? What happens after a listing? Maurreen 07:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 it changed to subst thingy with way more ip pastings? - RoyBoy [ ∞] 03:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well the template commentary when editing looks like this...
For every IP I would need to paste, right? I assume it is meant to be this:
But its in the nowiki display, and not repeated below in the commentary for easy pasting. - RoyBoy [ ∞] 07:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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 is really one horrendously ugly picture. Can we get rid of it? Rick K 21:05, Feb 15, 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)
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/?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)
Removal is kindly requested. Request administrator assistance only. Thank you. ( User:24.126.173.124)
Thank you Chris. Your kindness is appreciated. We're being advised not not to contribute any further. - T
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 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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
by an anon. The content the vandal is entering is both highly sexual and slanderous.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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. -- Death phoenix 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)
The new article has this to say:
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)
In order
(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).
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)
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)
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)
" 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
Adding false information to sabotage a list isn't vandalism? 64.109.253.204
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 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
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
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)
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.
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
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.
Do not report any of the following here:
Then where do we report each of these things? - Omegatron 13:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there a system in place for archiving the current version of this page, or should old posts just be removed periodically? -- Canderson 7 01:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
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...
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)
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)
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
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... -- Tito xd 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
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
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
" 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 6,842,841 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
Nope, you haven't misunderstood, but a few clarifications on my part should be in order:
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)
Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump on Saturday, August 2nd, 0 2003.
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)
I have removed this from the main page as it isn't actually reporting vandalism:
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
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)
This is a rhetorical, irrelevant question, but... can you get banned for vandalizing your own user page? :-P
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.
Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 22:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 have two suggestions:
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 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)
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)
The TOC itself is extremely long. Rick K 18:11, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Unless somebody has objections, I'm going to delete all alerts more than one month old. Rick K 05:07, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, archive. Rick K 22:43, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 proposing that entries be grouped under the day on which they were inserted for several reasons:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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?
See section header - this page appears to have a nasty case of boilerplatitis. Pcb21| Pete 19:01, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Note that Michael has not edited with his probationary User:Mike Garcia account since early September. -- Michael Snow 20:57, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
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)
Since most if not all entries on this page have a header with a format like this
I created a template for these that allow you to save time and also reduces the page size:
I hope everyone'll find it useful. :) -- Schnee 20:36, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Does blocking an IP prevent users from viewing the site at all, or can they simply not edit? -- Clockwork Soul 22:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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
What is the purpose of listing something here? What happens after a listing? Maurreen 07:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 it changed to subst thingy with way more ip pastings? - RoyBoy [ ∞] 03:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well the template commentary when editing looks like this...
For every IP I would need to paste, right? I assume it is meant to be this:
But its in the nowiki display, and not repeated below in the commentary for easy pasting. - RoyBoy [ ∞] 07:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
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 is really one horrendously ugly picture. Can we get rid of it? Rick K 21:05, Feb 15, 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)
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/?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)
Removal is kindly requested. Request administrator assistance only. Thank you. ( User:24.126.173.124)
Thank you Chris. Your kindness is appreciated. We're being advised not not to contribute any further. - T
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 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)
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.
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
by an anon. The content the vandal is entering is both highly sexual and slanderous.
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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. -- Death phoenix 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)
The new article has this to say:
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)
In order
(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).
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)
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)
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)
" 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
Adding false information to sabotage a list isn't vandalism? 64.109.253.204
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 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
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
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)
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.
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
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.
Do not report any of the following here:
Then where do we report each of these things? - Omegatron 13:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Is there a system in place for archiving the current version of this page, or should old posts just be removed periodically? -- Canderson 7 01:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
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...
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)
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)
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
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... -- Tito xd 02:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
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