Academic Kids talk:Vandalism in progress

Archives: /"Hangman" in Sandbox, /Google-watch, template

Question

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)

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

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

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

Purpose?

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

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

Long term alerts section

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

Potential Solution?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Say what?

Does anyone know what is going on with this diff (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felix_the_Cat&curid=197889&diff=0&oldid=0) on the Felix the Cat page. It looks a bit like a Rot13 filter or something.

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

Why was the header changed?

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

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

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

==== IP ====

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

** DESCRIPTION

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

==== IP ====

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

** DESCRIPTION

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

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

Extremely funny, thoughtful vandal

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

That picture

That is really one horrendously ugly picture. Can we get rid of it? Rick K 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)

Missing image
Vandalism.PNG

But, is it 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. Rick K 06:22, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

ISP Sharing and Vandalism

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

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

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

Sorry if you got some rough treatment. About your edits: It seems you mostly contributed to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, and also to Seasons & a Muse, Inc. and Breath of God. Assuming your contribution was not a copyright violation from [1] (http://www.seasonsandamuse.com/jeanne.html), many other users have edited the article now, so it would be unfair to them to remove it all. From the legal point of view, the comment at the bottom of the edit window clearly states "All contributions to Wikipedia are released under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it". By hitting "Save Page" you released your text under the GFDL. The only way it can be deleted now is if the community here considers it non-notable and votes for its deletion. On a side note, if you get confused by sharing an User talk:24.126.173.124 page, you may consider getting a login for each user (if you wish to continue to contribute). Otherwise, your only option is to ignore Wikipedia. Hope this information is helpful to you. BTW, gadfium above IS an admin, as am I -- Chris 73 Talk 07:35, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

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

Separate page for Current alerts?

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

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

Archived March 2005

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

Archived first half of April 2005

I archive first 14 days of April 2005 into Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Archive200504 ([2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/Archive200504)). The original page has 604 kB and its update failed way too often to be useable.

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

I think the picture on the front page is pretty.

A simpler page for really current vandalism

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

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

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

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

I agree, and in order to simpify this page, I suggest that (1) the long term alerts page be linked, rather than transcluded, and (2) each individual current alert be bulleted, and not placed in its own section, to reduce the length of the TOC. Unless there's any strong objection, I think I'll go ahead and make these changes, since this page is really becoming unmanageable. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 16:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Apology

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

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

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

removed image

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

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

WP:VIP as a first-line response to vandals

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

Removing my name?

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

Apologies

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

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

Doubling of this page

Is it just me or does this page suffer from accidental doubling a hell of a lot? I think there's some sort of bug involved that's triggered by edit conflicts, although the huge size of the page and/or the number of headings might be involved as well. Anyway, I just fixed a duplication that happened on May 27 - yes, that is almost a week ago! (Page doubled on this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=14316926&oldid=14315993) - 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. Socka tume 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ach, I just fixed it again - duplicated in this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress&diff=next&oldid=15115600), 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. (http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=275) 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)

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. Socka tume 16:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

WP:AIV

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

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

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Academic_Kids_talk:Vandalism_in_progress"