Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Apology for error

message: * 172.190.78.239  Obvious sock-puppet - that just now started a revert war at Ann Coulter then somehow was able to lock the page and remove the NPOV notice after that too!
I am trying to post this, but seem to be having trouble
Rex071404   01:18, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  172.190.78.239 

message: 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  or a warning on vandalism I can't always tell how much vandalism this person has done. - Texture 23:19, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not actually arguing against you here, but I find that you can tell from the number of comments on their talk page.  If I go to put a test msg on someone's page and they already have one, I up the ante to "Please stop adding nonsense articles.  It will be considered vandalism and you can be prevented from editing."  So then the next guy to clean up after this person can say "Your actions are vandalism.  Stop or you will be banned" followed by "This is your last warning.  Stop vandalizing articles or I will ban you."  IMO, a custodian doesn't have to see a string of vandalized articles to ban someone.  A pattern of escalating warnings plus one vandalism is enough.  moink 23:27, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

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

message: I made a little template which could replace the not so nice looking *(User:a.b.c.d | talk | contributions) part with . What do you think? --Conti 13:46, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  does not do what we want either, because it does a literal substitution, without replacing  parameters.  —AlanBarrett 11:16, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vip template 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm not sure there is such a page yet. I expect someone linked it in the hope it would be written. :) Angela. 01:38, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Abuse contacts" dead link in article 

message: I'm proposing that entries be grouped under the day on which they were inserted for several reasons:
*easier to move to archive
*easier to copyedit a day's worth if necessary
*easier to spot the correct place to add new entries: some recent entries were added to the bottom of the list
If no-one violently objects, I'll take a look at some of the older entries to see how much work might be involved.
HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 13:58, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree. This seems like a good idea. Angela. 23:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree too theresa knott 08:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group by day of insertion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Huge TOC 

message: 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)
thread_title: Having problem

message: 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)
thread_title: "Edit" links on project page don't work right

message: 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)
thread_title: Reformed vandals (I hope)

message: User:69.111.161.32 may be Michael editing anonymously. I already reverted a few dates that he incorrectly changed on album pages. These are articles that Michael has touched in the past. Rhobite 15:05, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Oh, not again.  After everyone went through hell and high water to give this guy a second chance.  I don't know anything about albums, but I'll be watching Special:Contributions/User:69.111.161.32 more closely today (assuming that's the only IP.)  --Ardonik.talk() 15:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
:See also User:205.188.117.7, an apparently run-of-the-mill vandal who blanked Iron Curtain, but a brief look at their contributions revealed this:  . I have no idea whether these edits were correct or not, but a change of date by one year made by someone who has vandalised elsewhere makes me suspicious. I reverted these, but someone may wish to check for similar edits by this user. The IP is in AOL's range, making me even more suspicious. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Michael sighting 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New template for convenience and reduced page size 

message: (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)
replies: text: well, you seem in the unique position of confronting vandals in the flesh and tell them what we think of their contributions! dab 14:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have 2 vandals on my IP. Help! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Watching vandals?

message: 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)
replies: text: Never mind, I get it now. Sockatume, Talk 00:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Say what? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Extremely funny, thoughtful vandal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Separate page for Current alerts? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Archived March 2005 

message: I archive first 14 days of April 2005 into 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)
thread_title:  Archived first half of April 2005 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  removed image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing my name? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Apologies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I just tried to correct that, but looking down the page, it's still a real mess. Sockatume 14:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ach, I just fixed it again - duplicated in this edit, again it's taken a week :( BTW, in case it doesn't show up well in the diff (the last one didn't), I've removed lines 1229-1894, which were duplicates of lines 548-1224. I assume there's a bugzilla report for this? sjorford →•← 16:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is. sjorford →•← 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: And again! Oh, the humanity... sjorford →•← 13:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubling of this page 

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

message: Hi everyone. User:Kmccoy and I have chatted about completely overhauling WP:VIP and making it usable again. You may find the new design and layout here. Please comment; we would like to get this thing up and running soon. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 19:18 (UTC)
:Looks good, though it's hard to comment because a clean, fresh page will always look better than the old, full page. The Severe/Moderate/Low headings are open to interpretation, though. Something easier to do may be something like test1/test2/test3/test4 headings, with test4 containing a link to WP:AIV. --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 21:04 (UTC)
::(Never mind, test# is pretty unusable. I'm aware of the definitions of Sever/Moderate/Low, but I still think it's open to interpretation --Deathphoenix 28 June 2005 21:09 (UTC))
Yes, it's sort of pretty, I'll grant you that. But what exactly is the point? For everything that hasn't reached test4 yet, let's educate RC-patrollers how to warn. If they've reached test4, let's block them via WP:AIV (which I'm proud to say is doing rather well). The only currently useful scenarois for WP:VIP I can come up with are:
#Documenting the behaviour of returning serious vandals (though let's be careful not to make vandal vanity pages)
#Asking for people to pay attention to a user's contribution if you've been keeping an eye on them but have to go away from wikipedia.
Is all this added complexity really necessary? --W(t) June 28, 2005 23:34 (UTC)
Hmmm... Regardless of if this page itself is necessary, I think that this will make it much more organized. You (Talk) June 28, 2005 23:47 (UTC)
:I am specifically leaning towards your first scenario of WP:VIP. I believe that we can put an IP/username up for a week after it has vandalized something, and check up on the contributions. If the user ends up being blocked for longer than a week, or is blocked repeatedly, then we move that one to long-term alerts. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 28, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
Now that we have some real results, it looks sort of complicated. I'm definitely leaning more towards test# type headings now (or at least, have everything under one heading and explicitly mark down the test level in that user's talk page). That is a lot easier to manage. --Deathphoenix 29 June 2005 13:11 (UTC)
We're gonna have to change this. When dealing with the large backlogs and not having each entry a section, updating and finding entries becomes a nightmare. Inter\Echo 14:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major overhaul 

message: Can we adopt a policy similar to WP:RFPP? When a vandal is dealt with and is over a day or so old we can just delete it from the list. I see no reason to archive. They clutter up the situation and make it hard for admins to tell what is actionable and what is old (especially since new items aren't at the top of the page anymore). This link is Broken 1 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)
*I wouldn't mind switching to a more temporary system (i.e. deleting "resolved" entries) to reduce clutter, especially with the current out-of-order system.  That said, archiving is relatively cheap.  --Alan Au 07:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clearing

message: An anonymous user keeps, well, I consider it vandalizing various pages.
However, his actions are borderline trolling, so I'm hesitant to post the report on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress.
The details are as follows: The user is using IP 65.54.155.15 and other 65.54.xxx.xx IPs. His edits seem to be a mixture of random silliness (adding a "See also" for Hero on a page about an Israeli scientist), legitimate edits (correcting the spelling of "agnostic" in one article) and trolling. The latter comes in the form of his repeatedly editing pages such as Charlie Dog, Cartoon Network, and my own talk page to insist on the existence of a television show called Disco Dog. It appears this is the same user who was using IP 4.188.99.28 and related IPs a few months ago.
So how should I deal with this guy? And more generally, is this vandalism, and if it's trolling, where's the proper place to report it? BrianSmithson 8 July 2005 02:14 (UTC)
:If you believe he is a newbie and doesn't know what he is doing, you may list him at Wikipedia:Clueless newbies, where "veterans" will attempt to help them and start a dialogue. Not sure if this case is a clueless newbie, though. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  21:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. That's the guy. Even provided his IP. BrianSmithson 00:19, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

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

message: Do not report any of the following here:
* Edit wars
* Incivility
* Personal attacks
* Clueless newbies (ie green users)
* Trolls
Then where do we report each of these things? - Omegatron 13:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
:Specifically, someone going into anon mode (User:81.154.229.150) to cutnpaste move war gasoline, which has already reached consensus and been protected from moving. - Omegatron 13:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
::I think most of these are for individual talk pages, then WP:RFC. However, page move warring against consensus as described, might be one for WP:AN/I. -- Solipsist 14:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Clueless newbies should be listed at Wikipedia:Clueless newbies. Just a note: there is a proposed Wikipedia:Bully page that may be relevant. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk  21:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Then where? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Vandal Vendetta 

message: 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:
* 13:30, 5 August 2005
** Added abusive text to Ta bu shi da yu user page
We'll see just how good their service is at responding to this sort of thing - we should be supporting any company that assists us. Therefore, I'm hoping that the Wikipedia spirit of cooperation and immense amount of volunteers will help with tracking down vandal edits.
If Ozemail gives a good response, we can use them as an example of a good ISP, and maybe even shame AOL into assisting us (we get lots of vandalism from them).
Ta bu shi da yu 01:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent help needed gathering evidence of vandalism 

message: Is there a system in place for archiving the current version of this page, or should old posts just be removed periodically? --Canderson7 01:29, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
*Sort of.  See the :Category:Wikipedia_vandalism_archive page.  I propose that the page be archived monthly, although at the rate this stuff adds up, it may need to be done more frequently.  --Alan Au 07:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving?

message: I utilized the proper procedure for a page deletion, Mr. Carr has decided to ignore the voting procedures and vandalize a deletion process created according to Wikipedia protocols. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.35.130 (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 August 2005
*Although you are welcome to contribute anonymously, keep in mind that anonymous edits are subject to more scrutiny, and an explanation is needed before those edits are accepted by the community.  In this particular case, it appeared to be a bad faith POV nomination for deletion, which many consider to be vandalism.  --Alan Au 21:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Carr has vandalized the Israel page 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editing Help page vandalised.