Wikipedia talk:Requests for investigation/Archive 3

message: I have an idea for dealing with IPs from schools who vandalize Wikipedia. Most schools have only IE on the computers, which supports the bgsound tag. We should make a short MP3 that says something like "This student is vandalizing Wikipedia instead of doing classwork" in a loud voice that the teacher will hear, and embed it in a repeating bgsound tag if they click "edit this page" again. Then they could get detention for surfing instead of doing work, LOL. Of course, this will only work if the computer has speakers installed, and they are on. They shouldn't be surfing the internet in class anyway.
This probably isn't a very practical/effective solution for reducing vandalism but I'd like to hear what people think of it. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 04:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to do it, we may as well go full out. "HEY, TEACHER! I'M LOOKING AT GAY PORNO!" Something like that. Take a page out of the book of Slashdot trolling, chapter nineteen. Although it wouldn't be worth the effort hacking something that would be of marginal value anyway into the software. Lord Bob 04:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I wasn't being serious. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 04:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure would be funny, though.--chris.lawson 04:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I gathered you weren't, which is why half my reply was humourous in intent. I just knew that somebody would take it seriously, though...and yes, it would be funny. Of that there can be no doubt. Lord Bob 04:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This won't work, because the computers at most schools don't have speakers to stop students from listening to music... Titoxd 17:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the last school I was at (before homeschooling for high school) had speakers on the computers. Someone brought in a Beatles CD one day, and they listened to it at lunch. But  the bgsound tag might not work as much anymore, because once Firefox releases the filter plugins, schools might just jump for it. Unless Firefox has the tag too...Davidizer13 17:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea for dealing with schoolkid vandals. 

message: To the wiki foundation and their representants: You must have been joking when you wrote "If vandalism persists after five minutes:" (Using this page, section IV), making it sound as if vandals were caught, reported and blocked within minutes. What REALLY happens is that if it wasnt' for the dedication of group of fantastic editors, most pages would stay vandalized, as vandals are EXTREMELY RARELY blocked. Every single time I reported a vandal, that person didn't get blocked. There are countless examples of vandals user pages filled with comments of proper editors reporting  vandalism or stalking taking place, BEGGING an admin to do something. Meanwhile vandals and interest groups rule parts the wiki, while valuable editors desert a place victim of its own success (slowdowns anyone?). You're shooting yourself in the foot thinking 'the community' will fix everything for you. Adidas 12:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to my comment, the rules for blocking vandals are so lax that no vandal actually care. All you need is a dialup connection, because the admins are too scared to block subnets, so login/out and you are back in vandalism business. For pete's sake, some guy come in and adds vulgar words to 20 different articles under one hour, and you still think he could all of a sudden become a 'valuable contributor'. You're deluded, that's what you are. Adidas 12:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I agree completely.  But, at the heart of the matter, that's not assuming good faith which, deluded or not, is policy.  In fact, its one of the five pillars.  Furthermore, there's no telling when a middle school aged anonymouse editor will tire of posting funny words like "penis" or "gay" and actually start to contribute worthwhile information. jfg284 19:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The " If vandalism persists after five minutes" comment 

message: I'd like to collaborate with any administrators who watch and work on this page to establish some more specific guidelines.
First question: when reports are removed, where (if anywhere) are they archived?
:Found my answer.  It's linked to just under the colorful reporting procedure template. Jdavidb (talk) 20:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attn. admins 

message: Today, there have been a series of vandalisms of this page by a series of nonsense user names.  I'm no expert, but it looks as if there is somekind of bot automatically creating a user name and then vandalizing the the page.  Is there anyway to find the ISP this is originating from and blocking them?  And I'm doing it here due to the fact that the main page is going down every few moments. Donovan Ravenhull 16:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandal bot has been reported on the AiV page.  Hopefully they can see the IP it is coming from and block it, or worst case just protect VIP for a bit and break the bot. --Syrthiss 16:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal Bot 

message: When thanking anonymous editors for test edits or warning them for vandalism, there are often old messages on the talk page including final warnings and block notifications.  Put yourself in the shoes of someone stumbling across Wikipedia using a communal PC.  You make an experimental edit, and soon afterwards you get the "you have new messages" box.  If you follow the link, what do you see?  Perhaps screeds of final warnings.  I suspect that even among those who realise what's happened, most wouldn't go to the bottom of the page to find their particular message.  I suspect many test edits are from potentially good contributors, and if they get directed to a whole raft of intimidating warnings they are likely to be frightened off.
What do you think of this idea? - when giving an anon IP a warning simply create a heading for existing warnings (call it, say, "Old messages") and place your new test-warning-or-welcome message-or-template above it at the top of the page.  Your message will then be the first thing the editor sees when following the "new message" link.  Any thoughts?  --RobertG ♬ talk 14:34, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just delete all old messages. ~~ N (t/c) 16:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like that idea, because if the IP has a consistent history of vandalism then I will be less inclined to put a simple (test1).  I know I could look into the contributions and see whether there was previous vandalism, but if the vandal is particularily virulent I don't take the time to do that.  What might be a nice bridge of these two ideas is to create an archive of previous warnings on the talk page and link it after your welcome / whatever.  You'd have your "Welcome to Wikipedia!" and then a Previous Warnings Archive. --Syrthiss 16:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After dealing with an IP vandal my first idea would be to delete the talk page (delete, not blank) to avoid scolding of innocent contributors, but I like the idea of archived warnings with a link. While preserving history it would also maintain a minimum of goodwill toward newcomers. --Eddi (Talk) 12:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for engaging with IPs 

message: The usage section now states, "Use the , /, , and  templates as appropriate."  Would it be all right if this is changed to, "Use the , /, , and  templates as appropriate." so it is consistent with the templates' instructions / discussion pages? --Eddi (Talk) 12:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see how subst would complicate things – it's copy and paste just the same. And how will people learn about transclusion if it's not mentioned? Anyway, since the instruction pages (i.e. talk pages) of the templates specifically prescribe the use of subst, I thought it should be mentioned here, too, for consistency. --Eddi (Talk) 19:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including subst in the usage of test templates 

message: right|100px
Counter Vandalism Unit formed! It is a gathering place for RC patrolers. It is intended to increase our capabilities when dealing with vandalism. Newer members are welcome with open arms. --Cool Cat Talk 19:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Cool Cat/Counter Vandalism Unit|Counter Vandalism Unit]]

message: I've noticed that on the VIP page, users are told to warn vandals up to  before reporting them. However, I'm not sure that this is the best idea, for two reasons:
#Due to the nature of the message, other people may think that the person warning the vandal is an administrator, while he/she really isn't.
#If no administrator is available, any vandal who vandalizes after  may think that it's OK to keep vandalizing.
Maybe we should have a different version of  for non-admins. Would a message like "the next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked when an administrator notices you" be a good idea? --Ixfd64 20:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I prefer the test4 as it is.  If we add 'you will be blocked when an administrator notices you', then that shows a weakness in the system.  While you and I may know that a post on VIP may not be read and acted upon for a bit, the vandal most likely doesn't. --Syrthiss 11:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You can go ahead and use test4.  As an admin, it lets me know that somebody's been warned multiple times and I can block them on sight for vandalism.  If you're uncomfortable with that, feel free to report them here when they are ready for a test4. Jdavidb (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  should non-admins refrain from using {{tl|test4}}? 

message: Hi - I've just added a listing for a persistent offender (back after a ban) but in all honesty I'm not sure if I've done it correctly. The instructions say to use the "vandal|IP address" format in the relevant place (in this case at the top of the moderate IP section). On editing, it looks like I should just plop the text in underneath the noted place. However, doing this results in the listing appearing at the *bottom* of that section. Subsequent edits of the page show my added "curly bracket" section still there, so I'm assuming it's not been merged in correctly.
I'm no computer virgin, but the instructions are a little hard to follow. Is there a chance of some clarification? If I've screwed something up, my sincerest apologies! IainP (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing the page 

message: I cant quite understand why you can edit the website without being logged in, can some one point out a reason for this?
Labtech
:See Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28perennial_proposals%29#Abolish_anonymous_users.  Jkelly 19:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: In my experience, vandals tend not to limit their vandalism to a single page.  One of the recommended steps on the "vandalism patrol" is to review other contributions by the user to make sure that all the vandalism had been properly found and reverted.  By the time I'm doing that, most of the vandalism has been reverted but I usually discover an edit or three not yet caught.
Often, the vandal is a repeat offender, returning to Wikipedia from the same IP address.  Other times, the vandal is sharing an IP with valid users.  For anonymous users with longish contributions histories, it would be very useful to know which edits had already been reviewed by another trusted editor.  To be honest, if I've taken the time to review 20 or 30 edits, I don't want anyone else to have to wade through all that same abuse.  They should be able to pick up where I left off.
In a couple of cases, I've been adding comments to the user's Talk page documenting the contributions that I've reviewed.  See User talk:66.155.203.138#Vandalism Watch, User talk:68.125.128.233#Vandalism Watch, User:156.63.253.3#Vandalism watch and User talk:67.9.33.27 for examples.
I have a couple of questions.
# Is this a good idea?  Would anyone else find this helpful?
# If you saw it on an IP user's page, would you add to the list?
# If it's a good idea, should it be on the user's page (where, theoretically, it could be vandalized or blanked) or should it be in some protected space?
# Is there a better way to meet this need?
Thanks.  Rossami (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism watch? 

message: Would somebody have the decency to look at my userpage since I am trying to make a record of registered users that vandalize WP, or talk to me. Lincher 00:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism monitoring 

message: It is broken with usernames containing a space, a way to compensate is the usage of _ but that should be taken care of (to save time) --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Template:Vandal]]

message: Page is very very slow to load for me, considering it has vandalism notices going back to November at least (October?).  I'm willing to go after it with a chainsaw, but wanted to see if someone has a clever-er idea.  I don't want to just archive it, since some of the stuff *isn't* months and months old...and I'm not sure archiving it would be useful.  Who wants to know that Josie and the Pussycats was the target of persistent vandals back in October 2005?  They could verify that from the page history if they really needed to.  Any thoughts? --Syrthiss 18:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page length, archiving, etc? 

message: I know lately you have been hearing alot from me. I am not a complainer by nature but I have a problem that needs your attention. a "new" user by the name of Quirkywiki has been harrassing me with constant threats, going as far as calling me a pedophile. This all stems from a page i mistakenly created for Mandy Moore. I was told that Ms. Moore's new album will be called Once Moore. I later found out that the information i got was false. I aided in the destruction of the article. But for some reason, a user named Extraordinary Machine created the article and mereged it with an already existing article. I didn't even know this user until later. But Quirkywiki claimed it was me or we were one and the same. And went to every user she could find and spammed them with lies, talking about the Mandy Moore forum (which has nothing to do with this site) to my book (which is also irrelevent). She tried to blame me for her getting banned. I did request it, but i didn't place the banned. I haven't the power. Quirkywiki has many sockpuppets, 206.170.104.27, 206.170.106.42, 206.170.106.48 just to name a few. People have warned her constantly but she refuses to listen. She thinks because she is on a public computer, she won't get banned. She needs to be proven wrong... again. Parys 19:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harrassment and Threats 

message: Hello,
I read through the page and couldn't find an apporpriate place to report this. I've noticed that the definition of dopamine appearing at the bottom of several pages. I have only kept track of two (Tom and Jerry and brotherhood) but, I can remember seeing it on other pages. Normally, I would have just removed it fromt he pages but, for some reason it dosn't even show up in edit view. Also, when you search the page with google it dosn't show up either. Also, if you look at the the "what links to this page?" for the dopamine article, it dosn't list Tom and Jerry, brotherhood, or any of the other articles that this is appearing on even though dopamine is wikified. Very weird. --The_stuart 19:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Someone messed with the disambig template.  It was reverted, but for some reason the bad version of the template is still showing up on pages.  I don't know how this can be fixed... --Etacar11 19:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *If such disambig pages are still around, there is a simple way to fix them individually. 1. delete the disambig tag  2. save the page  3. add the tag back in. --Candybars 21:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Looks like it worked on both of these pages. I'll make that correction on any other pages where I see this problem. --The_stuart 19:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dopamine?

message: The non-registered user 203.124.2.18 has been consistantly editing this page: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MegaMan_Battle_Network_6 
They are adding reverting information, adding things that clutter the page (The /???), and refusing to stop after I asked on his talk page, someone else asked in the discussion page for it, and someone by the name of Werdna648 asked in his talk page. I would appreciate it if something could be done. Thank you very much. Sukecchi 18:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Megaman Battle Network 6

message: Samantha Bee was vandalised, I suspect.  I did a search to see if she actually miscarried, but I found nothing.  Moreover, given the comment about Michael Moore, I suspect it as vandalism.  DoomBringer 07:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Samantha Bee article? 

message: *How does one become an Admin? Pattersonc 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, you go through a nomination and voting process.  You might like to browse around Wikipedia:Administrators. Have fun · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 00:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Admin Status

message: I'm not exactly sure that this is the correct place to ask for help for correction of a vandalism or warning of a vandalizing member, so forgive me if this is the wrong place/protocol.
User V4ND4LTR0N 1.0 defaced the Imperial Japanese Navy talk page in a rather thorough manner. When I tried reverting to the last saved version, the spam (about five repeating images) reappeared, and was not deleted until I deleted the talk page, then cut and pasted the contents of the last legitimate edit once more. I can only assume that this V4ND4LTR0N 1.0 is only around to vandalize due to their username. I thought I should report it somewhere, and I tried to do it as quickly as possible, so once more, forgive me if it's the wrong place.
Alexander VII 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the talk page to the last good edit. I'm watching it now, too, in case anything happens again. --nihon 03:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help? 

message: === Vandalism-only accounts? ===
What does "Accounts used only for vandalism that have made no edits within 72 hours" mean exactly? For me, vandalism is made through editing, but on the other hand I can't see the point of waiting for the vandal to stop before reporting. Palpalpalpal 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users that are actively vandalising should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This clause is for accounts that were only used to vandalise Wikipedia, as distinct from accounts that may stop vandalising after warnings or their first block. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived from [[Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress/Help]] 

message: What does "Accounts used only for vandalism that have made no edits within 72 hours" mean exactly? For me, vandalism is made through editing, but on the other hand I can't see the point of waiting for the vandal to stop before reporting. Palpalpalpal 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Users that are actively vandalising should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. This clause is for accounts that were only used to vandalise Wikipedia, as distinct from accounts that may stop vandalising after warnings or their first block. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism-only accounts? 

message: Hi, I don't have time to read all the guidelines because I need to leave shortly, but the "September 11, 2001 Attacks" article was vandalized obviously and I can't figure out how to revert it.  Thanks Xiphoris 11:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This discussion was moved to the Village pump on 17:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal that might eliminate 50% or more of vandalism 

message: I am a fan of YTMND and I'm an active wikipedian, so I've been catching a LOT of YTMND vandalism on wikipedia to make lame jokes about a YTMND fad. I'd just like to call to your attention that Wikipedia articles Safety, Time Travel, and John Titor are all being repeatedly vandalized, and Wiktionary's entry on safety has ALSO been vandalized! There needs to be something done about these three wiki articles and wiktionary entries. Jolb 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: YTMND

message: Where does one report repeated spamming of articles with commercial links?
Should the VIP article proactively describe this?
Atlant 17:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spamming vandalism 

message: An edit from February 17, since 01:25 caused deletion of significant part of the content. When trying to restore it I was able to repeat the problem (once). When written the page should be in stable state, with just one reported IP lost.
Symptom of the problem is that whole section disappeared, with no warning at all. Looks like technical problem (page size is still manageable).
Perhaps taking care of the reported vandals and removing their records would move the system into stable state again. Pavel Vozenilek 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report of chaotic behaviour of WP:VIP page Feb 17 01:00-03:00 

message: I'd be happy to help clean up this page a bit. In particular the IP section looks like it has old reports where an IP has done some vandalism in the past, but has not done any since. Is it ok to remove those, and if so should I archive or just remove them off the page?
I'll probably do some minor attempts at the above now, and if an admin can check I've done it ok and let me know that'd be great. Petros471 11:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most alerts about IP addresses shouldn't be on WP:VIP at all; only IP addresses that are suspected open proxies should be placed on this page (see Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Help#What belongs on this page). All others should be removed without archival, or moved to WP:AIV if they've recently vandalised. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 12:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the VIP page it says "Only report open proxies, or static IP addresses engaging in complex vandalism requiring investigation." On the help page it only says open proxies. One probably should be updated to be the same as the other. If it is only for open proxies, why not re-name the section to that and direct all IP alerts towards AIV (though some more instructions about warning might have to be added here). Petros471 13:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When to remove IP reports? 

message: I hope this is the right place to post this. The PokeRealm article has been deleted three times and it was just re-created again. Can an admin please delete and protect the article so that it can't be re-created? Thanks. WHenry 19:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[PokeRealm]] 

message: Ref , and  --TKE 03:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:220.245.179.134]]