Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/Archive 1

message: I am a newbie and within a couple of hours of creating my account someone added the "autofellatio" redirect to my User Talk page. It looks like it has been deleted but for some reason there is still a link to it on my page. I am not easily shocked but that image is really disgusting, and has kind of spoiled my first impressions of this site. It seems strange that anyone at all can modify any page on this site, including my profile page. Surely there must be a better way to stop people vandalising the site? Maybe banning anonymous edits, or making it harder to create new accounts?  --Jasper99 05:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autofellatio 

message: Though he was a small time spammer a few weeks ago, he has now picked up his activities, even going under names that a personating our beloved Founder, Jimbo Wales. I was wondering what other evidence do yall need to put that user, and his many names, under this section? Zscout370 18:47, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is Communism 

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 01:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent help needed gathering evidence of vandalism 

message: Should there be a separate section for people vandalising under some form of my username? 
Nazism isn't cool 08:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation of NazismIsntCool 

message: I recently rvrted an edit by Spongeyfan concerning the Lisa Simpson page. DO you think that this Shining Vandal could possibly be related? :) APclark 19:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't know, but I have seen  (I call him/her/it the Cartoon Network Vandal) make edits similar to those of the Shining Vandal. -- 67.100.167.2 19:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "SpongeBob/The Shining Vandal" 

message: WoW appears on KoWP--Hyolee2 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: KoWP? King of the Wikipedia? 68.39.174.238 00:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WoW appears on KoWP 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Vandalism in progress#Schism for a proposal to divide Vandalism in progress into two processes. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposal as it now stands will move Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts to Wikipedia:Long term abuse. If you would like to comment, feel free to do so at the link above. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schism 

message: Should we include a section involving the vandal who keeps using the edit summary On June 6 2006 Wikipedia will meet its maker? --TML1988 03:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Meet its Maker" vandal 

message: 24.145.155.46 needs blocking, why because[] and  []!!! :O 66.169.0.252 01:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, anyone can edit the sandbox. Blanking it, though, IS vandalism and they need a warning. -- PinkDeoxys 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG 

message: What's the current policy for banning long-term vandals? Why the List of banned users doesn't have Willy on Wheels or Communism Vandal - doesn't summary blocking of multiple accounts constitute for "community ban" according to WP:BAN? --Dmitry 23:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WoW and tCv were previously listed, but they were removed as pure vandals. --69.117.7.63 02:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither of them are on the list of banned users.  I wish though...  --NicAgent 00:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed elsewhere (Some time ago) and it was decided that vandals' could reform by stopping their vandalism and contribute normally and noone would be able to tell (Assuming they didn't register an account like "Willy on Wheels (Non-vandal account)"), whereas most banned users were banned for their contributions (PoV warring, sockpupperty, etc). Granted, I don't know if there's an out and out policy on whether or not people like WoW are banned at large, or what... 68.39.174.238 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban 

message: It seems to me that having such in-depth sections on the high-profile vandals, WoW especially, will only create more vandalism. It's almost as if they've been turned into icons for other vandals to look up to. I think the entries should be shortened to no more than one or two paragraphs per "person". Gyre 18:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: À la Wikipedia:Deny recognition? ~MDD4696 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that just about nails it. Gyre 23:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Idea? 

message: As part of the 2010 revamping, I've cleaned out the reports listed here and moved any useful ones to the new centralized archive. All discussions should be made on the main project talk page. Netalarmtalk 05:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Centralized archiving